Re: OMG! This JTEM guy is so brilliant! Utterly brilliant!

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.

The above is one example.

, a tacit admission of willful ignorance.
>

Refusing to listen to stupidity is not a vice.

Willful stupidity is.

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

Assuming you're referring to me,

Assuming you're referring to "another nutbar", you assume incorrectly.

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.

It's silly for you to deny that you regularly mention your use of
killfiles.  Such mentions, such as you do here, have no relevance to
any discussions of substance.

You seem to have taken my first comment ("flamewar
aficionado") personally,

Once again, you assume incorrectly, which makes your comments below
yet another example of accusing me of what you do.

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.

>

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