Bet you never thought of this but: The eye!Yawn <https://www.google.com/search?q=eye+complexity>
We're talking irreducible complexity here!
Never thought of it, did you? Well that disproves
your Evil-Lution and disproves it lickety Split!
Good day. I say, good day!
On Friday, 3 March 2023 at 16:15:17 UTC, JTEM is my hero wrote:
Bet you never thought of this but: The eye!Yawn <https://www.google.com/search?q=eye+complexity>
We're talking irreducible complexity here!
Never thought of it, did you? Well that disproves
your Evil-Lution and disproves it lickety Split!
Good day. I say, good day!
Yawn
On 2023-03-03 17:54:28 +0000, Robert Carnegie said:
On Friday, 3 March 2023 at 16:15:17 UTC, JTEM is my hero wrote:
Bet you never thought of this but: The eye!Yawn <https://www.google.com/search?q=eye+complexity>
We're talking irreducible complexity here!
Never thought of it, did you? Well that disproves
your Evil-Lution and disproves it lickety Split!
Good day. I say, good day!
Good grief! JTEM loves to parade his ignorance, but this is going a bit
far even for him. For his information, in the unlikely case that he
wants to be educated, Darwin discussed exactly this question, and many
people have done so since.
On 2023-03-03 17:54:28 +0000, Robert Carnegie said:
On Friday, 3 March 2023 at 16:15:17 UTC, JTEM is my hero wrote:Good grief! JTEM loves to parade his ignorance, but this is going a bit
Bet you never thought of this but: The eye!Yawn <https://www.google.com/search?q=eye+complexity>
We're talking irreducible complexity here!
Never thought of it, did you? Well that disproves
your Evil-Lution and disproves it lickety Split!
Good day. I say, good day!
far even for him. For his information, in the unlikely case that he
wants to be educated, Darwin discussed exactly this question, and many people have done so since.
--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
The existence of JTEM is evidence
On 2023-03-03 17:54:28 +0000, Robert Carnegie said:
On Friday, 3 March 2023 at 16:15:17 UTC, JTEM is my hero wrote:
Bet you never thought of this but: The eye!Yawn <https://www.google.com/search?q=eye+complexity>
We're talking irreducible complexity here!
Never thought of it, did you? Well that disproves
your Evil-Lution and disproves it lickety Split!
Good day. I say, good day!
Good grief! JTEM loves to parade his ignorance, but this is going a bit
far even for him. For his information, in the unlikely case that he
wants to be educated, Darwin discussed exactly this question, and many
people have done so since.
On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 10:25:17?AM UTC-8, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-03-03 17:54:28 +0000, Robert Carnegie said:
On Friday, 3 March 2023 at 16:15:17 UTC, JTEM is my hero wrote:Good grief! JTEM loves to parade his ignorance, but this is going a bit
Bet you never thought of this but: The eye!Yawn <https://www.google.com/search?q=eye+complexity>
We're talking irreducible complexity here!
Never thought of it, did you? Well that disproves
your Evil-Lution and disproves it lickety Split!
Good day. I say, good day!
far even for him. For his information, in the unlikely case that he
wants to be educated, Darwin discussed exactly this question, and many
people have done so since.
--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
The existence of JTEM is evidence against intelligent design.
On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 19:21:07 +0100, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden
<[email protected]>:
On 2023-03-03 17:54:28 +0000, Robert Carnegie said:
On Friday, 3 March 2023 at 16:15:17 UTC, JTEM is my hero wrote:
Bet you never thought of this but: The eye!Yawn <https://www.google.com/search?q=eye+complexity>
We're talking irreducible complexity here!
Never thought of it, did you? Well that disproves
your Evil-Lution and disproves it lickety Split!
Good day. I say, good day!
Good grief! JTEM loves to parade his ignorance, but this is going a bit >far even for him. For his information, in the unlikely case that he
wants to be educated, Darwin discussed exactly this question, and many >people have done so since.
YHBBT. YB. HTH.
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 10:25:28?PM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 19:21:07 +0100, the following appeared inEven google is no use here. I admit to being clueless of popular culture (or whatever this is).
talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden
<[email protected]>:
On 2023-03-03 17:54:28 +0000, Robert Carnegie said:YHBBT. YB. HTH.
On Friday, 3 March 2023 at 16:15:17 UTC, JTEM is my hero wrote:
Bet you never thought of this but: The eye!Yawn <https://www.google.com/search?q=eye+complexity>
We're talking irreducible complexity here!
Never thought of it, did you? Well that disproves
your Evil-Lution and disproves it lickety Split!
Good day. I say, good day!
Good grief! JTEM loves to parade his ignorance, but this is going a bit
far even for him. For his information, in the unlikely case that he
wants to be educated, Darwin discussed exactly this question, and many
people have done so since.
Enlighten me. Please.
On Sat, 4 Mar 2023 08:44:58 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<[email protected]>:
On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 10:25:28?PM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 19:21:07 +0100, the following appeared inEven google is no use here. I admit to being clueless of popular culture (or whatever this is).
talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden
<[email protected]>:
On 2023-03-03 17:54:28 +0000, Robert Carnegie said:YHBBT. YB. HTH.
On Friday, 3 March 2023 at 16:15:17 UTC, JTEM is my hero wrote:
Bet you never thought of this but: The eye!Yawn <https://www.google.com/search?q=eye+complexity>
We're talking irreducible complexity here!
Never thought of it, did you? Well that disproves
your Evil-Lution and disproves it lickety Split!
Good day. I say, good day!
Good grief! JTEM loves to parade his ignorance, but this is going a bit >> >far even for him. For his information, in the unlikely case that he
wants to be educated, Darwin discussed exactly this question, and many >> >people have done so since.
Enlighten me. Please.
You Have Both Been Trolled. You Bit. Hope This Helps.
YHBT was fairly common here at one time; the second "B" was
my addition to cover both posts responding/referring to the
JTEM idiot. :-)
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 3:00:18?PM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sat, 4 Mar 2023 08:44:58 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<[email protected]>:
On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 10:25:28?PM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:You Have Both Been Trolled. You Bit. Hope This Helps.
On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 19:21:07 +0100, the following appeared inEven google is no use here. I admit to being clueless of popular culture (or whatever this is).
talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden
<[email protected]>:
On 2023-03-03 17:54:28 +0000, Robert Carnegie said:YHBBT. YB. HTH.
On Friday, 3 March 2023 at 16:15:17 UTC, JTEM is my hero wrote:
Bet you never thought of this but: The eye!Yawn <https://www.google.com/search?q=eye+complexity>
We're talking irreducible complexity here!
Never thought of it, did you? Well that disproves
your Evil-Lution and disproves it lickety Split!
Good day. I say, good day!
Good grief! JTEM loves to parade his ignorance, but this is going a bit >> >> >far even for him. For his information, in the unlikely case that he
wants to be educated, Darwin discussed exactly this question, and many >> >> >people have done so since.
Enlighten me. Please.
YHBT was fairly common here at one time; the second "B" was
my addition to cover both posts responding/referring to the
JTEM idiot. :-)
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
Ah! Thank you. I find it easier and easier not to feed JTEM. When and/if Peter and/or Glenn reappear,
I will try hard to hold my peace with them as well.
His expertise is in self-parody.
You Have
On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 3:00:18?PM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sat, 4 Mar 2023 08:44:58 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<[email protected]>:
On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 10:25:28?PM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:You Have Both Been Trolled. You Bit. Hope This Helps.
On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 19:21:07 +0100, the following appeared inEven google is no use here. I admit to being clueless of popular culture (or whatever this is).
talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden
<[email protected]>:
On 2023-03-03 17:54:28 +0000, Robert Carnegie said:YHBBT. YB. HTH.
On Friday, 3 March 2023 at 16:15:17 UTC, JTEM is my hero wrote:
Bet you never thought of this but: The eye!Yawn <https://www.google.com/search?q=eye+complexity>
We're talking irreducible complexity here!
Never thought of it, did you? Well that disproves
your Evil-Lution and disproves it lickety Split!
Good day. I say, good day!
Good grief! JTEM loves to parade his ignorance, but this is going a bit >> >> >far even for him. For his information, in the unlikely case that he
wants to be educated, Darwin discussed exactly this question, and many >> >> >people have done so since.
Enlighten me. Please.
YHBT was fairly common here at one time; the second "B" was
my addition to cover both posts responding/referring to the
JTEM idiot. :-)
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
Ah! Thank you. I find it easier and easier not to feed JTEM. When and/if Peter and/or Glenn reappear,
I will try hard to hold my peace with them as well.
Killfiles are Your Friends (TM). Both Glenn and JTEM are in
mine, although Peter is not.
On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 21:51:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>
wrote:
Killfiles are Your Friends (TM). Both Glenn and JTEM are in
mine, although Peter is not.
Your comment above shows it's a matter of personal and subjective
opinion of who is and is not a troll, and so NOT something to advocate
as froup policy.
On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 10:25:17 AM UTC-8, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-03-03 17:54:28 +0000, Robert Carnegie said:
On Friday, 3 March 2023 at 16:15:17 UTC, JTEM is my hero wrote:
Bet you never thought of this but: The eye!
We're talking irreducible complexity here!
Never thought of it, did you? Well that disproves
your Evil-Lution and disproves it lickety Split!
Good grief! JTEM loves to parade his ignorance, but this is going a bitGood day. I say, good day!Yawn<https://www.google.com/search?q=eye+complexity>
far even for him. For his information, in the unlikely case that he
wants to be educated, Darwin discussed exactly this question, and many people have done so since.
--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
The existence of JTEM is evidence against intelligent design.
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 02:33:02 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 21:51:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>Of course it's personal and subjective; I can only speak for
wrote:
Killfiles are Your Friends (TM). Both Glenn and JTEM are in
mine, although Peter is not.
Your comment above shows it's a matter of personal and subjective
opinion of who is and is not a troll, and so NOT something to advocate
as froup policy.
myself, which I did. And FWIW, I don't even killfile all
trolls, just the ones I consider not worth any of my time at
all, not even the time to read the name of the author.
On Mar 3, 2023, erik simpson wrote
(in article<[email protected]>):
On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 10:25:17?AM UTC-8, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: >> > On 2023-03-03 17:54:28 +0000, Robert Carnegie said:
On Friday, 3 March 2023 at 16:15:17 UTC, JTEM is my hero wrote:Good grief! JTEM loves to parade his ignorance, but this is going a bit
Bet you never thought of this but: The eye!Yawn<https://www.google.com/search?q=eye+complexity>
We're talking irreducible complexity here!
Never thought of it, did you? Well that disproves
your Evil-Lution and disproves it lickety Split!
Good day. I say, good day!
far even for him. For his information, in the unlikely case that he
wants to be educated, Darwin discussed exactly this question, and many
people have done so since.
--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
The existence of JTEM is evidence against intelligent design.
The existence of JTEM is proof against the existence of intelligent trolling.
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 09:01:36 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 02:33:02 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 21:51:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>Of course it's personal and subjective; I can only speak for
wrote:
Killfiles are Your Friends (TM). Both Glenn and JTEM are in
mine, although Peter is not.
Your comment above shows it's a matter of personal and subjective
opinion of who is and is not a troll, and so NOT something to advocate
as froup policy.
myself, which I did. And FWIW, I don't even killfile all
trolls, just the ones I consider not worth any of my time at
all, not even the time to read the name of the author.
When you name specific posters, as you do above, as you have done
regularly in the past, the implication is others should killfile them
also, to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to
see. If others continued to reply, then you would still see those
replies, to tempt you to reply to their replies, as you do above, as
you have done regularly in the past.
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 07:46:52 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 09:01:36 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>Believe whatever you wish; that is *your* right to have
wrote:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 02:33:02 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 21:51:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>>wrote:Of course it's personal and subjective; I can only speak for
Killfiles are Your Friends (TM). Both Glenn and JTEM are in
mine, although Peter is not.
Your comment above shows it's a matter of personal and subjective >>>>opinion of who is and is not a troll, and so NOT something to advocate >>>>as froup policy.
myself, which I did. And FWIW, I don't even killfile all
trolls, just the ones I consider not worth any of my time at
all, not even the time to read the name of the author.
When you name specific posters, as you do above, as you have done
regularly in the past, the implication is others should killfile them also, >>to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to
see. If others continued to reply, then you would still see those
replies, to tempt you to reply to their replies, as you do above, as
you have done regularly in the past.
subjective opinions.
Thank you for your opinion.
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 10:52:21 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 07:46:52 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 09:01:36 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>Believe whatever you wish; that is *your* right to have
wrote:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 02:33:02 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 21:51:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>>wrote:Of course it's personal and subjective; I can only speak for
Killfiles are Your Friends (TM). Both Glenn and JTEM are in
mine, although Peter is not.
Your comment above shows it's a matter of personal and subjective >>>>opinion of who is and is not a troll, and so NOT something to advocate >>>>as froup policy.
myself, which I did. And FWIW, I don't even killfile all
trolls, just the ones I consider not worth any of my time at
all, not even the time to read the name of the author.
When you name specific posters, as you do above, as you have done >>regularly in the past, the implication is others should killfile them also, >>to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to
see. If others continued to reply, then you would still see those >>replies, to tempt you to reply to their replies, as you do above, as
you have done regularly in the past.
subjective opinions.
Thank you for your opinion.What do you think is my subjective opinion above? That you named
specific posters, above and in the past? If so, do you deny your own
words in the quoted text? Or do you deny that "Killfiles are your
friend (TM)" doesn't *explicitly* encourage other posters to use
killfiles?
Or do you deny that by naming specific posters, you encourage others
to killfile them? If so, do you deny that your killfile acting alone
doesn't prevent you from seeing replies from other posters to those
posters you named? Do you deny that as more posters follow your
lead, you would see fewer replies to those posters you named?
If you deny any of the above, then what other purpose do you have for regularly posting "Killfiles are your friend (TM)" coupled with naming
other posters you think are trolls, as you do above, as you have done
in the past?
If you have no other purpose, then my expressed opinion is a reasoned
and reasonable interpretation objectively based on your oft-posted
words.
On Tuesday, 7 March 2023 at 12:45:20 UTC+2, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 10:52:21 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>Opinions can be different. I (for example) saw it so:
wrote:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 07:46:52 -0500, the following appearedWhat do you think is my subjective opinion above? That you named
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 09:01:36 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>Believe whatever you wish; that is *your* right to have
wrote:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 02:33:02 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 21:51:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>Of course it's personal and subjective; I can only speak for
wrote:
Killfiles are Your Friends (TM). Both Glenn and JTEM are in
mine, although Peter is not.
Your comment above shows it's a matter of personal and subjective
opinion of who is and is not a troll, and so NOT something to advocate >> >>>>as froup policy.
myself, which I did. And FWIW, I don't even killfile all
trolls, just the ones I consider not worth any of my time at
all, not even the time to read the name of the author.
When you name specific posters, as you do above, as you have done
regularly in the past, the implication is others should killfile them also,
to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to
see. If others continued to reply, then you would still see those
replies, to tempt you to reply to their replies, as you do above, as
you have done regularly in the past.
subjective opinions.
Thank you for your opinion.
specific posters, above and in the past? If so, do you deny your own
words in the quoted text? Or do you deny that "Killfiles are your
friend (TM)" doesn't *explicitly* encourage other posters to use
killfiles?
Bob Casanova told (using strange acronyms) to Robert Carnegie
and Athel Cornish-Bowden that they have been trolled by JTEM's
joke/sarcasm/ troll/whatever. Then Erik Simpson asked for clarification,
and when clarity was achieved then thanked, and mentioned specific >postersthat he has had difficulty of "keeping peace" with. After that
Bob suggested to use killfiles and mentioned that two of said
(by Erik) posters are in his killfile but third is not.
Or do you deny that by naming specific posters, you encourage othersBob simply replied staying strictly and narrowly in points that Erik
to killfile them? If so, do you deny that your killfile acting alone
doesn't prevent you from seeing replies from other posters to those
posters you named? Do you deny that as more posters follow your
lead, you would see fewer replies to those posters you named?
If you deny any of the above, then what other purpose do you have for
regularly posting "Killfiles are your friend (TM)" coupled with naming
other posters you think are trolls, as you do above, as you have done
in the past?
If you have no other purpose, then my expressed opinion is a reasoned
and reasonable interpretation objectively based on your oft-posted
words.
raised. That is more reasonable interpretation (for me). Your
interpretation takes Bob's post out of context, but YMMV.
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 10:52:21 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 07:46:52 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 09:01:36 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>Believe whatever you wish; that is *your* right to have
wrote:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 02:33:02 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 21:51:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>>>wrote:Of course it's personal and subjective; I can only speak for
Killfiles are Your Friends (TM). Both Glenn and JTEM are in
mine, although Peter is not.
Your comment above shows it's a matter of personal and subjective >>>>>opinion of who is and is not a troll, and so NOT something to advocate >>>>>as froup policy.
myself, which I did. And FWIW, I don't even killfile all
trolls, just the ones I consider not worth any of my time at
all, not even the time to read the name of the author.
When you name specific posters, as you do above, as you have done >>>regularly in the past, the implication is others should killfile them also, >>>to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to
see. If others continued to reply, then you would still see those >>>replies, to tempt you to reply to their replies, as you do above, as
you have done regularly in the past.
subjective opinions.
Thank you for your opinion.
What do you think is my subjective opinion above? That you named
specific posters, above and in the past? If so, do you deny your own
words in the quoted text? Or do you deny that "Killfiles are your
friend (TM)" doesn't *explicitly* encourage other posters to use
killfiles?
