DavidMcC wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:This thread has been a hoot to follow.

Maybe, as long as you aren't too bothered about the biology of the vertebrate eye!

You still haven't answered newolder's question David.

Which question would that be? If I have forgotten a question, that may be because you have been buried it in tons of verbiage.

Still blaming others for your own behaviour eh?

DavidMcC wrote:

newolder wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

newolder wrote:...If the only evidence you have for this is your memory then I cannot help you. I've been following this topic for many days and do not recall RS posting anything to the topic yesterday.

Then maybe they were removed before you got to see them. (It was a post by RS and my response to it.)

Without further evidence, this will make no progress. Have you asked the site administrators about these two imagined posts?

ETA: When you wrote about "RS's recent posts" you meant 1 post?

OK, probably only one by RS, but I replied to it, making two posts that had to be removed. However, I don't know if he responded further, because the next thing I knew, both posts were gone.
BTW this episode not imagined, newolder, they WERE deleted (as is the mods' right and power).

This didn't happen. Do you remember a few years ago when you made similar accusations that your posts had been removed? You were certain. Surprise surprise, it turns out they hadn't been, and you climbed down and, after much wailing and gnashing of teeth, admitted you were mistaken. You're mistaken again. I was seriously worried about you that time. To see you claiming exactly the same thing now has me worried all over again. The mods can't seem to manage to deal with most reports within the same week, how likely do you honestly think it is that they can be bothered to follow a thread, monitor it and single out one post to delete? There's 4 of them, total, and one of them hasn't even been online for a year and a half.

Fallible wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

newolder wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:
Then maybe they were removed before you got to see them. (It was a post by RS and my response to it.)

Without further evidence, this will make no progress. Have you asked the site administrators about these two imagined posts?

ETA: When you wrote about "RS's recent posts" you meant 1 post?

OK, probably only one by RS, but I replied to it, making two posts that had to be removed. However, I don't know if he responded further, because the next thing I knew, both posts were gone.
BTW this episode not imagined, newolder, they WERE deleted (as is the mods' right and power).

This didn't happen. Do you remember a few years ago when you made similar accusations that your posts had been removed? You were certain. Surprise surprise, it turns out they hadn't been, and you climbed down and, after much wailing and gnashing of teeth, admitted you were mistaken. You're mistaken again. I was seriously worried about you that time. To see you claiming exactly the same thing now has me worried all over again. The mods can't seem to manage to deal with most reports within the same week, how likely do you honestly think it is that they can be bothered to follow a thread, monitor it and single out one post to delete? There's 4 of them, total, and one of them hasn't even been online for a year and a half.

So in your mind, once guilty always guilty? On this occasion at least, no-one is going to tell me I just imagined a post that I had made the prevuious day, along with the post from RS that it was in response to, The fact is that Roger made a mistake of eye biology/evolution, then deleted it, but not before I had replied to it, so he had to use his influence with the mods to have the whole thing air-brushed out. Remember, Roger's area of expertise is skeletal evolution, not eye evolution.

No, in my mind, you having made a previous fuss about something that turned out to be completely false informs my views on this occasion, upon which you are doing exactly the same, bizarre thing...that, and I've been following this thread quite closely, and the posts you refer to never existed. I'm not sure what influence you think he's got. He hasn't been a mod for years. Not only that, but this place is a tiny, insignificant microbe on the face of the internet. No one cares how it looks, not even the owner.

Look at it from my perspective. I've watched you over the years engage in increasingly outlandish fantasies about vendettas and agendas of provoking you into getting yourself banned, none of which has been shown to have any basis in fact. Years on, you are still banging the same drum, even though you remain resolutely here, despite your personally insulting and mendacious posting habits. Apply Occam's razor. What would you think in my situation?

DavidMcC wrote:So in your mind, once guilty always guilty? On this occasion at least, no-one is going to tell me I just imagined a post that I had made the prevuious day, along with the post from RS that it was in response to, The fact is that Roger made a mistake of eye biology/evolution, then deleted it, but not before I had replied to it, so he had to use his influence with the mods to have the whole thing air-brushed out. Remember, Roger's area of expertise is skeletal evolution, not eye evolution.

Someone is. He definitely did not do this. I absolutely promise.

He can't delete his posts and the mods aren't even present to do it, if they were so inclined - which they aren't.

Incidentally, it's not even just once that you've done this (so it's not once guilty - always guilty, but rather that this fits a long term pattern of behaviour where you're mistaken about what someone posted). In one of the threads I linked back on page 1 after you asked after your previous posts on this issue you did the exact same thing to Spearthrower, which came to something of a head in this post:

Spearthrower wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:The main thing is that Spearthrower should admit what he insisted on a couple of years ago: that he thought Ichthyosaurs must be mammals. So far, he has only denied everything, presumably in the hope that it's all been forgotten.

