The above several posts show how a poor posting attitude can divert a thread. It all started with needless insults from theropod, backed up by the pack.

DavidMcC wrote:The above several posts show how a poor posting attitude can divert a thread. It all started with needless insults from theropod, backed up by the pack.

The above shows how David engages in increasingly asinine conspiracy theories that are nowhere near to what actually happened in the thread he's talking about.

DavidMcC wrote:The above several posts show how a poor posting attitude can divert a thread. It all started with needless insults from theropod, backed up by the pack.

Did you report my post(s) containing these insults? If not I suggest you do so.

RS

Dude... Theropod re-railed the thread in response to my comment, then Calli re-railed again with his usual detailed explanation...

C'mon, DavidCMC, Fallible, and Thomas Eshuis, let's all shake metaphorical hands and let bygones be bygones?

Eh? I've got no issue with you, Mr Fish, although I find some of what you say silly. Not all, I've seen you say some interesting stuff too. Mr McC is a bit different, as he goes similarly off piste in pretty much every thread he graces with his presence, and the fantasy motives he creates for his interlocutors are usually pulled directly from his balloon knot and are therefore expectedly shitty and unpleasant. It's another one of those situations where one is left to wonder whether this is deliberate, or beyond his control. I would have kept quiet, only he's interfering with my enjoyment of the thread.

Zadocfish2 wrote:Dude... Theropod re-railed the thread in response to my comment,

That would mean you derailed the thread.

Zadocfish2 wrote: then Calli re-railed again with his usual detailed explanation...

There's nothing derailing about providing a detailed and rigourous explanation.

Zadocfish2 wrote:C'mon, DavidCMC, Fallible, and Thomas Eshuis, let's all shake metaphorical hands and let bygones be bygones?

The only one in this thread accusing members of all manner of nefarious motives and deeds is David.

It has occurred to me that my spat with RS was due to the fact that he (and some others) took the meaning of retrovirus to be ENDOGENOUS retrovirus (ERV) and sometimrs even Human ERV (HERV). I was thinking more generally of retroviruses. That's all.
All the confrontational stuff is now irrelevant.

To Thomas... for clarity, I said RE-railed, not DE-railed. The argument broke out, then I said something (kinda) relevant, Theropod said something relevant in response, then the argument broke out again, then Calli made his relevant detailed explanation; I was listing the times we started the thread back on track, not the other way around.

But yeah, the confrontational stuff is irrelevant now. Reading up on it, apparently we're starting to use retroviruses in gene-editing processes as well as using traces as a tracking tool?

Zadocfish2 wrote:To Thomas... for clarity, I said RE-railed, not DE-railed.

Correct, I misread that the first time around, my apologies.

Zadocfish2 wrote: The argument broke out, then I said something (kinda) relevant, Theropod said something relevant in response, then the argument broke out again, then Calli made his relevant detailed explanation; I was listing the times we started the thread back on track, not the other way around.

Fallible wrote:Eh? I've got no issue with you, Mr Fish, although I find some of what you say silly. Not all, I've seen you say some interesting stuff too. Mr McC is a bit different, as he goes similarly off piste in pretty much every thread he graces with his presence, and the fantasy motives he creates for his interlocutors are usually pulled directly from his balloon knot and are therefore expectedly shitty and unpleasant. It's another one of those situations where one is left to wonder whether this is deliberate, or beyond his control. I would have kept quiet, only he's interfering with my enjoyment of the thread.

Enough bullshit! I'm not sure you know what you are talking about here. Out of ignorance, RS rejected my statements concerning retroviruses, and, as he has a following (based on his standing in the subject of fossil studies, but not virology), there was a chorus of denunciation of me, instead of him.
Here is a good article on the life-cycle of a typical retrovirus (not necessrily endogenous):

https://web.stanford.edu/group/nolan/_OldWebsite/tutorials/ret_2_lifecyc.html

EDIT: So, Fallible, if you want to jump on a bandwagon. please first make sure its wheels are on correctly!

FURTHER EDIT: Actually, it started when RS thought he knew better than he actually did (about retroviruses), but he never apologised for his error. Instead, I get most of the blame for the argument!

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:The above several posts show how a poor posting attitude can divert a thread. It all started with needless insults from theropod, backed up by the pack.

The above shows how David engages in increasingly asinine conspiracy theories that are nowhere near to what actually happened in the thread he's talking about.

And that's the usual nonsense from you! Theropod was in the wrong in this thread, although he never admitted it. Get over it.

Fallible wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:You really DON'T like criticism, do you?
There! Now, you've made the thread all about you. Alternative evolutionary paths is out the window. I hope you like it.

Actually, you derailed the thread by injecting yourself in a situation involving two other members.

I'm entitled to comment, because there are no private conversations on this site, other than by PM, even although you evidently think there are.