Or do you deny that by naming specific posters, you encourage others
to killfile them? If so, do you deny that your killfile acting alone >doesn't prevent you from seeing replies from other posters to those
posters you named?
Do you deny that as more posters follow your
lead, you would see fewer replies to those posters you named?
If you deny any of the above, then what other purpose do you have for >regularly posting "Killfiles are your friend (TM)" coupled with naming
other posters you think are trolls, as you do above, as you have done
in the past?
If you have no other purpose, then my expressed opinion is a reasoned
and reasonable interpretation objectively based on your oft-posted
words.
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 05:57:32 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by 嘱 Tiib <[email protected]>:
On Tuesday, 7 March 2023 at 12:45:20 UTC+2, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 10:52:21 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>Opinions can be different. I (for example) saw it so:
wrote:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 07:46:52 -0500, the following appearedWhat do you think is my subjective opinion above? That you named
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 09:01:36 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>Believe whatever you wish; that is *your* right to have
wrote:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 02:33:02 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 21:51:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>Of course it's personal and subjective; I can only speak for
wrote:
Killfiles are Your Friends (TM). Both Glenn and JTEM are in
mine, although Peter is not.
Your comment above shows it's a matter of personal and subjective
opinion of who is and is not a troll, and so NOT something to advocate
as froup policy.
myself, which I did. And FWIW, I don't even killfile all
trolls, just the ones I consider not worth any of my time at
all, not even the time to read the name of the author.
When you name specific posters, as you do above, as you have done
regularly in the past, the implication is others should killfile them also,
to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to
see. If others continued to reply, then you would still see those
replies, to tempt you to reply to their replies, as you do above, as
you have done regularly in the past.
subjective opinions.
Thank you for your opinion.
specific posters, above and in the past? If so, do you deny your own
words in the quoted text? Or do you deny that "Killfiles are your
friend (TM)" doesn't *explicitly* encourage other posters to use
killfiles?
Bob Casanova told (using strange acronyms) to Robert Carnegie
and Athel Cornish-Bowden that they have been trolled by JTEM's >joke/sarcasm/ troll/whatever. Then Erik Simpson asked for clarification, >and when clarity was achieved then thanked, and mentioned specific >postersthat he has had difficulty of "keeping peace" with. After that
Bob suggested to use killfiles and mentioned that two of said
(by Erik) posters are in his killfile but third is not.
Or do you deny that by naming specific posters, you encourage othersBob simply replied staying strictly and narrowly in points that Erik >raised. That is more reasonable interpretation (for me). Your >interpretation takes Bob's post out of context, but YMMV.
to killfile them? If so, do you deny that your killfile acting alone
doesn't prevent you from seeing replies from other posters to those
posters you named? Do you deny that as more posters follow your
lead, you would see fewer replies to those posters you named?
If you deny any of the above, then what other purpose do you have for
regularly posting "Killfiles are your friend (TM)" coupled with naming
other posters you think are trolls, as you do above, as you have done
in the past?
If you have no other purpose, then my expressed opinion is a reasoned
and reasonable interpretation objectively based on your oft-posted
words.
Thanks for the support. Jillery detests the use of
killfiles, as she has made clear now and in the past, for
reasons she believes are valid, an opinion to which she is
fully entitled. I simply disagree.
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 8:25:20?AM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 05:57:32 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by ? Tiib <[email protected]>:
On Tuesday, 7 March 2023 at 12:45:20 UTC+2, jillery wrote:Thanks for the support. Jillery detests the use of
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 10:52:21 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>Opinions can be different. I (for example) saw it so:
wrote:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 07:46:52 -0500, the following appearedWhat do you think is my subjective opinion above? That you named
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 09:01:36 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>Believe whatever you wish; that is *your* right to have
wrote:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 02:33:02 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 21:51:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>Of course it's personal and subjective; I can only speak for
wrote:
Killfiles are Your Friends (TM). Both Glenn and JTEM are in
mine, although Peter is not.
Your comment above shows it's a matter of personal and subjective
opinion of who is and is not a troll, and so NOT something to advocate
as froup policy.
myself, which I did. And FWIW, I don't even killfile all
trolls, just the ones I consider not worth any of my time at
all, not even the time to read the name of the author.
When you name specific posters, as you do above, as you have done
regularly in the past, the implication is others should killfile them also,
to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to
see. If others continued to reply, then you would still see those
replies, to tempt you to reply to their replies, as you do above, as
you have done regularly in the past.
subjective opinions.
Thank you for your opinion.
specific posters, above and in the past? If so, do you deny your own
words in the quoted text? Or do you deny that "Killfiles are your
friend (TM)" doesn't *explicitly* encourage other posters to use
killfiles?
Bob Casanova told (using strange acronyms) to Robert Carnegie
and Athel Cornish-Bowden that they have been trolled by JTEM's
joke/sarcasm/ troll/whatever. Then Erik Simpson asked for clarification,
and when clarity was achieved then thanked, and mentioned specific
postersthat he has had difficulty of "keeping peace" with. After that
Bob suggested to use killfiles and mentioned that two of said
(by Erik) posters are in his killfile but third is not.
Or do you deny that by naming specific posters, you encourage othersBob simply replied staying strictly and narrowly in points that Erik
to killfile them? If so, do you deny that your killfile acting alone
doesn't prevent you from seeing replies from other posters to those
posters you named? Do you deny that as more posters follow your
lead, you would see fewer replies to those posters you named?
If you deny any of the above, then what other purpose do you have for
regularly posting "Killfiles are your friend (TM)" coupled with naming
other posters you think are trolls, as you do above, as you have done
in the past?
If you have no other purpose, then my expressed opinion is a reasoned
and reasonable interpretation objectively based on your oft-posted
words.
raised. That is more reasonable interpretation (for me). Your
interpretation takes Bob's post out of context, but YMMV.
killfiles, as she has made clear now and in the past, for
reasons she believes are valid, an opinion to which she is
fully entitled. I simply disagree.
For me, killfiles aren't an option, since I'm not using a newsreader that supports them.
I prefer not having to worry about strange behavior by newsreaders in addtion >to strange output from this group itself. The "virtual killfile" of simply >skipping over known sources of pure (or nearly pure) nonsense is pretty
easy. I don't have the view that it's necessary to respond to all the BS in >the world, or even all the BS that shows up here, but if some warriors find >it important, that's OK too.
Seconded. There might be a difference between stupidity by choice and habitual stupidity
Bottom line: I think killfiles serve a useful purpose, and I
don't think that ignoring idiots is a Bad Thing (TM). You
disagree, and feel that not answering every idiotic
pronouncement validates those pronouncements. Sobeit.
On 3/7/23 8:20 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
[huge snip]
Bottom line: I think killfiles serve a useful purpose, and I
don't think that ignoring idiots is a Bad Thing (TM). You
disagree, and feel that not answering every idiotic
pronouncement validates those pronouncements. Sobeit.
Killfiles serve me. Currently, I only have Glenn killfiled, and then
with the result of marking his posts as read, so I can go back and read
them if I'm particularly bored, or if another poster reveals he said >something of interest. I haven't considered killfiling JTEM because
there is nothing about him which is worth considering. I simply don't
read his posts.
On Tue, 07 Mar 2023 05:41:26 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 10:52:21 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>[unmarked snippage here, which the following comment
wrote:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 07:46:52 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 09:01:36 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>>wrote:Believe whatever you wish; that is *your* right to have
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 02:33:02 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 21:51:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>>>>wrote:Of course it's personal and subjective; I can only speak for
Killfiles are Your Friends (TM). Both Glenn and JTEM are in
mine, although Peter is not.
Your comment above shows it's a matter of personal and subjective >>>>>>opinion of who is and is not a troll, and so NOT something to advocate >>>>>>as froup policy.
myself, which I did. And FWIW, I don't even killfile all
trolls, just the ones I consider not worth any of my time at
all, not even the time to read the name of the author.
When you name specific posters, as you do above, as you have done >>>>regularly in the past, the implication is others should killfile them also,
to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to
see. If others continued to reply, then you would still see those >>>>replies, to tempt you to reply to their replies, as you do above, as >>>>you have done regularly in the past.
subjective opinions.
addressed]
The last, of course. I "explicitly* encouraged nothing; IThank you for your opinion.
What do you think is my subjective opinion above? That you named
specific posters, above and in the past? If so, do you deny your own
words in the quoted text? Or do you deny that "Killfiles are your
friend (TM)" doesn't *explicitly* encourage other posters to use
killfiles?
simply noted what my solution for that particular problem
is.
But even if I did so "encourage" their use, killfiles are
there for a reason, many people use them, and the fact that
you are opposed to them doesn't mean your reasons for doing
so are valid, since at bottom they're simply your
(subjective) preference.
Of course not; I've even said so.
Or do you deny that by naming specific posters, you encourage others
to killfile them? If so, do you deny that your killfile acting alone >>doesn't prevent you from seeing replies from other posters to those
posters you named?
That would be nice.
Do you deny that as more posters follow your
lead, you would see fewer replies to those posters you named?
Simply as a reminder; no one is obligated to follow my
If you deny any of the above, then what other purpose do you have for >>regularly posting "Killfiles are your friend (TM)" coupled with naming >>other posters you think are trolls, as you do above, as you have done
in the past?
preferences, just as no one is obligated to follow yours.
My words are objectively reported; your interpretation of
If you have no other purpose, then my expressed opinion is a reasoned
and reasonable interpretation objectively based on your oft-posted
words.
their effect on others is subjective. But as I said, that's
no problem for me, since I don't share that interpretation.
Bottom line: I think killfiles serve a useful purpose, and I
don't think that ignoring idiots is a Bad Thing (TM). You
disagree, and feel that not answering every idiotic
pronouncement validates those pronouncements. Sobeit.
On Tuesday, 7 March 2023 at 12:45:20 UTC+2, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 10:52:21 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>Opinions can be different. I (for example) saw it so:
wrote:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 07:46:52 -0500, the following appearedWhat do you think is my subjective opinion above? That you named
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 09:01:36 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>Believe whatever you wish; that is *your* right to have
wrote:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 02:33:02 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 21:51:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>Of course it's personal and subjective; I can only speak for
wrote:
Killfiles are Your Friends (TM). Both Glenn and JTEM are in
mine, although Peter is not.
Your comment above shows it's a matter of personal and subjective
opinion of who is and is not a troll, and so NOT something to advocate >> >>>>as froup policy.
myself, which I did. And FWIW, I don't even killfile all
trolls, just the ones I consider not worth any of my time at
all, not even the time to read the name of the author.
When you name specific posters, as you do above, as you have done
regularly in the past, the implication is others should killfile them also,
to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to
see. If others continued to reply, then you would still see those
replies, to tempt you to reply to their replies, as you do above, as
you have done regularly in the past.
subjective opinions.
Thank you for your opinion.
specific posters, above and in the past? If so, do you deny your own
words in the quoted text? Or do you deny that "Killfiles are your
friend (TM)" doesn't *explicitly* encourage other posters to use
killfiles?
Bob Casanova told (using strange acronyms) to Robert Carnegie
and Athel Cornish-Bowden that they have been trolled by JTEM's
joke/sarcasm/ troll/whatever. Then Erik Simpson asked for clarification,
and when clarity was achieved then thanked, and mentioned specific >postersthat he has had difficulty of "keeping peace" with. After that
Bob suggested to use killfiles and mentioned that two of said
(by Erik) posters are in his killfile but third is not.
Or do you deny that by naming specific posters, you encourage othersBob simply replied staying strictly and narrowly in points that Erik
to killfile them? If so, do you deny that your killfile acting alone
doesn't prevent you from seeing replies from other posters to those
posters you named? Do you deny that as more posters follow your
lead, you would see fewer replies to those posters you named?
If you deny any of the above, then what other purpose do you have for
regularly posting "Killfiles are your friend (TM)" coupled with naming
other posters you think are trolls, as you do above, as you have done
in the past?
If you have no other purpose, then my expressed opinion is a reasoned
and reasonable interpretation objectively based on your oft-posted
words.
raised. That is more reasonable interpretation (for me). Your
interpretation takes Bob's post out of context, but YMMV.
For me, killfiles aren't an option, since I'm not using a newsreader that supports them.
I prefer not having to worry about strange behavior by newsreaders in addtion >to strange output from this group itself. The "virtual killfile" of simply >skipping over known sources of pure (or nearly pure) nonsense is pretty
easy.
I don't have the view that it's necessary to respond to all the BS in
the world, or even all the BS that shows up here, but if some warriors find >it important, that's OK too.
jillery wrote:
Seconded. There might be a difference between stupidity by choice and
habitual stupidity
Like how you dig in your heels and refuse to budge on ANY stupid thing
you say... Einstein describing the Multiverse but failing to use that term >means it never happened... everything you ever said about Naledi...
There's a reason you cower behind these sock puppet, talking to yourself,
and it's not because you're intelligent or brave.
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 08:44:13 -0800 (PST), erik simpson ><[email protected]> wrote:
For me, killfiles aren't an option, since I'm not using a newsreader that supports them.
I prefer not having to worry about strange behavior by newsreaders in addtion >>to strange output from this group itself. The "virtual killfile" of simply >>skipping over known sources of pure (or nearly pure) nonsense is pretty >>easy.
Exactly so.
I don't have the view that it's necessary to respond to all the BS in
the world, or even all the BS that shows up here, but if some warriors find >>it important, that's OK too.
Your comment is a pointless mischaracterization. Nobody has expressed
such a view. Even if someone wanted to as you say above, it would be >impossible. Is it your intent to ape the behavior of those poster you
find objectionable?
On Wednesday, 8 March 2023 at 12:20:21 UTC+2, jillery wrote:
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 05:57:32 -0800 (PST), Öö Tiib <[email protected]>My opinion is that your interpretation of Bob's post was unreasonable.
wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 March 2023 at 12:45:20 UTC+2, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 10:52:21 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>Opinions can be different. I (for example) saw it so:
wrote:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 07:46:52 -0500, the following appearedWhat do you think is my subjective opinion above? That you named
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 09:01:36 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>Believe whatever you wish; that is *your* right to have
wrote:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 02:33:02 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 21:51:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >> >> >>>>wrote:Of course it's personal and subjective; I can only speak for
Killfiles are Your Friends (TM). Both Glenn and JTEM are in
mine, although Peter is not.
Your comment above shows it's a matter of personal and subjective
opinion of who is and is not a troll, and so NOT something to advocate
as froup policy.
myself, which I did. And FWIW, I don't even killfile all
trolls, just the ones I consider not worth any of my time at
all, not even the time to read the name of the author.
When you name specific posters, as you do above, as you have done
regularly in the past, the implication is others should killfile them also,
to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to
see. If others continued to reply, then you would still see those
replies, to tempt you to reply to their replies, as you do above, as >> >> >>you have done regularly in the past.
subjective opinions.
Thank you for your opinion.
specific posters, above and in the past? If so, do you deny your own
words in the quoted text? Or do you deny that "Killfiles are your
friend (TM)" doesn't *explicitly* encourage other posters to use
killfiles?
Where and/or how did I even suggest otherwise?
Your comments below misrepresent what I posted.Show where I skewed, misstated or lied about what you posted. Or what
you mean by "misrepresent"? I only posted my opinion.
Bob Casanova told (using strange acronyms) to Robert Carnegie
and Athel Cornish-Bowden that they have been trolled by JTEM's
joke/sarcasm/ troll/whatever. Then Erik Simpson asked for clarification, >> >and when clarity was achieved then thanked, and mentioned specific
postersthat he has had difficulty of "keeping peace" with. After that
Bob suggested to use killfiles and mentioned that two of said
(by Erik) posters are in his killfile but third is not.
Or do you deny that by naming specific posters, you encourage othersBob simply replied staying strictly and narrowly in points that Erik
to killfile them? If so, do you deny that your killfile acting alone
doesn't prevent you from seeing replies from other posters to those
posters you named? Do you deny that as more posters follow your
lead, you would see fewer replies to those posters you named?
If you deny any of the above, then what other purpose do you have for
regularly posting "Killfiles are your friend (TM)" coupled with naming >> >> other posters you think are trolls, as you do above, as you have done
in the past?
If you have no other purpose, then my expressed opinion is a reasoned
and reasonable interpretation objectively based on your oft-posted
words.
raised. That is more reasonable interpretation (for me). Your
interpretation takes Bob's post out of context, but YMMV.
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 05:57:32 -0800 (PST), Öö Tiib <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 March 2023 at 12:45:20 UTC+2, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 10:52:21 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>Opinions can be different. I (for example) saw it so:
wrote:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 07:46:52 -0500, the following appearedWhat do you think is my subjective opinion above? That you named
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 09:01:36 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>Believe whatever you wish; that is *your* right to have
wrote:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 02:33:02 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 21:51:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>Of course it's personal and subjective; I can only speak for
wrote:
Killfiles are Your Friends (TM). Both Glenn and JTEM are in
mine, although Peter is not.
Your comment above shows it's a matter of personal and subjective
opinion of who is and is not a troll, and so NOT something to advocate
as froup policy.
myself, which I did. And FWIW, I don't even killfile all
trolls, just the ones I consider not worth any of my time at
all, not even the time to read the name of the author.
When you name specific posters, as you do above, as you have done
regularly in the past, the implication is others should killfile them also,
to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to
see. If others continued to reply, then you would still see those
replies, to tempt you to reply to their replies, as you do above, as
you have done regularly in the past.
subjective opinions.
Thank you for your opinion.
specific posters, above and in the past? If so, do you deny your own
words in the quoted text? Or do you deny that "Killfiles are your
friend (TM)" doesn't *explicitly* encourage other posters to use
killfiles?