STOP FUCKING LYING.

ETA: I'm not really sure why, but I spent some minutes finding examples of the history of this. It goes back years, and I would not recommend reading up on it. Nevertheless, here's what I could find relating to things being deleted, mods conspiring, things vanishing from the internet and so on:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2037026.html
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1 ... l#p1874823
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... l#p2037013
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... l#p2037129
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/feedb ... l#p1989139
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1 ... l#p1989975
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1 ... l#p1982993
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1 ... l#p1989086
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1 ... l#p1452029
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1 ... l#p1454229
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1 ... l#p1454401
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... l#p2588737
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... l#p2418640
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1 ... l#p1251673

DavidMcC wrote:

Fallible wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

newolder wrote:
Without further evidence, this will make no progress. Have you asked the site administrators about these two imagined posts?

ETA: When you wrote about "RS's recent posts" you meant 1 post?

OK, probably only one by RS, but I replied to it, making two posts that had to be removed. However, I don't know if he responded further, because the next thing I knew, both posts were gone.
BTW this episode not imagined, newolder, they WERE deleted (as is the mods' right and power).

This didn't happen. Do you remember a few years ago when you made similar accusations that your posts had been removed? You were certain. Surprise surprise, it turns out they hadn't been, and you climbed down and, after much wailing and gnashing of teeth, admitted you were mistaken. You're mistaken again. I was seriously worried about you that time. To see you claiming exactly the same thing now has me worried all over again. The mods can't seem to manage to deal with most reports within the same week, how likely do you honestly think it is that they can be bothered to follow a thread, monitor it and single out one post to delete? There's 4 of them, total, and one of them hasn't even been online for a year and a half.

So in your mind, once guilty always guilty?

Do you even read the post you respond to? Or do you just make up their contents wholesale and then respond to your own straw-man?

DavidMcC wrote: On this occasion at least, no-one is going to tell me I just imagined a post that I had made the prevuious day, along with the post from RS that it was in response to, The fact is that Roger made a mistake of eye biology/evolution, then deleted it, but not before I had replied to it, so he had to use his influence with the mods to have the whole thing air-brushed out.

Except that multiple people have told you exactly that and persisting in this delusion won't make it any less silly or false.

DavidMcC wrote: Remember, Roger's area of expertise is skeletal evolution, not eye evolution.

More personalised comments that do nothing but attempt to poison the well.

I love it the way you call me a "liar" and accuse ME of "well-poisoning".
I don't know why you accuse me of "well-poisoning" - which "well" would that be, but I DO know that Roger was over-reaching himself on eye evolution (before withdrawing the claim, that the vertebrate imaging eye coud have evolved from any invertebrate imaging eye, that is).

DavidMcC wrote: but I DO know that Roger was over-reaching himself on eye evolution (before withdrawing the claim, that the vertebrate imaging eye coud have evolved from any invertebrate imaging eye, that is).

Given the evidence points to the contrary, you're going to need to present some evidence which provides the basis for your "knowledge."

DavidMcC wrote:I love it the way you call me a "liar" and accuse ME of "well-poisoning".

He called you a liar?

What "evidence" would that be? For starters, I posted a whole thread on the subject years ago, including many scientific references.
It included work by Lamb et al, which I referenced here only the other day, but there was much more. How you can just ignore that, I've no idea. Perhaps you just put your hands over your ears and go "la-la-la"
I recently re-posted quite a lot on a serious science site, but I'm reluctant to give details, because you might go and make a mess of it, giving the page manager a head-ache.

Thommo wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:I love it the way you call me a "liar" and accuse ME of "well-poisoning".

He called you a liar?

He used that exact word. Didn't you notice?
Of course, it is only him making stuff up about me, trying to brand me a liar, perhaps to cover for his own failings (as a poster of zero-content posts, whose only purpose is to smear).

DavidMcC wrote:

Thommo wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:I love it the way you call me a "liar" and accuse ME of "well-poisoning".

He called you a liar?

He used that exact word. Didn't you notice?
Of course, it is only him making stuff up about me, trying to brand me a liar, perhaps to cover for his own failings (as a poster of zero-content posts, whose only purpose is to smear).

I not only didn't notice, but I text searched the entire thread looking for it twice. I've just done it a third time. The closest I can see is that three years ago a different poster in a different thread told you to stop lying (as opposed to calling you a liar).

So where did Thomas call you a liar here?

Edit: Inexplicably had written "text" instead of "thread". Fixed.