Thomas didn't say you weren't entitled to comment. He corrected your error of blaming someone else for the derail when it was you that did it.

As I said above, it was not due to an error on my part that the thread was derailed, it was by RS.

DavidMcC wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:The above several posts show how a poor posting attitude can divert a thread. It all started with needless insults from theropod, backed up by the pack.

The above shows how David engages in increasingly asinine conspiracy theories that are nowhere near to what actually happened in the thread he's talking about.

And that's the usual nonsense from you!

I get that when one is convinced there's a conspiracy against them, they have to dismiss anything to the contrary as nonsense.
Doesn't mean it actually is.

DavidMcC wrote:Theropod was in the wrong in this thread, although he never admitted it. Get over it.

First, as I've previously informed you, you've buisness telling me what to do.
Secondly, my comment was about your typical hysterionics, not whether Theropod was right or wrong.
Note that everyone had agreed to drop the derail and that it is, once again, you who derails it.

DavidMcC wrote:

Fallible wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Actually, you derailed the thread by injecting yourself in a situation involving two other members.

I'm entitled to comment, because there are no private conversations on this site, other than by PM, even although you evidently think there are.

Thomas didn't say you weren't entitled to comment. He corrected your error of blaming someone else for the derail when it was you that did it.

As I said above, it was not due to an error on my part that the thread was derailed, it was by RS.

Bullshit. Theropod wasn't the one demanding his idiosyncratic standards of correction be confirmed to, that was all you.
Theropod wasn't the one accusing his interlocutor of not taking criticism well, that was all you.
Theropod wasn't the one accusing his interlocutor, falsely, of derailing the thread, that was all you.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

Fallible wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:
I'm entitled to comment, because there are no private conversations on this site, other than by PM, even although you evidently think there are.

Thomas didn't say you weren't entitled to comment. He corrected your error of blaming someone else for the derail when it was you that did it.

As I said above, it was not due to an error on my part that the thread was derailed, it was by RS.

Bullshit. Theropod wasn't the one demanding his idiosyncratic standards of correction be confirmed to, that was all you.
Theropod wasn't the one accusing his interlocutor of not taking criticism well, that was all you.
Theropod wasn't the one accusing his interlocutor, falsely, of derailing the thread, that was all you.

As well as theropod railing against me, I had you jumpimg on the bandwagon, just as Fallible did. What do you think the expression, "injecting yourself in" was meant to achieve?
BTW, Falible, it looks as if you are just trying to stir things here, unless you have suddenly acquired much knowledge of molecular biology.

... Come to think of it, both Fallible and TE have a history of provocation for the sake of provocation, which is why I am suspicious of their motives.

DavidMcC wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

Fallible wrote:

Thomas didn't say you weren't entitled to comment. He corrected your error of blaming someone else for the derail when it was you that did it.

As I said above, it was not due to an error on my part that the thread was derailed, it was by RS.

Bullshit. Theropod wasn't the one demanding his idiosyncratic standards of correction be confirmed to, that was all you.
Theropod wasn't the one accusing his interlocutor of not taking criticism well, that was all you.
Theropod wasn't the one accusing his interlocutor, falsely, of derailing the thread, that was all you.

As well as theropod railing against me,

Stop pretending other people started this David. This derails started with you and your demand Theropod meet your idiosyncratic definition of a correction.

DavidMcC wrote: I had you jumpimg on the bandwagon, just as Fallible did.

Again, pointing out the bullshit in someone's posts =/= jumping on the bandwagon.

DavidMcC wrote: What do you think the expression, "injecting yourself in" was meant to achieve?

Exactly what it says on the tin: expressing that you meddled in conversation that did not involve you.
If you don't like the word 'inject', that's your problem. It doesn't make my post irrelevant, false, or an attempt to jump on any bandwagon.

DavidMcC wrote:
BTW, Falible, it looks as if you are just trying to stir things here, unless you have suddenly acquired much knowledge of molecular biology.

DavidMcC wrote:... Come to think of it, both Fallible and TE have a history of provocation for the sake of provocation, which is why I am suspicious of their motives.

I'll give you this one chance David.
Provide evidence for this accusation or retract it.
If you do neither I will report you as this is a blatant lie.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:... Come to think of it, both Fallible and TE have a history of provocation for the sake of provocation, which is why I am suspicious of their motives.

I'll give you this once chance David.
Provide evidence for this accusation or retract it.
If you do neither I will report you as this is a blatant lie.

Oh, I thank youy SO MUCH for that chance. I will treasure it always.
Go ahead and report it, but thosde mods with a memory will remember that you have often, over the years, tried to provoke a big row over any trivial point,turning threads into threads abot you and me (albeit mainly years ago). I'm guesssing that your strategy now is that, if you wait long enough, I won't be able to find the posts without inordinate time spent searching the site, and it just isn't worth the time and effort involved.