Where and/or how did I even suggest otherwise?
Your comments below misrepresent what I posted.
Bob Casanova told (using strange acronyms) to Robert Carnegie
and Athel Cornish-Bowden that they have been trolled by JTEM's >joke/sarcasm/ troll/whatever. Then Erik Simpson asked for clarification, >and when clarity was achieved then thanked, and mentioned specific >postersthat he has had difficulty of "keeping peace" with. After that
Bob suggested to use killfiles and mentioned that two of said
(by Erik) posters are in his killfile but third is not.
--Or do you deny that by naming specific posters, you encourage othersBob simply replied staying strictly and narrowly in points that Erik >raised. That is more reasonable interpretation (for me). Your >interpretation takes Bob's post out of context, but YMMV.
to killfile them? If so, do you deny that your killfile acting alone
doesn't prevent you from seeing replies from other posters to those
posters you named? Do you deny that as more posters follow your
lead, you would see fewer replies to those posters you named?
If you deny any of the above, then what other purpose do you have for
regularly posting "Killfiles are your friend (TM)" coupled with naming
other posters you think are trolls, as you do above, as you have done
in the past?
If you have no other purpose, then my expressed opinion is a reasoned
and reasonable interpretation objectively based on your oft-posted
words.
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.
On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 03:12:57 -0800 (PST), Öö Tiib <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 March 2023 at 12:20:21 UTC+2, jillery wrote:
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 05:57:32 -0800 (PST), Öö Tiib <[email protected]>My opinion is that your interpretation of Bob's post was unreasonable.
wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 March 2023 at 12:45:20 UTC+2, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 10:52:21 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>Opinions can be different. I (for example) saw it so:
wrote:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 07:46:52 -0500, the following appearedWhat do you think is my subjective opinion above? That you named
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 09:01:36 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >> >> >>wrote:Believe whatever you wish; that is *your* right to have
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 02:33:02 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 21:51:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >> >> >>>>wrote:Of course it's personal and subjective; I can only speak for
Killfiles are Your Friends (TM). Both Glenn and JTEM are in
mine, although Peter is not.
Your comment above shows it's a matter of personal and subjective >> >> >>>>opinion of who is and is not a troll, and so NOT something to advocate
as froup policy.
myself, which I did. And FWIW, I don't even killfile all
trolls, just the ones I consider not worth any of my time at
all, not even the time to read the name of the author.
When you name specific posters, as you do above, as you have done
regularly in the past, the implication is others should killfile them also,
to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to
see. If others continued to reply, then you would still see those
replies, to tempt you to reply to their replies, as you do above, as >> >> >>you have done regularly in the past.
subjective opinions.
Thank you for your opinion.
specific posters, above and in the past? If so, do you deny your own >> >> words in the quoted text? Or do you deny that "Killfiles are your
friend (TM)" doesn't *explicitly* encourage other posters to use
killfiles?
Where and/or how did I even suggest otherwise?
I understood your opinion. How do you think my interpretation
suggests I think other's opinions can't be different?
Your comments below misrepresent what I posted.Show where I skewed, misstated or lied about what you posted. Or what
you mean by "misrepresent"? I only posted my opinion.
You say you believe I took Casanova's comments out of context, but
your belief is factually incorrect aka a misrepresentation.
Despite Casanova's claim to the contrary, I snipped nothing of his
post in my reply. Unlike Casanova, I based my expressed comments
entirely on his expressed comments.
OTOH Casanova's paraphrase of my expressed comments misrepresent what
I actually wrote, and his paraphrase of my opinion is factually
incorrect and a baseless creation of his imagination.
And since you press the point, Casanova's advocacy of killfiles has
nothing to do with anything Erik previously mentioned in this topic.
To the contrary, it's something Casanova spontaneously injected into
this thread. I challenge you to demonstrate to the contrary.
Bob Casanova told (using strange acronyms) to Robert Carnegie
and Athel Cornish-Bowden that they have been trolled by JTEM's
joke/sarcasm/ troll/whatever. Then Erik Simpson asked for clarification, >> >and when clarity was achieved then thanked, and mentioned specific
postersthat he has had difficulty of "keeping peace" with. After that
Bob suggested to use killfiles and mentioned that two of said
(by Erik) posters are in his killfile but third is not.
Or do you deny that by naming specific posters, you encourage others >> >> to killfile them? If so, do you deny that your killfile acting alone >> >> doesn't prevent you from seeing replies from other posters to thoseBob simply replied staying strictly and narrowly in points that Erik
posters you named? Do you deny that as more posters follow your
lead, you would see fewer replies to those posters you named?
If you deny any of the above, then what other purpose do you have for >> >> regularly posting "Killfiles are your friend (TM)" coupled with naming >> >> other posters you think are trolls, as you do above, as you have done >> >> in the past?
If you have no other purpose, then my expressed opinion is a reasoned >> >> and reasonable interpretation objectively based on your oft-posted
words.
raised. That is more reasonable interpretation (for me). Your
interpretation takes Bob's post out of context, but YMMV.
On Tue, 07 Mar 2023 09:20:55 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Tue, 07 Mar 2023 05:41:26 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 10:52:21 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>[unmarked snippage here, which the following comment
wrote:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 07:46:52 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 09:01:36 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>>>wrote:Believe whatever you wish; that is *your* right to have
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 02:33:02 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 21:51:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>>>>>wrote:Of course it's personal and subjective; I can only speak for >>>>>>myself, which I did. And FWIW, I don't even killfile all
Killfiles are Your Friends (TM). Both Glenn and JTEM are in >>>>>>>>mine, although Peter is not.
Your comment above shows it's a matter of personal and subjective >>>>>>>opinion of who is and is not a troll, and so NOT something to advocate >>>>>>>as froup policy.
trolls, just the ones I consider not worth any of my time at
all, not even the time to read the name of the author.
When you name specific posters, as you do above, as you have done >>>>>regularly in the past, the implication is others should killfile them also,
to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to
see. If others continued to reply, then you would still see those >>>>>replies, to tempt you to reply to their replies, as you do above, as >>>>>you have done regularly in the past.
subjective opinions.
addressed]
Incorrect. I snipped nothing. It's trivially easy to prove it for
yourself. Are you incapable of supporting your opinion without
resorting to obvious misrepresentations?
also, to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to
see. If others continued to reply, then you would still see those
replies, to tempt you to reply to their replies, as you do above, as
you have done regularly in the past.
--The last, of course. I "explicitly* encouraged nothing; IThank you for your opinion.
What do you think is my subjective opinion above? That you named >>>specific posters, above and in the past? If so, do you deny your own >>>words in the quoted text? Or do you deny that "Killfiles are your
friend (TM)" doesn't *explicitly* encourage other posters to use >>>killfiles?
simply noted what my solution for that particular problem
is.
But even if I did so "encourage" their use, killfiles are
there for a reason, many people use them, and the fact that
you are opposed to them doesn't mean your reasons for doing
so are valid, since at bottom they're simply your
(subjective) preference.
Of course not; I've even said so.
Or do you deny that by naming specific posters, you encourage others
to killfile them? If so, do you deny that your killfile acting alone >>>doesn't prevent you from seeing replies from other posters to those >>>posters you named?
That would be nice.
Do you deny that as more posters follow your
lead, you would see fewer replies to those posters you named?
Simply as a reminder; no one is obligated to follow my
If you deny any of the above, then what other purpose do you have for >>>regularly posting "Killfiles are your friend (TM)" coupled with naming >>>other posters you think are trolls, as you do above, as you have done
in the past?
preferences, just as no one is obligated to follow yours.
My words are objectively reported; your interpretation of
If you have no other purpose, then my expressed opinion is a reasoned
and reasonable interpretation objectively based on your oft-posted
words.
their effect on others is subjective. But as I said, that's
no problem for me, since I don't share that interpretation.
Bottom line: I think killfiles serve a useful purpose, and I
don't think that ignoring idiots is a Bad Thing (TM). You
disagree, and feel that not answering every idiotic
pronouncement validates those pronouncements. Sobeit.
On Wednesday, 8 March 2023 at 14:10:21 UTC+2, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 03:12:57 -0800 (PST), Öö Tiib <[email protected]>I did neither say nor think that your interpretation suggests that others >opinions can't be different.
wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 March 2023 at 12:20:21 UTC+2, jillery wrote:
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 05:57:32 -0800 (PST), Öö Tiib <[email protected]>My opinion is that your interpretation of Bob's post was unreasonable.
wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 March 2023 at 12:45:20 UTC+2, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 10:52:21 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>Opinions can be different. I (for example) saw it so:
wrote:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 07:46:52 -0500, the following appearedWhat do you think is my subjective opinion above? That you named
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 09:01:36 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >> >> >> >>wrote:Believe whatever you wish; that is *your* right to have
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 02:33:02 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 21:51:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>Of course it's personal and subjective; I can only speak for
wrote:
Killfiles are Your Friends (TM). Both Glenn and JTEM are in
mine, although Peter is not.
Your comment above shows it's a matter of personal and subjective >> >> >> >>>>opinion of who is and is not a troll, and so NOT something to advocate
as froup policy.
myself, which I did. And FWIW, I don't even killfile all
trolls, just the ones I consider not worth any of my time at
all, not even the time to read the name of the author.
When you name specific posters, as you do above, as you have done >> >> >> >>regularly in the past, the implication is others should killfile them also,
to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to
see. If others continued to reply, then you would still see those >> >> >> >>replies, to tempt you to reply to their replies, as you do above, as
you have done regularly in the past.
subjective opinions.
Thank you for your opinion.
specific posters, above and in the past? If so, do you deny your own >> >> >> words in the quoted text? Or do you deny that "Killfiles are your
friend (TM)" doesn't *explicitly* encourage other posters to use
killfiles?
Where and/or how did I even suggest otherwise?
I understood your opinion. How do you think my interpretation
suggests I think other's opinions can't be different?
I can't demonstrate relations of Bob's opinions with anything as thoseYour comments below misrepresent what I posted.Show where I skewed, misstated or lied about what you posted. Or what
you mean by "misrepresent"? I only posted my opinion.
You say you believe I took Casanova's comments out of context, but
your belief is factually incorrect aka a misrepresentation.
Despite Casanova's claim to the contrary, I snipped nothing of his
post in my reply. Unlike Casanova, I based my expressed comments
entirely on his expressed comments.
OTOH Casanova's paraphrase of my expressed comments misrepresent what
I actually wrote, and his paraphrase of my opinion is factually
incorrect and a baseless creation of his imagination.
And since you press the point, Casanova's advocacy of killfiles has
nothing to do with anything Erik previously mentioned in this topic.
To the contrary, it's something Casanova spontaneously injected into
this thread. I challenge you to demonstrate to the contrary.
are in his mind. I can only demonstrate facts that happened:
...
Erik to Bob: "Ah! Thank you. I find it easier and easier not to
feed JTEM. When and/if Peter and/or Glenn reappear, I will try hard
to hold my peace with them as well."
Bob to Erik: "Killfiles are Your Friends (TM). Both Glenn and
JTEM are in mine, although Peter is not."
You then took Bob's words only, erased all context
and said those
were meant as separate suggestion of ultimate "froup policy".
Again I can not demonstrate what motivated you as those
reasons are within your mind.
Bob Casanova told (using strange acronyms) to Robert Carnegie
and Athel Cornish-Bowden that they have been trolled by JTEM's
joke/sarcasm/ troll/whatever. Then Erik Simpson asked for clarification,
and when clarity was achieved then thanked, and mentioned specific
postersthat he has had difficulty of "keeping peace" with. After that >> >> >Bob suggested to use killfiles and mentioned that two of said
(by Erik) posters are in his killfile but third is not.
Or do you deny that by naming specific posters, you encourage others >> >> >> to killfile them? If so, do you deny that your killfile acting alone >> >> >> doesn't prevent you from seeing replies from other posters to those >> >> >> posters you named? Do you deny that as more posters follow yourBob simply replied staying strictly and narrowly in points that Erik
lead, you would see fewer replies to those posters you named?
If you deny any of the above, then what other purpose do you have for >> >> >> regularly posting "Killfiles are your friend (TM)" coupled with naming
other posters you think are trolls, as you do above, as you have done >> >> >> in the past?
If you have no other purpose, then my expressed opinion is a reasoned >> >> >> and reasonable interpretation objectively based on your oft-posted
words.
raised. That is more reasonable interpretation (for me). Your
interpretation takes Bob's post out of context, but YMMV.
On Tue, 07 Mar 2023 09:20:55 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Tue, 07 Mar 2023 05:41:26 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 10:52:21 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>[unmarked snippage here, which the following comment
wrote:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 07:46:52 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 09:01:36 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>>>wrote:Believe whatever you wish; that is *your* right to have
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 02:33:02 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 21:51:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>>>>>wrote:Of course it's personal and subjective; I can only speak for >>>>>>myself, which I did. And FWIW, I don't even killfile all
Killfiles are Your Friends (TM). Both Glenn and JTEM are in >>>>>>>>mine, although Peter is not.
Your comment above shows it's a matter of personal and subjective >>>>>>>opinion of who is and is not a troll, and so NOT something to advocate >>>>>>>as froup policy.
trolls, just the ones I consider not worth any of my time at
all, not even the time to read the name of the author.
When you name specific posters, as you do above, as you have done >>>>>regularly in the past, the implication is others should killfile them also,
to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to
see. If others continued to reply, then you would still see those >>>>>replies, to tempt you to reply to their replies, as you do above, as >>>>>you have done regularly in the past.
subjective opinions.
addressed]
The last, of course. I "explicitly* encouraged nothing; I
Thank you for your opinion.
What do you think is my subjective opinion above? That you named >>>specific posters, above and in the past? If so, do you deny your own >>>words in the quoted text? Or do you deny that "Killfiles are your
friend (TM)" doesn't *explicitly* encourage other posters to use >>>killfiles?
simply noted what my solution for that particular problem
is.
If that really was your intent, you would more clearly express it if
you wrote "Killfiles are my friend (TM)". Even you should be able to >recognize the difference.
But even if I did so "encourage" their use, killfiles are
there for a reason, many people use them, and the fact that
you are opposed to them doesn't mean your reasons for doing
so are valid, since at bottom they're simply your
(subjective) preference.
You and your friends seem determined to misrepresent what I actually
posted. I have become quite used to it.
Or do you deny that by naming specific posters, you encourage othersOf course not; I've even said so.
to killfile them? If so, do you deny that your killfile acting alone >>>doesn't prevent you from seeing replies from other posters to those >>>posters you named?
That would be nice.
Do you deny that as more posters follow your
lead, you would see fewer replies to those posters you named?
Simply as a reminder; no one is obligated to follow my
If you deny any of the above, then what other purpose do you have for >>>regularly posting "Killfiles are your friend (TM)" coupled with naming >>>other posters you think are trolls, as you do above, as you have done
in the past?
preferences, just as no one is obligated to follow yours.
I neither expressed nor advocated any preferences. You did. There's
a difference.
If you have no other purpose, then my expressed opinion is a reasonedMy words are objectively reported; your interpretation of
and reasonable interpretation objectively based on your oft-posted
words.
their effect on others is subjective. But as I said, that's
no problem for me, since I don't share that interpretation.
Bottom line: I think killfiles serve a useful purpose, and I
don't think that ignoring idiots is a Bad Thing (TM). You
disagree, and feel that not answering every idiotic
pronouncement validates those pronouncements. Sobeit.
Maybe someday you will actually post an honest response to me, but
today is not that day.
On Wed, 08 Mar 2023 05:15:33 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Tue, 07 Mar 2023 09:20:55 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>I disagree, but your opinion is again noted. And as I'm not
wrote:
On Tue, 07 Mar 2023 05:41:26 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 10:52:21 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>>wrote:[unmarked snippage here, which the following comment
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 07:46:52 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 09:01:36 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>>>>wrote:Believe whatever you wish; that is *your* right to have
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 02:33:02 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 21:51:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>wrote:Of course it's personal and subjective; I can only speak for >>>>>>>myself, which I did. And FWIW, I don't even killfile all
Killfiles are Your Friends (TM). Both Glenn and JTEM are in >>>>>>>>>mine, although Peter is not.
Your comment above shows it's a matter of personal and subjective >>>>>>>>opinion of who is and is not a troll, and so NOT something to advocate >>>>>>>>as froup policy.
trolls, just the ones I consider not worth any of my time at
all, not even the time to read the name of the author.
When you name specific posters, as you do above, as you have done >>>>>>regularly in the past, the implication is others should killfile them also,
to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to >>>>>>see. If others continued to reply, then you would still see those >>>>>>replies, to tempt you to reply to their replies, as you do above, as >>>>>>you have done regularly in the past.
subjective opinions.
addressed]
The last, of course. I "explicitly* encouraged nothing; I
Thank you for your opinion.
What do you think is my subjective opinion above? That you named >>>>specific posters, above and in the past? If so, do you deny your own >>>>words in the quoted text? Or do you deny that "Killfiles are your >>>>friend (TM)" doesn't *explicitly* encourage other posters to use >>>>killfiles?
simply noted what my solution for that particular problem
is.
If that really was your intent, you would more clearly express it if
you wrote "Killfiles are my friend (TM)". Even you should be able to >>recognize the difference.
But even if I did so "encourage" their use, killfiles are
there for a reason, many people use them, and the fact that
you are opposed to them doesn't mean your reasons for doing
so are valid, since at bottom they're simply your
(subjective) preference.
You and your friends seem determined to misrepresent what I actually >>posted. I have become quite used to it.