DavidMcC wrote:I love it the way you call me a "liar"

QED more delusions. I haven't called you a liar David.

DavidMcC wrote: and accuse ME of "well-poisoning".

Because that's what you keep doing: make shit up about your interlocutors in an attempt to discredit them.

DavidMcC wrote:I don't know why you accuse me of "well-poisoning"

See above.

DavidMcC wrote: - which "well" would that be,

Mine, Sendraks, Theropods and several others.

DavidMcC wrote:but I DO know that Roger was over-reaching himself on eye evolution (before withdrawing the claim, that the vertebrate imaging eye coud have evolved from any invertebrate imaging eye, that is).

Sure in the exact same way you know there's a forum wide conspiracy against you and that posts have been deleted from this thread.

DavidMcC wrote:What "evidence" would that be?

That not only are his arguments flawed, but they are flawed because of his specialisation.

DavidMcC wrote: For starters, I posted a whole thread on the subject years ago, including many scientific references.

A whole thread on Theropod's expertise? Seems highly unlikely to me.

DavidMcC wrote:It included work by Lamb et al, which I referenced here only the other day, but there was much more. How you can just ignore that, I've no idea. Perhaps you just put your hands over your ears and go "la-la-la"
I recently re-posted quite a lot on a serious science site, but I'm reluctant to give details, because you might go and make a mess of it, giving the page manager a head-ache.

Ah I see, once again you're willfully misrepresenting your interlocutor's point in a desperate attempt to both dodge said point and make your interlocutor look foolish.

Anyway, ignoring TE's irrelevant wibble, here is a link to an important diagram that is key to understanding the longevity of the surface vertebrate eye:
http://webvision.med.utah.edu/imageswv/photphag.jpeg

DavidMcC wrote:Anyway, ignoring TE's irrelevant wibble,

Yes, amazingly convenient that you get things back on topic when Thomas where he points out the numerous problems with your comments and also dismiss what he says as "irrelevant wibble."

Pray tell, who is the audience you're trying to convince that what Thomas said is "irrelevant wibble"? Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, audience is you and you alone.

Sendraks wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:Anyway, ignoring TE's irrelevant wibble,

Yes, amazingly convenient that you get things back on topic when Thomas where he points out the numerous problems with your comments and also dismiss what he says as "irrelevant wibble."

Pray tell, who is the audience you're trying to convince that what Thomas said is "irrelevant wibble"? Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, audience is you and you alone.

You shouldn't do yourself down so, Sendraks. Of course TE's posts here are irrelevant - irrelevant to the biology and evolution of the vertebrate eye -which he hasn't yet mentioned in his posts.

Can you tell me what I said in the past that got you so angry, and siding with his irrationality?

DavidMcC wrote:
You shouldn't do yourself down so, Sendraks.

In that context of what I wrote, this makes no sense.

DavidMcC wrote: Of course TE's posts here are irrelevant - irrelevant to the biology and evolution of the vertebrate eye -which he hasn't yet mentioned in his posts.

The same can be said about a great many posts you make but, you seem happy to argue the toss about your imagined slights and yet when faced with TE's neat dissections of the failings of your comments, his posts magically become "irrelevant."

DavidMcC wrote:Can you tell me what I said in the past that got you so angry, and siding with his irrationality?

I'm angry?

Also, your responses to TE's posts are irrational, not the posts themselves.

Sendraks, I'm sorry to see that you share TE's propensity for driving the topic way off, and even go so far as to praise him for it!
You are just like TE, with his "provoke David at all costs" attitude. (Never mind the thread topic, the mods won't mind you ignoring it, even if it does damage recruitment to the site.)

DavidMcC wrote:Sendraks, I'm sorry to see that you share TE's propensity for driving the topic way off, and even go so far as to praise him for it!

I'm doing no such thing. What is happening here is that people are trying to hold you account for your bad behaviour which leads, time and time again, to worthwhile discussions entering the gutter.

DavidMcC wrote:You are just like TE, with his "provoke David at all costs" attitude. (Never mind the thread topic, the mods won't mind you ignoring it, even if it does damage recruitment to the site.)

I've no interest in provoking you. This is just yet more of your "conspiracy theory" behaviour made manifest.

The only damage being done to the site (if any) is by your manifestly appalling behavior in how you interact with others and your ongoing unwillingness to face up to that. You are, demonstrably, incapable of dealing with any disagreement about topic without engaging in personalised commentary about your interlocutors or engaging in wild fantasies about your interlocutors behaviour or motives.

In short, these sorts of discussions will persist as long as your problematic behaviour persists. They'll stop either when you address your behaviour or when you stop posting.