Re: Bitching: was some boasty header by JTEM

On Fri, 02 Aug 2024 22:43:41 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid>:

Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:

On Fri, 2 Aug 2024 18:44:03 +0100, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1>:
 

On Fri, 02 Aug 2024 10:16:02 -0700
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
 

On Thu, 01 Aug 2024 21:59:30 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
 

On Thu, 01 Aug 2024 15:51:58 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
 

On Thu, 01 Aug 2024 19:29:59 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid>:
 

Kerr-Mudd, John <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:

On Wed, 31 Jul 2024 18:34:32 -0400
JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
 

 
Okay so this isn't new, I've been talking about this stuff for
years...
 

You love, erm, exotic fanciful "theories" that have, at best, a vague
scientific basis. And you snip and swear at other posters. Why oh why do
you think anyone at all would take you seriously?
 
</rhetorical question>, [stands back for abuse].
 

JTEM is a narcissistic crank best left ignored.
 

Agreed. I prefer the "auto-ignore" technique, but it tends
to take a bit of heat  from flamewar aficionados, as well as
from at least one semi-literate nutbar who referred to it as
"censorship". Oy...

 
 
For someone who claims to prefer blinding yourself to what JTEM says,
you sure do have a lot to say about what JTEM says
 

Do I? Cite to the multitudinous times I've had "a lot to
say" about JTEM's rants, please.

 
, a tacit admission of willful ignorance.
 

Refusing to listen to stupidity is not a vice.

 
Reminds me of another nutbar who regularly
brags about his killfile.
 

Assuming you're referring to me, cite to those "regular
brags", please. I've probably mentioned it around five or
six times over the past couple of years, and only when it
was relevant to the discussion.
 
You seem to have taken my first comment ("flamewar
aficionado") personally, which indicates you correctly saw
yourself in it; your current post ("blinding yourself",
"willful ignorance", "nutbar") simply confirms that
assessment. You will not, of course, drag me in again.
 
The second clause, of course, referred to a long-gone nutbar
named, IIRC, Schafley.

 

 
Please don't feed the troll(s)
 

I have most of them in my Special Children File. But this
one isn't a troll in the classic sense.
>

Jillery isn’t a troll and has provided some good, knowledgable, on topic
posts here over the years. Easily triggered so maybe it is better practice
not to poke the bear. Mutual forbearance (forgive the pun).
>

It's usually worked the other way around, especially when I
happen to mention killfiles and their use. I generally
ignore her(?) when operating in that mode.

And you are correct; jillery frequently provided interesting
and valuable on-topic posts. And who, as I noted, is not a
troll in the classic sense of those who post *solely* to
spark flamewars, and have no interest in on-topic
discussion.

>

--

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