Or do you deny that by naming specific posters, you encourage othersOf course not; I've even said so.
to killfile them? If so, do you deny that your killfile acting alone >>>>doesn't prevent you from seeing replies from other posters to those >>>>posters you named?
That would be nice.
Do you deny that as more posters follow your
lead, you would see fewer replies to those posters you named?
Simply as a reminder; no one is obligated to follow my
If you deny any of the above, then what other purpose do you have for >>>>regularly posting "Killfiles are your friend (TM)" coupled with naming >>>>other posters you think are trolls, as you do above, as you have done >>>>in the past?
preferences, just as no one is obligated to follow yours.
I neither expressed nor advocated any preferences. You did. There's
a difference.
If you have no other purpose, then my expressed opinion is a reasoned >>>>and reasonable interpretation objectively based on your oft-posted >>>>words.My words are objectively reported; your interpretation of
their effect on others is subjective. But as I said, that's
no problem for me, since I don't share that interpretation.
Bottom line: I think killfiles serve a useful purpose, and I
don't think that ignoring idiots is a Bad Thing (TM). You
disagree, and feel that not answering every idiotic
pronouncement validates those pronouncements. Sobeit.
Maybe someday you will actually post an honest response to me, but
today is not that day.
interested in further "You said" "No, *you* said!" worthless
wastes of time, enjoy yourself with the trolls.
On Wed, 08 Mar 2023 05:05:06 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Tue, 07 Mar 2023 09:20:55 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>It certainly is. The exchange from my previous post:
wrote:
On Tue, 07 Mar 2023 05:41:26 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 10:52:21 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>>wrote:[unmarked snippage here, which the following comment
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 07:46:52 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 09:01:36 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>>>>wrote:Believe whatever you wish; that is *your* right to have
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 02:33:02 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 21:51:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>wrote:Of course it's personal and subjective; I can only speak for >>>>>>>myself, which I did. And FWIW, I don't even killfile all
Killfiles are Your Friends (TM). Both Glenn and JTEM are in >>>>>>>>>mine, although Peter is not.
Your comment above shows it's a matter of personal and subjective >>>>>>>>opinion of who is and is not a troll, and so NOT something to advocate >>>>>>>>as froup policy.
trolls, just the ones I consider not worth any of my time at
all, not even the time to read the name of the author.
When you name specific posters, as you do above, as you have done >>>>>>regularly in the past, the implication is others should killfile them also,
to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to >>>>>>see. If others continued to reply, then you would still see those >>>>>>replies, to tempt you to reply to their replies, as you do above, as >>>>>>you have done regularly in the past.
subjective opinions.
addressed]
Incorrect. I snipped nothing. It's trivially easy to prove it for >>yourself. Are you incapable of supporting your opinion without
resorting to obvious misrepresentations?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Believe whatever you wish; that is *your* right to have
subjective opinions.
Thank you for your opinion. >---------------------------------------------------------------------
also, to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to
see. If others continued to reply, then you would still see those
replies, to tempt you to reply to their replies, as you do above, as
you have done regularly in the past.
The part which begins "also, to more" is the part you
snipped,(or at least, it isn't in the above; maybe the
gremlins ate it...)
*************************************When you name specific posters, as you do above, as you have doneBelieve whatever you wish; that is *your* right to have
regularly in the past, the implication is others should killfile them also, >>to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to
see. If others continued to reply, then you would still see those
replies, to tempt you to reply to their replies, as you do above, as
you have done regularly in the past.
subjective opinions.
Thank you for your opinion.
And since you apparently accept the rest of my response, I
believe this issue is closed.
The last, of course. I "explicitly* encouraged nothing; IThank you for your opinion.
What do you think is my subjective opinion above? That you named >>>>specific posters, above and in the past? If so, do you deny your own >>>>words in the quoted text? Or do you deny that "Killfiles are your >>>>friend (TM)" doesn't *explicitly* encourage other posters to use >>>>killfiles?
simply noted what my solution for that particular problem
is.
But even if I did so "encourage" their use, killfiles are
there for a reason, many people use them, and the fact that
you are opposed to them doesn't mean your reasons for doing
so are valid, since at bottom they're simply your
(subjective) preference.
Of course not; I've even said so.
Or do you deny that by naming specific posters, you encourage others
to killfile them? If so, do you deny that your killfile acting alone >>>>doesn't prevent you from seeing replies from other posters to those >>>>posters you named?
That would be nice.
Do you deny that as more posters follow your
lead, you would see fewer replies to those posters you named?
Simply as a reminder; no one is obligated to follow my
If you deny any of the above, then what other purpose do you have for >>>>regularly posting "Killfiles are your friend (TM)" coupled with naming >>>>other posters you think are trolls, as you do above, as you have done >>>>in the past?
preferences, just as no one is obligated to follow yours.
My words are objectively reported; your interpretation of
If you have no other purpose, then my expressed opinion is a reasoned >>>>and reasonable interpretation objectively based on your oft-posted >>>>words.
their effect on others is subjective. But as I said, that's
no problem for me, since I don't share that interpretation.
Bottom line: I think killfiles serve a useful purpose, and I
don't think that ignoring idiots is a Bad Thing (TM). You
disagree, and feel that not answering every idiotic
pronouncement validates those pronouncements. Sobeit.
On Wed, 08 Mar 2023 05:05:06 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Tue, 07 Mar 2023 09:20:55 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>It certainly is. The exchange from my previous post:
wrote:
On Tue, 07 Mar 2023 05:41:26 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 10:52:21 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>>wrote:[unmarked snippage here, which the following comment
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 07:46:52 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 09:01:36 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>>>>wrote:Believe whatever you wish; that is *your* right to have
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 02:33:02 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 21:51:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>wrote:Of course it's personal and subjective; I can only speak for >>>>>>>myself, which I did. And FWIW, I don't even killfile all
Killfiles are Your Friends (TM). Both Glenn and JTEM are in >>>>>>>>>mine, although Peter is not.
Your comment above shows it's a matter of personal and subjective >>>>>>>>opinion of who is and is not a troll, and so NOT something to advocate >>>>>>>>as froup policy.
trolls, just the ones I consider not worth any of my time at
all, not even the time to read the name of the author.
When you name specific posters, as you do above, as you have done >>>>>>regularly in the past, the implication is others should killfile them also,
to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to >>>>>>see. If others continued to reply, then you would still see those >>>>>>replies, to tempt you to reply to their replies, as you do above, as >>>>>>you have done regularly in the past.
subjective opinions.
addressed]
Incorrect. I snipped nothing. It's trivially easy to prove it for >>yourself. Are you incapable of supporting your opinion without
resorting to obvious misrepresentations?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Believe whatever you wish; that is *your* right to have
subjective opinions.
Thank you for your opinion. >---------------------------------------------------------------------
also, to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to
see. If others continued to reply, then you would still see those
replies, to tempt you to reply to their replies, as you do above, as
you have done regularly in the past.
The part which begins "also, to more" is the part you
snipped,(or at least, it isn't in the above; maybe the
gremlins ate it...)
When you name specific posters, as you do above, as you have done >>>>>>regularly in the past, the implication is others should killfile them also,Believe whatever you wish; that is *your* right to have
subjective opinions.
to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to >>>>>>see. If others continued to reply, then you would still see those >>>>>>replies, to tempt you to reply to their replies, as you do above, as >>>>>>you have done regularly in the past.Thank you for your opinion.
On Wed, 08 Mar 2023 12:51:44 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <[email protected]>:
On Wed, 08 Mar 2023 05:05:06 -0500, the following appearedOK, I went back and checked, and you are correct.
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Tue, 07 Mar 2023 09:20:55 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>It certainly is. The exchange from my previous post:
wrote:
On Tue, 07 Mar 2023 05:41:26 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 10:52:21 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>>>wrote:[unmarked snippage here, which the following comment
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 07:46:52 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 09:01:36 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>>>>>wrote:Believe whatever you wish; that is *your* right to have
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 02:33:02 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 21:51:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>wrote:Of course it's personal and subjective; I can only speak for >>>>>>>>myself, which I did. And FWIW, I don't even killfile all >>>>>>>>trolls, just the ones I consider not worth any of my time at >>>>>>>>all, not even the time to read the name of the author.
Killfiles are Your Friends (TM). Both Glenn and JTEM are in >>>>>>>>>>mine, although Peter is not.
Your comment above shows it's a matter of personal and subjective >>>>>>>>>opinion of who is and is not a troll, and so NOT something to advocate >>>>>>>>>as froup policy.
When you name specific posters, as you do above, as you have done >>>>>>>regularly in the past, the implication is others should killfile them also,
to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to >>>>>>>see. If others continued to reply, then you would still see those >>>>>>>replies, to tempt you to reply to their replies, as you do above, as >>>>>>>you have done regularly in the past.
subjective opinions.
addressed]
Incorrect. I snipped nothing. It's trivially easy to prove it for >>>yourself. Are you incapable of supporting your opinion without >>>resorting to obvious misrepresentations?
-------------------------------------------------------------------- >>Believe whatever you wish; that is *your* right to have
subjective opinions.
Thank you for your opinion. >>---------------------------------------------------------------------
also, to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to >>>see. If others continued to reply, then you would still see those >>>replies, to tempt you to reply to their replies, as you do above, as
you have done regularly in the past.
The part which begins "also, to more" is the part you
snipped,(or at least, it isn't in the above; maybe the
gremlins ate it...)
From the above, I intended to split your comment and respond
to each part separately, as shown here:
One more time, look at my reply to your previous post: >>*************************************
*************************************When you name specific posters, as you do above, as you have done >>>>regularly in the past, the implication is others should killfile them also,Believe whatever you wish; that is *your* right to have
to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to
see. If others continued to reply, then you would still see those >>>>replies, to tempt you to reply to their replies, as you do above, as >>>>you have done regularly in the past.
subjective opinions.
Thank you for your opinion.
The entire part you falsely claim I deleted is still there, as are
your comments to it, in all their glory. I deleted *nothing* in that
post.
Feel free to ignore this correction also. That's what trolls do. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Somehow I screwed it up and left everything in your post as
it was, with both my comments following. Mea culpa.
On Wed, 08 Mar 2023 15:09:54 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 08 Mar 2023 12:51:44 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <[email protected]>:
On Wed, 08 Mar 2023 05:05:06 -0500, the following appearedOK, I went back and checked, and you are correct.
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Tue, 07 Mar 2023 09:20:55 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>>wrote:It certainly is. The exchange from my previous post:
On Tue, 07 Mar 2023 05:41:26 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 10:52:21 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>>>>wrote:[unmarked snippage here, which the following comment
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 07:46:52 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 09:01:36 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>wrote:Believe whatever you wish; that is *your* right to have >>>>>>>subjective opinions.
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 02:33:02 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 21:51:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:Of course it's personal and subjective; I can only speak for >>>>>>>>>myself, which I did. And FWIW, I don't even killfile all >>>>>>>>>trolls, just the ones I consider not worth any of my time at >>>>>>>>>all, not even the time to read the name of the author.
Killfiles are Your Friends (TM). Both Glenn and JTEM are in >>>>>>>>>>>mine, although Peter is not.
Your comment above shows it's a matter of personal and subjective >>>>>>>>>>opinion of who is and is not a troll, and so NOT something to advocate
as froup policy.
When you name specific posters, as you do above, as you have done >>>>>>>>regularly in the past, the implication is others should killfile them also,
to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to >>>>>>>>see. If others continued to reply, then you would still see those >>>>>>>>replies, to tempt you to reply to their replies, as you do above, as >>>>>>>>you have done regularly in the past.
addressed]
Incorrect. I snipped nothing. It's trivially easy to prove it for >>>>yourself. Are you incapable of supporting your opinion without >>>>resorting to obvious misrepresentations?
-------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>Believe whatever you wish; that is *your* right to have
subjective opinions.
Thank you for your opinion. >>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
also, to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to >>>>see. If others continued to reply, then you would still see those >>>>replies, to tempt you to reply to their replies, as you do above, as >>>>you have done regularly in the past.
The part which begins "also, to more" is the part you
snipped,(or at least, it isn't in the above; maybe the
gremlins ate it...)
From the above, I intended to split your comment and respond
to each part separately, as shown here:
No need to spam your comments; the copy above proves your
misrepresentation is factually incorrect, as my reply below shows:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
One more time, look at my reply to your previous post: >>>*************************************
*************************************When you name specific posters, as you do above, as you have done >>>>>regularly in the past, the implication is others should killfile them also,Believe whatever you wish; that is *your* right to have
to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to
see. If others continued to reply, then you would still see those >>>>>replies, to tempt you to reply to their replies, as you do above, as >>>>>you have done regularly in the past.
subjective opinions.
Thank you for your opinion.
The entire part you falsely claim I deleted is still there, as are
your comments to it, in all their glory. I deleted *nothing* in that >>>post.
Feel free to ignore this correction also. That's what trolls do. >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As I predicted, you conveniently ignore the above correction. Quelle >surprise.
Somehow I screwed it up and left everything in your post as
it was, with both my comments following. Mea culpa.
You did exactly as you described above, which obfuscated my comments.
And I removed your obfuscation by restoring the original format of my >comments. Don't like that I removed your obfuscation of your
comments? Then don't obfuscate my comments. Not sure how even you
can't figure that out.
In summary:
Your injected reference to killfiles in this thread was a "worthless
wastes of time".
Your false claim that I did an unmarked snip above was a "worthless
wastes of time".
Your false claim that I object to killfiles was a "worthless wastes of
time".
Your false claim that my understanding of your comments is a
subjective and personal belief was a "worthless wastes of time".
That you blame me for your trolling behavior was a "worthless
wastes of time".
Feel free to continue to "wastes time" parodying yourself.
On Wed, 08 Mar 2023 18:03:19 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Wed, 08 Mar 2023 15:09:54 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>Thank you for graciously accepting my apology, and my
wrote:
On Wed, 08 Mar 2023 12:51:44 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <[email protected]>:
On Wed, 08 Mar 2023 05:05:06 -0500, the following appearedOK, I went back and checked, and you are correct.
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Tue, 07 Mar 2023 09:20:55 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>>>wrote:It certainly is. The exchange from my previous post:
On Tue, 07 Mar 2023 05:41:26 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 10:52:21 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>>>>>wrote:[unmarked snippage here, which the following comment
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 07:46:52 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 09:01:36 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>wrote:Believe whatever you wish; that is *your* right to have >>>>>>>>subjective opinions.
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 02:33:02 -0500, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 21:51:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>wrote:Of course it's personal and subjective; I can only speak for >>>>>>>>>>myself, which I did. And FWIW, I don't even killfile all >>>>>>>>>>trolls, just the ones I consider not worth any of my time at >>>>>>>>>>all, not even the time to read the name of the author.
Killfiles are Your Friends (TM). Both Glenn and JTEM are in >>>>>>>>>>>>mine, although Peter is not.
Your comment above shows it's a matter of personal and subjective >>>>>>>>>>>opinion of who is and is not a troll, and so NOT something to advocate
as froup policy.
When you name specific posters, as you do above, as you have done >>>>>>>>>regularly in the past, the implication is others should killfile them also,
to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to >>>>>>>>>see. If others continued to reply, then you would still see those >>>>>>>>>replies, to tempt you to reply to their replies, as you do above, as >>>>>>>>>you have done regularly in the past.
addressed]
Incorrect. I snipped nothing. It's trivially easy to prove it for >>>>>yourself. Are you incapable of supporting your opinion without >>>>>resorting to obvious misrepresentations?
-------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>Believe whatever you wish; that is *your* right to have
subjective opinions.
Thank you for your opinion. >>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
also, to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to >>>>>see. If others continued to reply, then you would still see those >>>>>replies, to tempt you to reply to their replies, as you do above, as >>>>>you have done regularly in the past.
The part which begins "also, to more" is the part you
snipped,(or at least, it isn't in the above; maybe the
gremlins ate it...)
From the above, I intended to split your comment and respond
to each part separately, as shown here:
No need to spam your comments; the copy above proves your
misrepresentation is factually incorrect, as my reply below shows:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
One more time, look at my reply to your previous post: >>>>*************************************
*************************************When you name specific posters, as you do above, as you have done >>>>>>regularly in the past, the implication is others should killfile them also,Believe whatever you wish; that is *your* right to have
to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to >>>>>>see. If others continued to reply, then you would still see those >>>>>>replies, to tempt you to reply to their replies, as you do above, as >>>>>>you have done regularly in the past.
subjective opinions.
Thank you for your opinion.
The entire part you falsely claim I deleted is still there, as are
your comments to it, in all their glory. I deleted *nothing* in that >>>>post.
Feel free to ignore this correction also. That's what trolls do. >>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As I predicted, you conveniently ignored the above correction. Quelle >>surprise.
Somehow I screwed it up and left everything in your post as
it was, with both my comments following. Mea culpa.
You did exactly as you described above, which obfuscated my comments.
And I removed your obfuscation by restoring the original format of my >>comments. Don't like that I removed your obfuscation of my
comments? Then don't obfuscate my comments. Not sure how even you
can't figure that out.
In summary:
Your injected reference to killfiles in this thread was a "worthless
wastes of time".
Your false claim that I did an unmarked snip above was a "worthless
wastes of time".
Your false claim that I object to killfiles was a "worthless wastes of >>time".
Your false claim that my understanding of your comments is a
subjective and personal belief was a "worthless wastes of time".
That you blame me for your trolling behavior was a "worthless
wastes of time".
Feel free to continue to "wastes time" parodying yourself.
acceptance of culpability in this instance.
On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 07:31:46 -0800 (PST), Öö Tiib <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 March 2023 at 14:10:21 UTC+2, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 03:12:57 -0800 (PST), Öö Tiib <[email protected]>I did neither say nor think that your interpretation suggests that others >opinions can't be different.
wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 March 2023 at 12:20:21 UTC+2, jillery wrote:I understood your opinion. How do you think my interpretation
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 05:57:32 -0800 (PST), Öö Tiib <[email protected]>My opinion is that your interpretation of Bob's post was unreasonable. >>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 March 2023 at 12:45:20 UTC+2, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 10:52:21 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >> >> >> wrote:Opinions can be different. I (for example) saw it so:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 07:46:52 -0500, the following appearedWhat do you think is my subjective opinion above? That you named
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 09:01:36 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>Believe whatever you wish; that is *your* right to have
wrote:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 02:33:02 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 21:51:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>Of course it's personal and subjective; I can only speak for
wrote:
Killfiles are Your Friends (TM). Both Glenn and JTEM are in
mine, although Peter is not.
Your comment above shows it's a matter of personal and subjective
opinion of who is and is not a troll, and so NOT something to advocate
as froup policy.
myself, which I did. And FWIW, I don't even killfile all
trolls, just the ones I consider not worth any of my time at
all, not even the time to read the name of the author.
When you name specific posters, as you do above, as you have done >> >> >> >>regularly in the past, the implication is others should killfile them also,
to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to >> >> >> >>see. If others continued to reply, then you would still see those >> >> >> >>replies, to tempt you to reply to their replies, as you do above, as
you have done regularly in the past.
subjective opinions.
Thank you for your opinion.
specific posters, above and in the past? If so, do you deny your own
words in the quoted text? Or do you deny that "Killfiles are your >> >> >> friend (TM)" doesn't *explicitly* encourage other posters to use
killfiles?
Where and/or how did I even suggest otherwise?
suggests I think other's opinions can't be different?
So "opinions can be different" was just a mindless truism aka
pointless noise? Got it.
Yes, please demonstrate facts.I can't demonstrate relations of Bob's opinions with anything as thoseYour comments below misrepresent what I posted.Show where I skewed, misstated or lied about what you posted. Or what
you mean by "misrepresent"? I only posted my opinion.
You say you believe I took Casanova's comments out of context, but
your belief is factually incorrect aka a misrepresentation.
Despite Casanova's claim to the contrary, I snipped nothing of his
post in my reply. Unlike Casanova, I based my expressed comments
entirely on his expressed comments.
OTOH Casanova's paraphrase of my expressed comments misrepresent what
I actually wrote, and his paraphrase of my opinion is factually
incorrect and a baseless creation of his imagination.
And since you press the point, Casanova's advocacy of killfiles has
nothing to do with anything Erik previously mentioned in this topic.
To the contrary, it's something Casanova spontaneously injected into
this thread. I challenge you to demonstrate to the contrary.
are in his mind. I can only demonstrate facts that happened:
...
Erik to Bob: "Ah! Thank you. I find it easier and easier not to
feed JTEM. When and/if Peter and/or Glenn reappear, I will try hard
to hold my peace with them as well."
Bob to Erik: "Killfiles are Your Friends (TM). Both Glenn and
JTEM are in mine, although Peter is not."
You then took Bob's words only, erased all context
Once again, I erased no context. Erik's previous comments don't
inform Casanova's phrase "Killfiles are your friends (TM)". This
quoted phrase the *only* context relevant to my point.
Worse, you don't even try to "demonstrate" how you, Öö Tiib, think
Erik's previous comments applies to my point. I corrected you before
about this. Now you're just trolling.
and said thoseYour "ultimate" misrepresentation aside, you refer to my reasoned and reasonable conclusion based on Casanova's oft-expressed words to
were meant as separate suggestion of ultimate "froup policy".
advocate that others use killfiles against expressly named posters but
not others. At most, you arguing against me expressing my opinion. Apparently that's something you allow yourself and others but not me.
I'm used to that, too.
Again I can not demonstrate what motivated you as thoseYou don't even try to demonstrate any reasons within *your* mind.
reasons are within your mind.
Bob Casanova told (using strange acronyms) to Robert Carnegie
and Athel Cornish-Bowden that they have been trolled by JTEM's
joke/sarcasm/ troll/whatever. Then Erik Simpson asked for clarification,
and when clarity was achieved then thanked, and mentioned specific
postersthat he has had difficulty of "keeping peace" with. After that >> >> >Bob suggested to use killfiles and mentioned that two of said
(by Erik) posters are in his killfile but third is not.
Or do you deny that by naming specific posters, you encourage othersBob simply replied staying strictly and narrowly in points that Erik >> >> >raised. That is more reasonable interpretation (for me). Your
to killfile them? If so, do you deny that your killfile acting alone
doesn't prevent you from seeing replies from other posters to those >> >> >> posters you named? Do you deny that as more posters follow your
lead, you would see fewer replies to those posters you named?
If you deny any of the above, then what other purpose do you have for
regularly posting "Killfiles are your friend (TM)" coupled with naming
other posters you think are trolls, as you do above, as you have done
in the past?
If you have no other purpose, then my expressed opinion is a reasoned
and reasonable interpretation objectively based on your oft-posted >> >> >> words.
interpretation takes Bob's post out of context, but YMMV.
You're doing a good job of demonstrating that I'm the only adult
posting to this topic. Stop before you destroy what remaining
credibility you have. Or is it your intent to spam this nonsense
until others blame me for it? That's another common troll tactic.
On Wednesday, 8 March 2023 at 21:35:22 UTC+2, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 07:31:46 -0800 (PST), Öö Tiib <[email protected]>Bob agreed that it is his personal opinion that killfiles are helpful tool >and did nowhere say that not using the tool (like I and Erik do) is wrong.
wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 March 2023 at 14:10:21 UTC+2, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 03:12:57 -0800 (PST), Öö Tiib <[email protected]>I did neither say nor think that your interpretation suggests that others >> >opinions can't be different.
wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 March 2023 at 12:20:21 UTC+2, jillery wrote:I understood your opinion. How do you think my interpretation
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 05:57:32 -0800 (PST), Öö Tiib <[email protected]>My opinion is that your interpretation of Bob's post was unreasonable. >> >>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 March 2023 at 12:45:20 UTC+2, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 10:52:21 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> wrote:Opinions can be different. I (for example) saw it so:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 07:46:52 -0500, the following appearedWhat do you think is my subjective opinion above? That you named >> >> >> >> specific posters, above and in the past? If so, do you deny your own
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 09:01:36 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>Believe whatever you wish; that is *your* right to have
wrote:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 02:33:02 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 21:51:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>Of course it's personal and subjective; I can only speak for
wrote:
Killfiles are Your Friends (TM). Both Glenn and JTEM are in >> >> >> >> >>>>>mine, although Peter is not.
Your comment above shows it's a matter of personal and subjective
opinion of who is and is not a troll, and so NOT something to advocate
as froup policy.
myself, which I did. And FWIW, I don't even killfile all
trolls, just the ones I consider not worth any of my time at
all, not even the time to read the name of the author.
When you name specific posters, as you do above, as you have done
regularly in the past, the implication is others should killfile them also,
to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to >> >> >> >> >>see. If others continued to reply, then you would still see those
replies, to tempt you to reply to their replies, as you do above, as
you have done regularly in the past.
subjective opinions.
Thank you for your opinion.
words in the quoted text? Or do you deny that "Killfiles are your >> >> >> >> friend (TM)" doesn't *explicitly* encourage other posters to use >> >> >> >> killfiles?
Where and/or how did I even suggest otherwise?
suggests I think other's opinions can't be different?
So "opinions can be different" was just a mindless truism aka
pointless noise? Got it.
So I did not feel that saying that people can have different perfectly
valid opinions about same thing is mindless noise.
On Wed, 08 Mar 2023 17:37:46 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 08 Mar 2023 18:03:19 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Wed, 08 Mar 2023 15:09:54 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>Thank you for graciously accepting my apology, and my
wrote:
On Wed, 08 Mar 2023 12:51:44 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <[email protected]>:
On Wed, 08 Mar 2023 05:05:06 -0500, the following appearedOK, I went back and checked, and you are correct.
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Tue, 07 Mar 2023 09:20:55 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>>>>wrote:It certainly is. The exchange from my previous post:
On Tue, 07 Mar 2023 05:41:26 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 10:52:21 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>wrote:[unmarked snippage here, which the following comment
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 07:46:52 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 09:01:36 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:Believe whatever you wish; that is *your* right to have >>>>>>>>>subjective opinions.
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 02:33:02 -0500, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 21:51:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:Of course it's personal and subjective; I can only speak for >>>>>>>>>>>myself, which I did. And FWIW, I don't even killfile all >>>>>>>>>>>trolls, just the ones I consider not worth any of my time at >>>>>>>>>>>all, not even the time to read the name of the author.
Killfiles are Your Friends (TM). Both Glenn and JTEM are in >>>>>>>>>>>>>mine, although Peter is not.
Your comment above shows it's a matter of personal and subjective >>>>>>>>>>>>opinion of who is and is not a troll, and so NOT something to advocate
as froup policy.
When you name specific posters, as you do above, as you have done >>>>>>>>>>regularly in the past, the implication is others should killfile them also,
to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to >>>>>>>>>>see. If others continued to reply, then you would still see those >>>>>>>>>>replies, to tempt you to reply to their replies, as you do above, as >>>>>>>>>>you have done regularly in the past.
addressed]
Incorrect. I snipped nothing. It's trivially easy to prove it for >>>>>>yourself. Are you incapable of supporting your opinion without >>>>>>resorting to obvious misrepresentations?
-------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>Believe whatever you wish; that is *your* right to have
subjective opinions.
Thank you for your opinion. >>>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>
also, to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to >>>>>>see. If others continued to reply, then you would still see those >>>>>>replies, to tempt you to reply to their replies, as you do above, as >>>>>>you have done regularly in the past.
The part which begins "also, to more" is the part you
snipped,(or at least, it isn't in the above; maybe the
gremlins ate it...)
From the above, I intended to split your comment and respond
to each part separately, as shown here:
No need to spam your comments; the copy above proves your >>>misrepresentation is factually incorrect, as my reply below shows:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
One more time, look at my reply to your previous post: >>>>>*************************************
*************************************When you name specific posters, as you do above, as you have done >>>>>>>regularly in the past, the implication is others should killfile them also,Believe whatever you wish; that is *your* right to have
to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to >>>>>>>see. If others continued to reply, then you would still see those >>>>>>>replies, to tempt you to reply to their replies, as you do above, as >>>>>>>you have done regularly in the past.
subjective opinions.
Thank you for your opinion.
The entire part you falsely claim I deleted is still there, as are >>>>>your comments to it, in all their glory. I deleted *nothing* in that >>>>>post.
Feel free to ignore this correction also. That's what trolls do. >>>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As I predicted, you conveniently ignored the above correction. Quelle >>>surprise.
Somehow I screwed it up and left everything in your post as
it was, with both my comments following. Mea culpa.
You did exactly as you described above, which obfuscated my comments.
And I removed your obfuscation by restoring the original format of my >>>comments. Don't like that I removed your obfuscation of my
comments? Then don't obfuscate my comments. Not sure how even you
can't figure that out.
In summary:
Your injected reference to killfiles in this thread was a "worthless >>>wastes of time".
Your false claim that I did an unmarked snip above was a "worthless >>>wastes of time".
Your false claim that I object to killfiles was a "worthless wastes of >>>time".
Your false claim that my understanding of your comments is a
subjective and personal belief was a "worthless wastes of time".
That you blame me for your trolling behavior was a "worthless
wastes of time".
Feel free to continue to "wastes time" parodying yourself.
acceptance of culpability in this instance.
You're welcome. Considering the other things for which you didn't
apologize or accept culpability, it's the best I could do.
On Thu, 9 Mar 2023 00:53:29 -0800 (PST), Öö Tiib <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 March 2023 at 21:35:22 UTC+2, jillery wrote:Except that no one, including myself, disagreed with that opinion.
On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 07:31:46 -0800 (PST), Öö Tiib <[email protected]>Bob agreed that it is his personal opinion that killfiles are helpful tool >and did nowhere say that not using the tool (like I and Erik do) is wrong. >So I did not feel that saying that people can have different perfectly >valid opinions about same thing is mindless noise.
wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 March 2023 at 14:10:21 UTC+2, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 03:12:57 -0800 (PST), Öö Tiib <[email protected]>I did neither say nor think that your interpretation suggests that others
wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 March 2023 at 12:20:21 UTC+2, jillery wrote:
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 05:57:32 -0800 (PST), Öö Tiib <[email protected]> >> >> >> wrote:My opinion is that your interpretation of Bob's post was unreasonable.
On Tuesday, 7 March 2023 at 12:45:20 UTC+2, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 10:52:21 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>Opinions can be different. I (for example) saw it so:
wrote:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 07:46:52 -0500, the following appearedWhat do you think is my subjective opinion above? That you named >> >> >> >> specific posters, above and in the past? If so, do you deny your own
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 09:01:36 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>Believe whatever you wish; that is *your* right to have
wrote:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 02:33:02 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 21:51:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>Of course it's personal and subjective; I can only speak for >> >> >> >> >>>myself, which I did. And FWIW, I don't even killfile all
wrote:
Killfiles are Your Friends (TM). Both Glenn and JTEM are in >> >> >> >> >>>>>mine, although Peter is not.
Your comment above shows it's a matter of personal and subjective
opinion of who is and is not a troll, and so NOT something to advocate
as froup policy.
trolls, just the ones I consider not worth any of my time at >> >> >> >> >>>all, not even the time to read the name of the author.
When you name specific posters, as you do above, as you have done
regularly in the past, the implication is others should killfile them also,
to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to
see. If others continued to reply, then you would still see those
replies, to tempt you to reply to their replies, as you do above, as
you have done regularly in the past.
subjective opinions.
Thank you for your opinion.
words in the quoted text? Or do you deny that "Killfiles are your
friend (TM)" doesn't *explicitly* encourage other posters to use >> >> >> >> killfiles?
Where and/or how did I even suggest otherwise?
I understood your opinion. How do you think my interpretation
suggests I think other's opinions can't be different?
opinions can't be different.
So "opinions can be different" was just a mindless truism aka
pointless noise? Got it.
This is why your comment is pointless noise.
Once again you troll a factually incorrect Casanova claim. I have
*zero* objection to people using killfiles. I have used them myself,
both virtually as Erik mentions and in fact as Casanova mentions.
Instead, my point in this thread is about Casanova's repeated advocacy
of using killfiles. There's a difference. Not sure how even you
*still* don't understand this.
I acknowledge that noting your pointless noise hurts your feelings. As
a constructive suggestion, consider stop trolling your pointless
noise. Until then:
I used to
Killfiles serve me. Currently, I only have
On Thu, 09 Mar 2023 02:00:08 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
Since I have no culpability, other than in your subjectiveIn summary:Thank you for graciously accepting my apology, and my
Your injected reference to killfiles in this thread was a "worthless >>>>wastes of time".
Your false claim that I did an unmarked snip above was a "worthless >>>>wastes of time".
Your false claim that I object to killfiles was a "worthless wastes of >>>>time".
Your false claim that my understanding of your comments is a
subjective and personal belief was a "worthless wastes of time".
That you blame me for your trolling behavior was a "worthless
wastes of time".
Feel free to continue to "wastes time" parodying yourself.
acceptance of culpability in this instance.
You're welcome. Considering the other things for which you didn't >>apologize or accept culpability, it's the best I could do.
opinion, for anything else I wrote in this thread, that
seems fair.
On Thursday, 9 March 2023 at 17:40:23 UTC+2, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 9 Mar 2023 00:53:29 -0800 (PST), Öö Tiib <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 March 2023 at 21:35:22 UTC+2, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 07:31:46 -0800 (PST), Öö Tiib <[email protected]>Bob agreed that it is his personal opinion that killfiles are helpful tool >> >and did nowhere say that not using the tool (like I and Erik do) is wrong. >> >So I did not feel that saying that people can have different perfectly
wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 March 2023 at 14:10:21 UTC+2, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 03:12:57 -0800 (PST), Öö Tiib <[email protected]>I did neither say nor think that your interpretation suggests that others
wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 March 2023 at 12:20:21 UTC+2, jillery wrote:
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 05:57:32 -0800 (PST), Öö Tiib <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> wrote:My opinion is that your interpretation of Bob's post was unreasonable.
On Tuesday, 7 March 2023 at 12:45:20 UTC+2, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 10:52:21 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>Opinions can be different. I (for example) saw it so:
wrote:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 07:46:52 -0500, the following appearedWhat do you think is my subjective opinion above? That you named
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 09:01:36 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>Believe whatever you wish; that is *your* right to have
wrote:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 02:33:02 -0500, the following appeared >> >> >> >> >> >>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 21:51:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>Of course it's personal and subjective; I can only speak for >> >> >> >> >> >>>myself, which I did. And FWIW, I don't even killfile all
wrote:
Killfiles are Your Friends (TM). Both Glenn and JTEM are in
mine, although Peter is not.
Your comment above shows it's a matter of personal and subjective
opinion of who is and is not a troll, and so NOT something to advocate
as froup policy.
trolls, just the ones I consider not worth any of my time at >> >> >> >> >> >>>all, not even the time to read the name of the author.
When you name specific posters, as you do above, as you have done
regularly in the past, the implication is others should killfile them also,
to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to
see. If others continued to reply, then you would still see those
replies, to tempt you to reply to their replies, as you do above, as
you have done regularly in the past.
subjective opinions.
Thank you for your opinion.
specific posters, above and in the past? If so, do you deny your own
words in the quoted text? Or do you deny that "Killfiles are your
friend (TM)" doesn't *explicitly* encourage other posters to use
killfiles?
Where and/or how did I even suggest otherwise?
I understood your opinion. How do you think my interpretation
suggests I think other's opinions can't be different?
opinions can't be different.
So "opinions can be different" was just a mindless truism aka
pointless noise? Got it.
valid opinions about same thing is mindless noise.
Except that no one, including myself, disagreed with that opinion.So writing true sentence with what no one disagrees in text was
This is why your comment is pointless noise.
Once again you troll a factually incorrect Casanova claim. I have
*zero* objection to people using killfiles. I have used them myself,
both virtually as Erik mentions and in fact as Casanova mentions.
Instead, my point in this thread is about Casanova's repeated advocacy
of using killfiles. There's a difference. Not sure how even you
*still* don't understand this.
I acknowledge that noting your pointless noise hurts your feelings. As
a constructive suggestion, consider stop trolling your pointless
noise. Until then:
horrible troll and offense. That is literally ridiculous. :)
On Thursday, 9 March 2023 at 17:40:23 UTC+2, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 9 Mar 2023 00:53:29 -0800 (PST), �� Tiib <[email protected]>horrible troll and offense. That is literally ridiculous. :)
wrote:>> >On Wednesday, 8 March 2023 at 21:35:22 UTC+2, jillery wrote:>
wrote:> >>> >> >On Wednesday, 8 March 2023 at 14:10:21 UTC+2, jilleryOn Wed, 8 Mar 2023 07:31:46 -0800 (PST), �� Tiib <[email protected]>> >>
wrote:> >> >> On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 03:12:57 -0800 (PST), �� Tiib
<[email protected]>> >> >> wrote:> >> >>> >> >> >On Wednesday, 8 March 2023
at 12:20:21 UTC+2, jillery wrote:> >> >> >> On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 05:57:32
-0800 (PST), �� Tiib <[email protected]>> >> >> >> wrote:> >> >> >> >On
Tuesday, 7 March 2023 at 12:45:20 UTC+2, jillery wrote:> >> >> >> >> On
Mon, 06 Mar 2023 10:52:21 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>> >> >>
-0500, the following appeared> >> >> >> >> >in talk.origins, posted bywrote:> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 07:46:52
jillery <[email protected]>:> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>On Sun, 05
Mar 2023 09:01:36 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>> >> >> >> >>
-0500, the following appeared> >> >> >> >> >>>in talk.origins, postedwrote:> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>>On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 02:33:02
by jillery <[email protected]>:> >> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>On
Sat, 04 Mar 2023 21:51:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>> >> >>
Friends (TM). Both Glenn and JTEM are in> >> >> >> >> >>>>>mine,wrote:> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>Killfiles are Your
although Peter is not.> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>Your comment
above shows it's a matter of personal and subjective> >> >> >> >>
advocate> >> >> >> >> >>>>as froup policy.> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>opinion of who is and is not a troll, and so NOT something to
time at> >> >> >> >> >>>all, not even the time to read the name of theOf course it's personal and subjective; I can only speak for> >>
myself, which I did. And FWIW, I don't even killfile all>
trolls, just the ones I consider not worth any of my
author.> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>When you name
specific posters, as you do above, as you have done> >> >> >> >>
also,> >> >> >> >> >>to more effectively blind you from seeing what youregularly in the past, the implication is others should killfile them
don't want to> >> >> >> >> >>see. If others continued to reply, then
you would still see those> >> >> >> >> >>replies, to tempt you to reply
to their replies, as you do above, as> >> >> >> >> >>you have done
regularly in the past.> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >Believe whatever
you wish; that is *your* right to have> >> >> >> >> >subjective
opinions.> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >Thank you for your opinion.> >> >>
your own> >> >> >> >> words in the quoted text? Or do you deny thatWhat do you think is my subjective opinion above? That you named>
specific posters, above and in the past? If so, do you deny
"Killfiles are your> >> >> >> >> friend (TM)" doesn't *explicitly*
encourage other posters to use> >> >> >> >> killfiles?> >> >> >> >>> >>
unreasonable.> >> >>> >> >> I understood your opinion. How do you thinkMy opinion is that your interpretation of Bob's post wasOpinions can be different. I (for example) saw it so:> >> >> >>>
Where and/or how did I even suggest otherwise?> >> >> >>> >>
my interpretation> >> >> suggests I think other's opinions can't be
different?> >> >>> >> >I did neither say nor think that your
interpretation suggests that others> >> >opinions can't be different.>
opinion that killfiles are helpful tool> >and did nowhere say that notpointless noise? Got it.> >>> >Bob agreed that it is his personalSo "opinions can be different" was just a mindless truism aka>
using the tool (like I and Erik do) is wrong.> >So I did not feel that
saying that people can have different perfectly> >valid opinions about
same thing is mindless noise.
Except that no one, including myself, disagreed with that opinion.>
This is why your comment is pointless noise.>> Once again you troll a
factually incorrect Casanova claim. I have> *zero* objection to people
using killfiles. I have used them myself,> both virtually as Erik
mentions and in fact as Casanova mentions.>> Instead, my point in this
thread is about Casanova's repeated advocacy> of using killfiles.
There's a difference. Not sure how even you> *still* don't understand
this.>> I acknowledge that noting your pointless noise hurts your
feelings. As> a constructive suggestion, consider stop trolling your
pointless> noise. Until then:>So writing true sentence with what no one
disagrees in text was
On Thu, 09 Mar 2023 09:18:43 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Thu, 09 Mar 2023 02:00:08 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
Since I have no culpability, other than in your subjectiveIn summary:Thank you for graciously accepting my apology, and my
Your injected reference to killfiles in this thread was a "worthless >>>>>wastes of time".
Your false claim that I did an unmarked snip above was a "worthless >>>>>wastes of time".
Your false claim that I object to killfiles was a "worthless wastes of >>>>>time".
Your false claim that my understanding of your comments is a >>>>>subjective and personal belief was a "worthless wastes of time".
That you blame me for your trolling behavior was a "worthless
wastes of time".
Feel free to continue to "wastes time" parodying yourself.
acceptance of culpability in this instance.
You're welcome. Considering the other things for which you didn't >>>apologize or accept culpability, it's the best I could do.
opinion, for anything else I wrote in this thread, that
seems fair.
So you have no problem with posting strawmen and hijacking topics and
making up facts and blaming me for it? Ok, Karen.
When you name specific posters, as you do above, as you have done
regularly in the past, the implication is others should killfile them
also, to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to
see. If others continued to reply, then you would still see those
replies, to tempt you to reply to their replies, as you do above, as
you have done regularly in the past.
Believe whatever you wish; that is *your* right to have
When you name specific posters, as you do above, as you have done >>>regularly in the past, the implication is others should killfile them also, >>>to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to
see. If others continued to reply, then you would still see those >>>replies, to tempt you to reply to their replies, as you do above, as
you have done regularly in the past.
subjective opinions.
Thank you for your opinion.
On 2023-03-10 04:17:23 +0000, 嘱 Tiib said:
On Thursday, 9 March 2023 at 17:40:23 UTC+2, jillery wrote:When I disappeared from talk.origins a few years ago (on account of a technical problem that I couldn't solve) I had jillery in my killfile.
On Thu, 9 Mar 2023 00:53:29 -0800 (PST), 嘱 Tiib <[email protected]>horrible troll and offense. That is literally ridiculous. :)
wrote:>> >On Wednesday, 8 March 2023 at 21:35:22 UTC+2, jillery wrote:>
wrote:> >> >> On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 03:12:57 -0800 (PST), 嘱 TiibOn Wed, 8 Mar 2023 07:31:46 -0800 (PST), 嘱 Tiib <[email protected]>> >> >> wrote:> >>> >> >On Wednesday, 8 March 2023 at 14:10:21 UTC+2, jillery
<[email protected]>> >> >> wrote:> >> >>> >> >> >On Wednesday, 8 March 2023 >> at 12:20:21 UTC+2, jillery wrote:> >> >> >> On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 05:57:32
-0800 (PST), 嘱 Tiib <[email protected]>> >> >> >> wrote:> >> >> >> >On
Tuesday, 7 March 2023 at 12:45:20 UTC+2, jillery wrote:> >> >> >> >> On >> Mon, 06 Mar 2023 10:52:21 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>> >> >>
-0500, the following appeared> >> >> >> >> >in talk.origins, posted bywrote:> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 07:46:52
jillery <[email protected]>:> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>On Sun, 05
Mar 2023 09:01:36 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>> >> >> >> >>
-0500, the following appeared> >> >> >> >> >>>in talk.origins, postedwrote:> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>>On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 02:33:02
by jillery <[email protected]>:> >> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>On
Sat, 04 Mar 2023 21:51:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>> >> >>
although Peter is not.> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>Your commentwrote:> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>Killfiles are Your >> Friends (TM). Both Glenn and JTEM are in> >> >> >> >> >>>>>mine,
above shows it's a matter of personal and subjective> >> >> >> >>
advocate> >> >> >> >> >>>>as froup policy.> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>opinion of who is and is not a troll, and so NOT something to
time at> >> >> >> >> >>>all, not even the time to read the name of theOf course it's personal and subjective; I can only speak for> >>
myself, which I did. And FWIW, I don't even killfile all>
trolls, just the ones I consider not worth any of my
author.> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>When you name
specific posters, as you do above, as you have done> >> >> >> >>
you would still see those> >> >> >> >> >>replies, to tempt you to reply >> to their replies, as you do above, as> >> >> >> >> >>you have doneregularly in the past, the implication is others should killfile them >> also,> >> >> >> >> >>to more effectively blind you from seeing what you >> don't want to> >> >> >> >> >>see. If others continued to reply, then
regularly in the past.> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >Believe whatever
you wish; that is *your* right to have> >> >> >> >> >subjective
opinions.> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >Thank you for your opinion.> >> >> >> >> >> What do you think is my subjective opinion above? That you named> >> >> >> >> >> specific posters, above and in the past? If so, do you deny >> your own> >> >> >> >> words in the quoted text? Or do you deny that
"Killfiles are your> >> >> >> >> friend (TM)" doesn't *explicitly*
encourage other posters to use> >> >> >> >> killfiles?> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >Opinions can be different. I (for example) saw it so:> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> Where and/or how did I even suggest otherwise?> >> >> >>> >>
unreasonable.> >> >>> >> >> I understood your opinion. How do you think >> my interpretation> >> >> suggests I think other's opinions can't beMy opinion is that your interpretation of Bob's post was
different?> >> >>> >> >I did neither say nor think that your
interpretation suggests that others> >> >opinions can't be different.>
opinion that killfiles are helpful tool> >and did nowhere say that notpointless noise? Got it.> >>> >Bob agreed that it is his personalSo "opinions can be different" was just a mindless truism aka>
using the tool (like I and Erik do) is wrong.> >So I did not feel that
saying that people can have different perfectly> >valid opinions about
same thing is mindless noise.
Except that no one, including myself, disagreed with that opinion.>
This is why your comment is pointless noise.>> Once again you troll a
factually incorrect Casanova claim. I have> *zero* objection to people
using killfiles. I have used them myself,> both virtually as Erik
mentions and in fact as Casanova mentions.>> Instead, my point in this
thread is about Casanova's repeated advocacy> of using killfiles.
There's a difference. Not sure how even you> *still* don't understand
this.>> I acknowledge that noting your pointless noise hurts your
feelings. As> a constructive suggestion, consider stop trolling your
pointless> noise. Until then:>So writing true sentence with what no one >> disagrees in text was
I don't remember why, and when I came back to life I reversed that
policy. Probably it had to do with these constant attacks on everyone
else. I think the time may have come to again stop reading jillery's
posts for a while.
--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.
On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 12:35:23?AM UTC-8, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-03-10 04:17:23 +0000, ? Tiib said:
When I disappeared from talk.origins a few years ago (on account of aAs you see, jillery has two modes: triggered and not(yet)-triggered. Once triggered
technical problem that I couldn't solve) I had jillery in my killfile.
I don't remember why, and when I came back to life I reversed that
policy. Probably it had to do with these constant attacks on everyone
else. I think the time may have come to again stop reading jillery's
posts for a while.
posting anything in that thread is sticking your face in the fan. It's over here.
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 02:33:02 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 21:51:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>Of course it's personal and subjective; I can only speak for
wrote:
Killfiles are Your Friends (TM). Both Glenn and JTEM are in
mine, although Peter is not.
Your comment above shows it's a matter of personal and subjective
opinion of who is and is not a troll, and so NOT something to advocate
as froup policy.
myself, which I did. And FWIW, I don't even killfile all
trolls, just the ones I consider not worth any of my time at
all, not even the time to read the name of the author.
On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 02:25:48 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Thu, 09 Mar 2023 09:18:43 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>Your opinions regarding the appropriate inferences to be
wrote:
On Thu, 09 Mar 2023 02:00:08 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
Since I have no culpability, other than in your subjectiveIn summary:Thank you for graciously accepting my apology, and my
Your injected reference to killfiles in this thread was a "worthless >>>>>>wastes of time".
Your false claim that I did an unmarked snip above was a "worthless >>>>>>wastes of time".
Your false claim that I object to killfiles was a "worthless wastes of >>>>>>time".
Your false claim that my understanding of your comments is a >>>>>>subjective and personal belief was a "worthless wastes of time".
That you blame me for your trolling behavior was a "worthless >>>>>>wastes of time".
Feel free to continue to "wastes time" parodying yourself.
acceptance of culpability in this instance.
You're welcome. Considering the other things for which you didn't >>>>apologize or accept culpability, it's the best I could do.
opinion, for anything else I wrote in this thread, that
seems fair.
So you have no problem with posting strawmen and hijacking topics and >>making up facts and blaming me for it? Ok, Karen.
taken from what I posted do not define reality, but please
elucidate exactly where in this thread you imagine I did
those. Thanks.
Oh, and BTW, and at the risk of again being accused of
spamming, I dug a bit further into that issue of snippage,
and discovered that I did indeed post as I intended; the
exchange is here:
So your original post was mysteriously recombined,
and both
parts of my reply now appeared below it, which is why I
thought part of your original reply had been snipped. I
suppose I still owe you an apology for failing to read more
closely, but we all make mistakes.
On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 8:25:20 AM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 05:57:32 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by 嘱 Tiib <[email protected]>:
On Tuesday, 7 March 2023 at 12:45:20 UTC+2, jillery wrote:Thanks for the support. Jillery detests the use of
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 10:52:21 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>Opinions can be different. I (for example) saw it so:
wrote:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 07:46:52 -0500, the following appearedWhat do you think is my subjective opinion above? That you named
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 09:01:36 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote:Believe whatever you wish; that is *your* right to have
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 02:33:02 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 21:51:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote:Of course it's personal and subjective; I can only speak for
Killfiles are Your Friends (TM). Both Glenn and JTEM are in
mine, although Peter is not.
Your comment above shows it's a matter of personal and subjective >>>>>>>> opinion of who is and is not a troll, and so NOT something to advocate >>>>>>>> as froup policy.
myself, which I did. And FWIW, I don't even killfile all
trolls, just the ones I consider not worth any of my time at
all, not even the time to read the name of the author.
When you name specific posters, as you do above, as you have done
regularly in the past, the implication is others should killfile them also,
to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to
see. If others continued to reply, then you would still see those
replies, to tempt you to reply to their replies, as you do above, as >>>>>> you have done regularly in the past.
subjective opinions.
Thank you for your opinion.
specific posters, above and in the past? If so, do you deny your own
words in the quoted text? Or do you deny that "Killfiles are your
friend (TM)" doesn't *explicitly* encourage other posters to use
killfiles?
Bob Casanova told (using strange acronyms) to Robert Carnegie
and Athel Cornish-Bowden that they have been trolled by JTEM's
joke/sarcasm/ troll/whatever. Then Erik Simpson asked for clarification, >>> and when clarity was achieved then thanked, and mentioned specific
postersthat he has had difficulty of "keeping peace" with. After that
Bob suggested to use killfiles and mentioned that two of said
(by Erik) posters are in his killfile but third is not.
Or do you deny that by naming specific posters, you encourage othersBob simply replied staying strictly and narrowly in points that Erik
to killfile them? If so, do you deny that your killfile acting alone
doesn't prevent you from seeing replies from other posters to those
posters you named? Do you deny that as more posters follow your
lead, you would see fewer replies to those posters you named?
If you deny any of the above, then what other purpose do you have for
regularly posting "Killfiles are your friend (TM)" coupled with naming >>>> other posters you think are trolls, as you do above, as you have done
in the past?
If you have no other purpose, then my expressed opinion is a reasoned
and reasonable interpretation objectively based on your oft-posted
words.
raised. That is more reasonable interpretation (for me). Your
interpretation takes Bob's post out of context, but YMMV.
killfiles, as she has made clear now and in the past, for
reasons she believes are valid, an opinion to which she is
fully entitled. I simply disagree.
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
For me, killfiles aren't an option, since I'm not using a newsreader that supports them.
I prefer not having to worry about strange behavior by newsreaders in addtion to strange output from this group itself. The "virtual killfile" of simply skipping over known sources of pure (or nearly pure) nonsense is pretty
easy. I don't have the view that it's necessary to respond to all the BS in the world, or even all the BS that shows up here, but if some warriors find it important, that's OK too.
When I disappeared from talk.origins a few years ago (on account of a technical problem that I couldn't solve) I had jillery in my killfile.
I don't remember why, and when I came back to life I reversed that
policy. Probably it had to do with these constant attacks on everyone
else. I think the time may have come to again stop reading jillery's
posts for a while.
Bob agreed that it is his personal opinion that killfiles are helpful tool and did nowhere say that not using the tool (like I and Erik do) is wrong.
So I did not feel that saying that people can have different perfectly
valid opinions about same thing is mindless noise.
On Thu, 09 Mar 2023 09:18:43 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Thu, 09 Mar 2023 02:00:08 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
Since I have no culpability, other than in your subjectiveIn summary:Thank you for graciously accepting my apology, and my
Your injected reference to killfiles in this thread was a "worthless >>>>> wastes of time".
Your false claim that I did an unmarked snip above was a "worthless
wastes of time".
Your false claim that I object to killfiles was a "worthless wastes of >>>>> time".
Your false claim that my understanding of your comments is a
subjective and personal belief was a "worthless wastes of time".
That you blame me for your trolling behavior was a "worthless
wastes of time".
Feel free to continue to "wastes time" parodying yourself.
acceptance of culpability in this instance.
You're welcome. Considering the other things for which you didn't
apologize or accept culpability, it's the best I could do.
opinion, for anything else I wrote in this thread, that
seems fair.
So you have no problem with posting strawmen and hijacking topics and
making up facts and blaming me for it? Ok, Karen.
Bob Casanova <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 02:33:02 -0500, the following appearedI would hold that killfiling or ignoring deserving trolls can rise to the >level of intersubjectivity if we agree on the same and shared disdain
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 21:51:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>Of course it's personal and subjective; I can only speak for
wrote:
Killfiles are Your Friends (TM). Both Glenn and JTEM are in
mine, although Peter is not.
Your comment above shows it's a matter of personal and subjective
opinion of who is and is not a troll, and so NOT something to advocate
as froup policy.
myself, which I did. And FWIW, I don't even killfile all
trolls, just the ones I consider not worth any of my time at
all, not even the time to read the name of the author.
coupled with a policy of withholding reply may yield wider benefits to >others. Holding that might also have a negative effect of an endless
cascade of someone taking very vocal issue with such holding. I say the >benefits way outweigh the risk of being brow beaten about ignoring trolls. >That would never happen here thank goodness.
�� Tiib <[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
Bob might encourage others to use killfiles in a way others agree with and
Bob agreed that it is his personal opinion that killfiles are helpful tool >> and did nowhere say that not using the tool (like I and Erik do) is wrong. >> So I did not feel that saying that people can have different perfectly
valid opinions about same thing is mindless noise.
if certain posters here are more commonly targeted by such uses of
killfiles or just ignoring the posters existence (which I should do better
at myself in the case of one of these egregious jackass trolls), that would >be a very horrible thing because every word uttered is sacred and cannot be >ignored or aborted. Using condoms against the words of other posters
violates Catholic doctrine or something and we can�t have that.
So I suppose Bob should keep his killfile contents to himself or he�s >encouraging birth control or abortion or some other great evil against the >worded world.
I say encourage such word condom usage is a great means to prevent trollish >social diseases from spreading too greatly.
On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 00:08:05 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<[email protected]d>:
Bob Casanova <[email protected]> wrote:I'm not even sure what all that means, but I'll defend to
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 02:33:02 -0500, the following appearedI would hold that killfiling or ignoring deserving trolls can rise to the
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 21:51:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>Of course it's personal and subjective; I can only speak for
wrote:
Killfiles are Your Friends (TM). Both Glenn and JTEM are in
mine, although Peter is not.
Your comment above shows it's a matter of personal and subjective
opinion of who is and is not a troll, and so NOT something to advocate >>>> as froup policy.
myself, which I did. And FWIW, I don't even killfile all
trolls, just the ones I consider not worth any of my time at
all, not even the time to read the name of the author.
level of intersubjectivity if we agree on the same and shared disdain
coupled with a policy of withholding reply may yield wider benefits to
others. Holding that might also have a negative effect of an endless
cascade of someone taking very vocal issue with such holding. I say the
benefits way outweigh the risk of being brow beaten about ignoring trolls. >> That would never happen here thank goodness.
the death your right to say it. :-)
On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 09:18:59 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 02:25:48 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Thu, 09 Mar 2023 09:18:43 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>Your opinions regarding the appropriate inferences to be
wrote:
On Thu, 09 Mar 2023 02:00:08 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
Since I have no culpability, other than in your subjectiveIn summary:Thank you for graciously accepting my apology, and my
Your injected reference to killfiles in this thread was a "worthless >>>>>>>wastes of time".
Your false claim that I did an unmarked snip above was a "worthless >>>>>>>wastes of time".
Your false claim that I object to killfiles was a "worthless wastes of >>>>>>>time".
Your false claim that my understanding of your comments is a >>>>>>>subjective and personal belief was a "worthless wastes of time".
That you blame me for your trolling behavior was a "worthless >>>>>>>wastes of time".
Feel free to continue to "wastes time" parodying yourself.
acceptance of culpability in this instance.
You're welcome. Considering the other things for which you didn't >>>>>apologize or accept culpability, it's the best I could do.
opinion, for anything else I wrote in this thread, that
seems fair.
So you have no problem with posting strawmen and hijacking topics and >>>making up facts and blaming me for it? Ok, Karen.
taken from what I posted do not define reality, but please
elucidate exactly where in this thread you imagine I did
those. Thanks.
As I have already done so, would it do any good to do it again?
Oh, and BTW, and at the risk of again being accused of
spamming, I dug a bit further into that issue of snippage,
and discovered that I did indeed post as I intended; the
exchange is here:
That's what I said, and you denied.
So your original post was mysteriously recombined,
Nothing mysterious about it, as I previously explained it, as you well
know.
and both
parts of my reply now appeared below it, which is why I
thought part of your original reply had been snipped. I
suppose I still owe you an apology for failing to read more
closely, but we all make mistakes.
I have zero expectation of you or any other poster ever apologizing to
me for anything. Instead, what you "owe" the froup is an apology for >repeatedly claiming I did something I did not do, as well as falsely
claiming I opposed the use of killfiles, as well as evading the issue
of you regularly advocating the use of killfiles against named
individuals. Apparently your mileage varies.
But your willfully stupid troll has accomplished its expected outcome,
to raise the ire of the mob against me. Given past history, I expect
you and the other trolls will congratulate each other over it. I'm
used to that, too.
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Mar 2023 09:18:43 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>The irony it burns.
wrote:
On Thu, 09 Mar 2023 02:00:08 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
Since I have no culpability, other than in your subjectiveIn summary:Thank you for graciously accepting my apology, and my
Your injected reference to killfiles in this thread was a "worthless >>>>>> wastes of time".
Your false claim that I did an unmarked snip above was a "worthless >>>>>> wastes of time".
Your false claim that I object to killfiles was a "worthless wastes of >>>>>> time".
Your false claim that my understanding of your comments is a
subjective and personal belief was a "worthless wastes of time".
That you blame me for your trolling behavior was a "worthless
wastes of time".
Feel free to continue to "wastes time" parodying yourself.
acceptance of culpability in this instance.
You're welcome. Considering the other things for which you didn't
apologize or accept culpability, it's the best I could do.
opinion, for anything else I wrote in this thread, that
seems fair.
So you have no problem with posting strawmen and hijacking topics and
making up facts and blaming me for it? Ok, Karen.
On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 18:30:04 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
But your willfully stupid troll has accomplished its expected outcome,You have an inflated opinion of your significance and
to raise the ire of the mob against me. Given past history, I expect
you and the other trolls will congratulate each other over it. I'm
used to that, too.
importance.
You should work on that.
When I disappeared from talk.origins a few years ago (on account of a >technical problem that I couldn't solve) I had jillery in my killfile.
I don't remember why, and when I came back to life I reversed that
policy. Probably it had to do with these constant attacks on everyone
else. I think the time may have come to again stop reading jillery's
posts for a while.
On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 00:29:36 +0000, *Hemidactylus* <[email protected]d> wrote:
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Mar 2023 09:18:43 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>The irony it burns.
wrote:
On Thu, 09 Mar 2023 02:00:08 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
Since I have no culpability, other than in your subjectiveIn summary:Thank you for graciously accepting my apology, and my
Your injected reference to killfiles in this thread was a "worthless >>>>>>> wastes of time".
Your false claim that I did an unmarked snip above was a "worthless >>>>>>> wastes of time".
Your false claim that I object to killfiles was a "worthless wastes of >>>>>>> time".
Your false claim that my understanding of your comments is a
subjective and personal belief was a "worthless wastes of time". >>>>>>>
That you blame me for your trolling behavior was a "worthless
wastes of time".
Feel free to continue to "wastes time" parodying yourself.
acceptance of culpability in this instance.
You're welcome. Considering the other things for which you didn't
apologize or accept culpability, it's the best I could do.
opinion, for anything else I wrote in this thread, that
seems fair.
So you have no problem with posting strawmen and hijacking topics and
making up facts and blaming me for it? Ok, Karen.
So you choose to join the willfully stupid mob. Quelle surprise.
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 00:29:36 +0000, *Hemidactylus*Well:
<[email protected]d> wrote:
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Mar 2023 09:18:43 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>The irony it burns.
wrote:
On Thu, 09 Mar 2023 02:00:08 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
Since I have no culpability, other than in your subjectiveIn summary:Thank you for graciously accepting my apology, and my
Your injected reference to killfiles in this thread was a "worthless >>>>>>>> wastes of time".
Your false claim that I did an unmarked snip above was a "worthless >>>>>>>> wastes of time".
Your false claim that I object to killfiles was a "worthless wastes of >>>>>>>> time".
Your false claim that my understanding of your comments is a
subjective and personal belief was a "worthless wastes of time". >>>>>>>>
That you blame me for your trolling behavior was a "worthless
wastes of time".
Feel free to continue to "wastes time" parodying yourself.
acceptance of culpability in this instance.
You're welcome. Considering the other things for which you didn't >>>>>> apologize or accept culpability, it's the best I could do.
opinion, for anything else I wrote in this thread, that
seems fair.
So you have no problem with posting strawmen and hijacking topics and
making up facts and blaming me for it? Ok, Karen.
So you choose to join the willfully stupid mob. Quelle surprise.
https://youtu.be/UPw-3e_pzqU
On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 03:40:05 +0000, *Hemidactylus* <[email protected]d> wrote:
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 00:29:36 +0000, *Hemidactylus*Well:
<[email protected]d> wrote:
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Mar 2023 09:18:43 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>The irony it burns.
wrote:
On Thu, 09 Mar 2023 02:00:08 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
Since I have no culpability, other than in your subjectiveIn summary:Thank you for graciously accepting my apology, and my
Your injected reference to killfiles in this thread was a "worthless >>>>>>>>> wastes of time".
Your false claim that I did an unmarked snip above was a "worthless >>>>>>>>> wastes of time".
Your false claim that I object to killfiles was a "worthless wastes of
time".
Your false claim that my understanding of your comments is a >>>>>>>>> subjective and personal belief was a "worthless wastes of time". >>>>>>>>>
That you blame me for your trolling behavior was a "worthless >>>>>>>>> wastes of time".
Feel free to continue to "wastes time" parodying yourself.
acceptance of culpability in this instance.
You're welcome. Considering the other things for which you didn't >>>>>>> apologize or accept culpability, it's the best I could do.
opinion, for anything else I wrote in this thread, that
seems fair.
So you have no problem with posting strawmen and hijacking topics and >>>>> making up facts and blaming me for it? Ok, Karen.
So you choose to join the willfully stupid mob. Quelle surprise.
https://youtu.be/UPw-3e_pzqU
I give you brownie points for being the first to admit it's just
business as usual.
Cite? Full exchange with message IDs please. It's not that I
don't trust you, but I don't trust you.
Thanks Karen.
On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 17:43:37 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>
wrote:
Cite? Full exchange with message IDs please. It's not that I
don't trust you, but I don't trust you.
Now there's a classic troll comment. Thank you for again showing your
actual intentions.
On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 08:57:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 00:31:48 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 17:43:37 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>My "actual intentions", like yours on numerous occasions,
wrote:
Cite? Full exchange with message IDs please. It's not that I
don't trust you, but I don't trust you.
Now there's a classic troll comment. Thank you for again showing your
actual intentions.
are to ask for evidence supporting your assertions. So I
guess we're both trolls; good of you to admit it.
Your "actual intentions" is to mindlessly troll and post asinine
accusations and tell everybody what a terrible person you think I am
and blame me for it, as you do above. There's a difference I don't
expect you or your mob ever to acknowledge.
You have exercised your spleen long enough to satisfy even your
inner-child for awhile. Time to act like an adult instead of aping
Trump.
On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 00:31:48 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 17:43:37 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>My "actual intentions", like yours on numerous occasions,
wrote:
Cite? Full exchange with message IDs please. It's not that I
don't trust you, but I don't trust you.
Now there's a classic troll comment. Thank you for again showing your >>actual intentions.
are to ask for evidence supporting your assertions. So I
guess we're both trolls; good of you to admit it.
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 08:57:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 00:31:48 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 17:43:37 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>My "actual intentions", like yours on numerous occasions,
wrote:
Cite? Full exchange with message IDs please. It's not that I
don't trust you, but I don't trust you.
Now there's a classic troll comment. Thank you for again showing your >>> actual intentions.
are to ask for evidence supporting your assertions. So I
guess we're both trolls; good of you to admit it.
Your "actual intentions" is to mindlessly troll and post asinine accusations and tell everybody what a terrible person you think I am
and blame me for it, as you do above. There's a difference I don't
expect you or your mob ever to acknowledge.
You have exercised your spleen long enough to satisfy even your inner-child for awhile. Time to act like an adult instead of aping
Trump.
I don’t think you’re a terrible person. You do tend to have some quirks of
hypersensitivity and persistence. You do make valuable contributions when you’re not doing that. We all have things to work on.
On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 08:57:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 00:31:48 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 17:43:37 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>My "actual intentions", like yours on numerous occasions,
wrote:
Cite? Full exchange with message IDs please. It's not that I
don't trust you, but I don't trust you.
Now there's a classic troll comment. Thank you for again showing your >>>actual intentions.
are to ask for evidence supporting your assertions. So I
guess we're both trolls; good of you to admit it.
Your "actual intentions" is to mindlessly troll and post asinine
accusations and tell everybody what a terrible person you think I am
and blame me for it, as you do above. There's a difference I don't
expect you or your mob ever to acknowledge.
You have exercised your spleen long enough to satisfy even your--
inner-child for awhile. Time to act like an adult instead of aping
Trump.
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 2:05:24?PM UTC-8, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 08:57:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>I don�t think you�re a terrible person. You do tend to have some quirks of >> hypersensitivity and persistence. You do make valuable contributions when
wrote:
On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 00:31:48 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 17:43:37 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>My "actual intentions", like yours on numerous occasions,
wrote:
Cite? Full exchange with message IDs please. It's not that I
don't trust you, but I don't trust you.
Now there's a classic troll comment. Thank you for again showing your
actual intentions.
are to ask for evidence supporting your assertions. So I
guess we're both trolls; good of you to admit it.
Your "actual intentions" is to mindlessly troll and post asinine
accusations and tell everybody what a terrible person you think I am
and blame me for it, as you do above. There's a difference I don't
expect you or your mob ever to acknowledge.
You have exercised your spleen long enough to satisfy even your
inner-child for awhile. Time to act like an adult instead of aping
Trump.
you�re not doing that. We all have things to work on.
I'll second that. It seems my remarks may have set off this entire row, in which case,
I'm sorry that happened. Wasn't my intention.
On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 14:19:25 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<[email protected]>:
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 2:05:24?PM UTC-8, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 08:57:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>I don’t think you’re a terrible person. You do tend to have some quirks of
wrote:
On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 00:31:48 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 17:43:37 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>My "actual intentions", like yours on numerous occasions,
wrote:
Cite? Full exchange with message IDs please. It's not that I
don't trust you, but I don't trust you.
Now there's a classic troll comment. Thank you for again showing your >> >>> actual intentions.
are to ask for evidence supporting your assertions. So I
guess we're both trolls; good of you to admit it.
Your "actual intentions" is to mindlessly troll and post asinine
accusations and tell everybody what a terrible person you think I am
and blame me for it, as you do above. There's a difference I don't
expect you or your mob ever to acknowledge.
You have exercised your spleen long enough to satisfy even your
inner-child for awhile. Time to act like an adult instead of aping
Trump.
hypersensitivity and persistence. You do make valuable contributions when >> you’re not doing that. We all have things to work on.
I'll second that. It seems my remarks may have set off this entire row, in which case,
I'm sorry that happened. Wasn't my intention.
It also wasn't your fault. Mention of killfiles seems to be
a hotbutton for some; she's commented negatively on their
use in the past.
In my reply to her I unfairly called her an idiot. She
isn't, but she does seem to have a bit of paranoia, as the
above comments make clear: "... tell everybody what a
terrible person you think I am and blame me for it, as you
do above." Since it's pretty clear from the text that I did
no such thing, draw your own conclusions.
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 2:05:24?PM UTC-8, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 08:57:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>I don’t think you’re a terrible person. You do tend to have some quirks of
wrote:
On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 00:31:48 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 17:43:37 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>My "actual intentions", like yours on numerous occasions,
wrote:
Cite? Full exchange with message IDs please. It's not that I
don't trust you, but I don't trust you.
Now there's a classic troll comment. Thank you for again showing your >> >>> actual intentions.
are to ask for evidence supporting your assertions. So I
guess we're both trolls; good of you to admit it.
Your "actual intentions" is to mindlessly troll and post asinine
accusations and tell everybody what a terrible person you think I am
and blame me for it, as you do above. There's a difference I don't
expect you or your mob ever to acknowledge.
You have exercised your spleen long enough to satisfy even your
inner-child for awhile. Time to act like an adult instead of aping
Trump.
hypersensitivity and persistence. You do make valuable contributions when >> you’re not doing that. We all have things to work on.
I'll second that. It seems my remarks may have set off this entire row, in which case,
I'm sorry that happened. Wasn't my intention.
On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 16:29:16 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 08:57:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>I don't think you're a "terrible person", I simply think
wrote:
On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 00:31:48 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 17:43:37 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>>wrote:My "actual intentions", like yours on numerous occasions,
Cite? Full exchange with message IDs please. It's not that I
don't trust you, but I don't trust you.
Now there's a classic troll comment. Thank you for again showing your >>>>actual intentions.
are to ask for evidence supporting your assertions. So I
guess we're both trolls; good of you to admit it.
Your "actual intentions" is to mindlessly troll and post asinine >>accusations and tell everybody what a terrible person you think I am
and blame me for it, as you do above. There's a difference I don't
expect you or your mob ever to acknowledge.
your an idiot.
And what "accusation" did I post? Unless, of
course, your accusations of me are spurious...?
You have exercised your spleen long enough to satisfy even your
inner-child for awhile. Time to act like an adult instead of aping
Trump.
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 4:30:25?PM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 14:19:25 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<[email protected]>:
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 2:05:24?PM UTC-8, *Hemidactylus* wrote:It also wasn't your fault. Mention of killfiles seems to be
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 08:57:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>I don’t think you’re a terrible person. You do tend to have some quirks of
wrote:
On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 00:31:48 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 17:43:37 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >> >> >>> wrote:My "actual intentions", like yours on numerous occasions,
Cite? Full exchange with message IDs please. It's not that I
don't trust you, but I don't trust you.
Now there's a classic troll comment. Thank you for again showing your
actual intentions.
are to ask for evidence supporting your assertions. So I
guess we're both trolls; good of you to admit it.
Your "actual intentions" is to mindlessly troll and post asinine
accusations and tell everybody what a terrible person you think I am >> >> > and blame me for it, as you do above. There's a difference I don't
expect you or your mob ever to acknowledge.
You have exercised your spleen long enough to satisfy even your
inner-child for awhile. Time to act like an adult instead of aping
Trump.
hypersensitivity and persistence. You do make valuable contributions when
you’re not doing that. We all have things to work on.
I'll second that. It seems my remarks may have set off this entire row, in which case,
I'm sorry that happened. Wasn't my intention.
a hotbutton for some; she's commented negatively on their
use in the past.
In my reply to her I unfairly called her an idiot. She
isn't,
but she does seem to have a bit of paranoia, as the
above comments make clear: "... tell everybody what aIndeed. A short fuse is apparent.
terrible person you think I am and blame me for it, as you
do above." Since it's pretty clear from the text that I did
no such thing, draw your own conclusions.
I will type this real slow so even a mindless mob can understand: I
made zero comments in this topic about the use of killfiles. Instead,
I commented about Casanova's repeated advocacy of killfiles.
Apparently that's a difference the mob is proud to ignore.
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
Was Casanova advocating the *use* of killfilles?
I will type this real slow so even a mindless mob can understand: I
made zero comments in this topic about the use of killfiles. Instead,
I commented about Casanova's repeated advocacy of killfiles.
Apparently that's a difference the mob is proud to ignore.
He said from a couple posts: “Killfiles are Your Friends (TM). Both Glenn >and JTEM are in mine, although Peter is not.”
[…]
“…I don't even killfile all trolls, just the ones I consider not worth any >of my time at all, not even the time to read the name of the author.”
And you responded to the above:
“When you name specific posters, as you do above, as you have done >regularly in the past, the implication is others should killfile them also, >to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to see.”
Whether or not Bob was advocating the use of killfiles, “the implication is >others should killfile them also” sounds at least implicitly about killfile >usage *per se*. If others use killifiles to keep Bob from seeing trolls, >thats…usage. So you were talking about a collective use of killfiles, where >Bob may have been advocating for that way or means of using killfiles for >building herd immunity.
On Sun, 12 Mar 2023 12:35:01 +0000, *Hemidactylus* <[email protected]d> wrote:
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
Was Casanova advocating the *use* of killfilles?
I will type this real slow so even a mindless mob can understand: I
made zero comments in this topic about the use of killfiles. Instead,
I commented about Casanova's repeated advocacy of killfiles.
Apparently that's a difference the mob is proud to ignore.
That would be a reasoned and objective interpretation of his comments.
He said from a couple posts: “Killfiles are Your Friends (TM). Both Glenn >> and JTEM are in mine, although Peter is not.”
[…]
“…I don't even killfile all trolls, just the ones I consider not worth any
of my time at all, not even the time to read the name of the author.”
And you responded to the above:
“When you name specific posters, as you do above, as you have done
regularly in the past, the implication is others should killfile them also, >> to more effectively blind you from seeing what you don't want to see.”
Whether or not Bob was advocating the use of killfiles, “the implication is
others should killfile them also” sounds at least implicitly about killfile
usage *per se*. If others use killifiles to keep Bob from seeing trolls,
thats…usage. So you were talking about a collective use of killfiles, where
Bob may have been advocating for that way or means of using killfiles for
building herd immunity.
More accurately, I was talking about the advocacy of the collective
use of killfiles. Your failure to include "advocacy" in your
description illustrates the collective willful blindness from which
the mob suffers.
I acknowledge Casanova may wish to advocate some other nuanced point different from what I described. If what I described was in error,
and had Casanova chose to elaborate on that error, this topic might
have developed into something more interesting.
But that's not how this topic evolved. Instead, Casanova chose to
exercise his inner child and lie about what I actually wrote and what
I actually believe. This suggests that what I described is closer to
what Casanova actually means than he's prepared to admit.
Whether collective use of killfiles is a means of building herd
immunity, is an arguable point that deserves a separate topic. To
discuss it in this topic would dishonestly obfuscate the willful
stupidity without acknowledging it.
On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 16:43:51 -0800 (PST), erik simpson ><[email protected]> wrote:
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 4:30:25?PM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 14:19:25 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<[email protected]>:
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 2:05:24?PM UTC-8, *Hemidactylus* wrote:It also wasn't your fault. Mention of killfiles seems to be
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 08:57:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>I don�t think you�re a terrible person. You do tend to have some quirks of
wrote:
On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 00:31:48 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 17:43:37 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>> >> >>> wrote:My "actual intentions", like yours on numerous occasions,
Cite? Full exchange with message IDs please. It's not that I
don't trust you, but I don't trust you.
Now there's a classic troll comment. Thank you for again showing your
actual intentions.
are to ask for evidence supporting your assertions. So I
guess we're both trolls; good of you to admit it.
Your "actual intentions" is to mindlessly troll and post asinine
accusations and tell everybody what a terrible person you think I am >>> >> > and blame me for it, as you do above. There's a difference I don't
expect you or your mob ever to acknowledge.
You have exercised your spleen long enough to satisfy even your
inner-child for awhile. Time to act like an adult instead of aping
Trump.
hypersensitivity and persistence. You do make valuable contributions when
you�re not doing that. We all have things to work on.
I'll second that. It seems my remarks may have set off this entire row, in which case,
I'm sorry that happened. Wasn't my intention.
a hotbutton for some; she's commented negatively on their
use in the past.
In this topic I have corrected Casanova et al several times about
this. They continue to misrepresent what I actually wrote. That
makes their misrepresentations outright lies, yet another common troll >tactic.
I will type this real slow so even a mindless mob can understand: I
made zero comments in this topic about the use of killfiles. Instead,
I commented about Casanova's repeated advocacy of killfiles.
Apparently that's a difference the mob is proud to ignore.
In my reply to her I unfairly called her an idiot. She
isn't,
Is that supposed to be an apology?
but she does seem to have a bit of paranoia, as the
above comments make clear: "... tell everybody what aIndeed. A short fuse is apparent.
terrible person you think I am and blame me for it, as you
do above." Since it's pretty clear from the text that I did
no such thing, draw your own conclusions.
Your comment above illustrates how you enable trolls. What you
characterize as a "short fuse" is instead a rational response to
unrelenting, repeated, and purposeful lighting the fuse by those you
enable, a point you, Erik Simpson, have repeatedly ignored, to your >discredit. Your willful blindness puts the lie to your act as a
reasonable adult.
On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 14:19:25 -0800 (PST), erik simpsonAccording to you:
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 2:05:24?PM UTC-8, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 08:57:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>I don’t think you’re a terrible person. You do tend to have some quirks of
wrote:
On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 00:31:48 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 17:43:37 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>My "actual intentions", like yours on numerous occasions,
wrote:
Cite? Full exchange with message IDs please. It's not that I
don't trust you, but I don't trust you.
Now there's a classic troll comment. Thank you for again showing your >> >>> actual intentions.
are to ask for evidence supporting your assertions. So I
guess we're both trolls; good of you to admit it.
Your "actual intentions" is to mindlessly troll and post asinine
accusations and tell everybody what a terrible person you think I am
and blame me for it, as you do above. There's a difference I don't
expect you or your mob ever to acknowledge.
You have exercised your spleen long enough to satisfy even your
inner-child for awhile. Time to act like an adult instead of aping
Trump.
hypersensitivity and persistence. You do make valuable contributions when >> you’re not doing that. We all have things to work on.
I'll second that. It seems my remarks may have set off this entire row, in which case,Not sure why you throw yourself under the bus. For the record, I
I'm sorry that happened. Wasn't my intention.
haven't said or implied you started "this entire row". To the
contrary, I made it explicitly clear multiple times that my objection
was to Casanova's repeated advocacy of killfiles, and not his personal
use of them, nor anybody else's use of them.
My post above is a direct reply to Casanova's direct reply to me, and
so what you and Hemidactylus think about it doesn't matter, except to
the degree that you and he have chosen to pile your own irrelevant and baseless negative opinions about me on top of Casanova's, to create
only the latest of many T.O. mindless mobs I have endured.
--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 1:20:26?AM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
My post above is a direct reply to Casanova's direct reply to me, and
so what you and Hemidactylus think about it doesn't matter, except to
the degree that you and he have chosen to pile your own irrelevant and
baseless negative opinions about me on top of Casanova's, to create
only the latest of many T.O. mindless mobs I have endured.
On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 00:08:05 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<[email protected]d>:
Bob Casanova <[email protected]> wrote:I'm not even sure what all that means, but I'll defend to
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 02:33:02 -0500, the following appearedI would hold that killfiling or ignoring deserving trolls can rise to the >>level of intersubjectivity if we agree on the same and shared disdain >>coupled with a policy of withholding reply may yield wider benefits to >>others. Holding that might also have a negative effect of an endless >>cascade of someone taking very vocal issue with such holding. I say the >>benefits way outweigh the risk of being brow beaten about ignoring trolls. >>That would never happen here thank goodness.
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 21:51:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>Of course it's personal and subjective; I can only speak for
wrote:
Killfiles are Your Friends (TM). Both Glenn and JTEM are in
mine, although Peter is not.
Your comment above shows it's a matter of personal and subjective
opinion of who is and is not a troll, and so NOT something to advocate >>>> as froup policy.
myself, which I did. And FWIW, I don't even killfile all
trolls, just the ones I consider not worth any of my time at
all, not even the time to read the name of the author.
the death your right to say it. :-)
On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 17:36:42 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 00:08:05 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<[email protected]d>:
Bob Casanova <[email protected]> wrote:I'm not even sure what all that means, but I'll defend to
On Sun, 05 Mar 2023 02:33:02 -0500, the following appearedI would hold that killfiling or ignoring deserving trolls can rise to the >>>level of intersubjectivity if we agree on the same and shared disdain >>>coupled with a policy of withholding reply may yield wider benefits to >>>others. Holding that might also have a negative effect of an endless >>>cascade of someone taking very vocal issue with such holding. I say the >>>benefits way outweigh the risk of being brow beaten about ignoring trolls. >>>That would never happen here thank goodness.
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sat, 04 Mar 2023 21:51:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>Of course it's personal and subjective; I can only speak for
wrote:
Killfiles are Your Friends (TM). Both Glenn and JTEM are in
mine, although Peter is not.
Your comment above shows it's a matter of personal and subjective
opinion of who is and is not a troll, and so NOT something to advocate >>>>> as froup policy.
myself, which I did. And FWIW, I don't even killfile all
trolls, just the ones I consider not worth any of my time at
all, not even the time to read the name of the author.
the death your right to say it. :-)
Does that also apply to the right *not* to say something?
On Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 1:20:26?AM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 14:19:25 -0800 (PST), erik simpson
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 2:05:24?PM UTC-8, *Hemidactylus* wrote:Not sure why you throw yourself under the bus. For the record, I
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 08:57:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>I don’t think you’re a terrible person. You do tend to have some quirks of
wrote:
On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 00:31:48 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 17:43:37 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >> >> >>> wrote:My "actual intentions", like yours on numerous occasions,
Cite? Full exchange with message IDs please. It's not that I
don't trust you, but I don't trust you.
Now there's a classic troll comment. Thank you for again showing your
actual intentions.
are to ask for evidence supporting your assertions. So I
guess we're both trolls; good of you to admit it.
Your "actual intentions" is to mindlessly troll and post asinine
accusations and tell everybody what a terrible person you think I am >> >> > and blame me for it, as you do above. There's a difference I don't
expect you or your mob ever to acknowledge.
You have exercised your spleen long enough to satisfy even your
inner-child for awhile. Time to act like an adult instead of aping
Trump.
hypersensitivity and persistence. You do make valuable contributions when
you’re not doing that. We all have things to work on.
I'll second that. It seems my remarks may have set off this entire row, in which case,
I'm sorry that happened. Wasn't my intention.
haven't said or implied you started "this entire row". To the
contrary, I made it explicitly clear multiple times that my objection
was to Casanova's repeated advocacy of killfiles, and not his personal
use of them, nor anybody else's use of them.
My post above is a direct reply to Casanova's direct reply to me, and
so what you and Hemidactylus think about it doesn't matter, except to
the degree that you and he have chosen to pile your own irrelevant and
baseless negative opinions about me on top of Casanova's, to create
only the latest of many T.O. mindless mobs I have endured.
According to you:
"Not responding to willful stupidity looks exactly the same as not
responding to recognized facts. Non-response is how willful stupidity >thrives."
Not exactly the friendliest advice. In fact, it sounds pretty hostile. You >frequently don't seem to realize what you sound like and come out swinging
if you're called on it. If this is "mob piling on", so be it.
On Sun, 12 Mar 2023 05:23:19 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 16:43:51 -0800 (PST), erik simpson >><[email protected]> wrote:And I will type this *really* slowly, so even you can
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 4:30:25?PM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 14:19:25 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<[email protected]>:
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 2:05:24?PM UTC-8, *Hemidactylus* wrote: >>>> >> jillery <[email protected]> wrote:It also wasn't your fault. Mention of killfiles seems to be
On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 08:57:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>> >> > wrote:I don’t think you’re a terrible person. You do tend to have some quirks of
On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 00:31:48 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 17:43:37 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>> >> >>> wrote:My "actual intentions", like yours on numerous occasions,
Cite? Full exchange with message IDs please. It's not that I
don't trust you, but I don't trust you.
Now there's a classic troll comment. Thank you for again showing your
actual intentions.
are to ask for evidence supporting your assertions. So I
guess we're both trolls; good of you to admit it.
Your "actual intentions" is to mindlessly troll and post asinine >>>> >> > accusations and tell everybody what a terrible person you think I am >>>> >> > and blame me for it, as you do above. There's a difference I don't >>>> >> > expect you or your mob ever to acknowledge.
You have exercised your spleen long enough to satisfy even your
inner-child for awhile. Time to act like an adult instead of aping >>>> >> > Trump.
hypersensitivity and persistence. You do make valuable contributions when
you’re not doing that. We all have things to work on.
I'll second that. It seems my remarks may have set off this entire row, in which case,
I'm sorry that happened. Wasn't my intention.
a hotbutton for some; she's commented negatively on their
use in the past.
In this topic I have corrected Casanova et al several times about
this. They continue to misrepresent what I actually wrote. That
makes their misrepresentations outright lies, yet another common troll >>tactic.
I will type this real slow so even a mindless mob can understand: I
made zero comments in this topic about the use of killfiles. Instead,
I commented about Casanova's repeated advocacy of killfiles.
Apparently that's a difference the mob is proud to ignore.
understand: "In the past" is not limited to this topic.
No, a correction. Perhaps you could learn the difference.In my reply to her I unfairly called her an idiot. She
isn't,
Is that supposed to be an apology?
When multiple individuals observe a trait, perhaps you mightbut she does seem to have a bit of paranoia, as the
above comments make clear: "... tell everybody what aIndeed. A short fuse is apparent.
terrible person you think I am and blame me for it, as you
do above." Since it's pretty clear from the text that I did
no such thing, draw your own conclusions.
Your comment above illustrates how you enable trolls. What you >>characterize as a "short fuse" is instead a rational response to >>unrelenting, repeated, and purposeful lighting the fuse by those you >>enable, a point you, Erik Simpson, have repeatedly ignored, to your >>discredit. Your willful blindness puts the lie to your act as a
reasonable adult.
want to self-examine.
Or is it simply "Oh, look! Everyone is
out of step except Johnny!"? Or in this case, jillery.
I haven't been paying any particular attention to this thread
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 00:18:21 |
| Calls: | 12,097 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 15,003 |
| Messages: | 6,517,858 |