DavidMcC wrote:There may be for you, but not for me, newolder. I suspect that that "privelege" was withdrawn from me some time ago, after I was critical of the mods about something. At least I now know that others still have a search facility, though.

What the actual fuck are you talking about? You can’t have your search ‘privileges’ revoked. I’ve been consistently critical of the mods, far more than you have. Guess what? I can still search. Stop being so melodramatic.

DavidMcC wrote:

newolder wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:Newolder, you were too quick; Look again at my most recent post.

I have, thanks. That now appears to be a couple of links. Could you summarise in your own words how auto-cannibalism is a key to understanding the longevity of the surface vertebrate eye?

Sure (actually I did years ago on this site, but it's lost in the years and thousands of posts and lack of a search engine!
...

Now that you know there is actually no "lack of a search engine!", can I expect a link to the relevant forum post soon?

newolder wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:Newolder, you were too quick; Look again at my most recent post.

I have, thanks. That now appears to be a couple of links. Could you summarise in your own words how auto-cannibalism is a key to understanding the longevity of the surface vertebrate eye?

Here's the original discussion (on this site, at least) on the role of the RPE layer in maintaining vision:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2241519.html?hilit=RPE#p2241465

Defending Richard Dawkins from Misguided Criticism

If you read this discussion, you will notice that my interlocutors had a serious misunderstanding of the multiple roles of the RPE layer, because they thought that all it did was to speed up the replacement of used retinal in the photoreceptors. This lead to them to seriously under-estimate the importance of the RPE layer in maintaining vision in vertebrate eyes through opsin disc replacement. I'm not sure that I ever got through to them that the RPE layer does much mot than merely replace used retinal. You could say that they seemed totally blind to it, if you'll pardon the pun!

DavidMcC wrote:

newolder wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:Newolder, you were too quick; Look again at my most recent post.

I have, thanks. That now appears to be a couple of links. Could you summarise in your own words how auto-cannibalism is a key to understanding the longevity of the surface vertebrate eye?

Here's the original discussion (on this site, at least) on the role of the RPE layer in maintaining vision:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2241519.html?hilit=RPE#p2241465

Defending Richard Dawkins from Misguided Criticism

...

That link takes me to a discussion between yourself and various others that does not summarise how auto-cannibalism is a key to understanding the longevity of the surface vertebrate eye. The "key" point missing from the diagram you posted earlier is that opsin growth occurs at one end of the pathway that balances the bits that get chewed off at the other.

It's good to see that you are getting to grips with the search function though. Perhaps you can now address the FTL bullshit you've soiled a lot of topics with in its proper place?

newolder wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

newolder wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:Newolder, you were too quick; Look again at my most recent post.

I have, thanks. That now appears to be a couple of links. Could you summarise in your own words how auto-cannibalism is a key to understanding the longevity of the surface vertebrate eye?

Here's the original discussion (on this site, at least) on the role of the RPE layer in maintaining vision:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2241519.html?hilit=RPE#p2241465

Defending Richard Dawkins from Misguided Criticism

...

That link takes me to a discussion between yourself and various others that does not summarise how auto-cannibalism is a key to understanding the longevity of the surface vertebrate eye. The "key" point missing from the diagram you posted earlier is that opsin growth occurs at one end of the pathway that balances the bits that get chewed off at the other.
...

You obviously didn't read down far enough, then. Try this:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2241519.html?hilit=RPE#p2241559

PS, I hope you realse that it was SS and DB that had things backwards, not me, because an invertebrate doesn't get long-lived eyes by magic (ie, by mysteriously getting a longer life), but by a mechanism in the eye that maintains their opsin content.

Perhaps I should have gone back to the start, and mentioned that what limits invertebrate eyesight lifetime is opsin degradation, which is simple photo-biochemistry, and cannot be circumvented without evolving an opsin maintenance system, like in the vertebrate eye.
Please don't make me go round this loop again.

DavidMcC wrote:...snip repeated repeatedness repeated repeatedly...

Please don't make me go round this loop again.

Make you do something? What am I, your puppet master?

DavidMcC wrote:PS, I hope you realse that it was SS and DB that had things backwards, not me, because an invertebrate doesn't get long-lived eyes by magic (ie, by mysteriously getting a longer life), but by a mechanism in the eye that maintains their opsin content.

Still misrepresenting your interlocutor in a desperate attempt to discredit them, I see.

I think TE and newolder are deliberately trolling this thread, the OP of which I suspect they know little of.

DavidMcC wrote:I think TE and newolder are deliberately trolling this thread, the OP of which I suspect they know little of.

Yes you've repeated that baseless accusation numerous times.
Still won't magically make it true nor hide your failure to stick to the thread topic yourself.
The very first post when you return in this thread and once again your attack your interlocutors rather than discuss the topic.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:I think TE and newolder are deliberately trolling this thread, the OP of which I suspect they know little of.

Yes you've repeated that baseless accusation numerous times.
Still won't magically make it true nor hide your failure to stick to the thread topic yourself.
The very first post when you return in this thread and once again your attack your interlocutors rather than discuss the topic.

Whatever his motives are, it's obvious the man has a pathological need for attention and conflict so why do people continue to encourage him? Is it a form of entertainment here? A kind of metaphorical piñata? In either case aren't you all just playing to his narcissism and persecution complex? I know ignoring his baseless accusations wouldn't be as much fun but at least you won't be feeding his wank fodder...

Dolorosa wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:I think TE and newolder are deliberately trolling this thread, the OP of which I suspect they know little of.

Yes you've repeated that baseless accusation numerous times.
Still won't magically make it true nor hide your failure to stick to the thread topic yourself.
The very first post when you return in this thread and once again your attack your interlocutors rather than discuss the topic.

Whatever his motives are, it's obvious the man has a pathological need for attention and conflict so why do people continue to encourage him? Is it a form of entertainment here? A kind of metaphorical piñata?

Not for me.
I'm hoping that either David comes to his senses or the mods uphold the FUA (no, I am not asking for David to be banned).

Well, whatever you are doing it's clearly not working so, at a risk of coming across preachy, perhaps it's time to change tactics and just ignore all of his off topic remarks. If his behaviour doesn't produce the desired attention he would either stop or go look for more fertile ground to sow his seed.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Dolorosa wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:I think TE and newolder are deliberately trolling this thread, the OP of which I suspect they know little of.

Yes you've repeated that baseless accusation numerous times.
Still won't magically make it true nor hide your failure to stick to the thread topic yourself.
The very first post when you return in this thread and once again your attack your interlocutors rather than discuss the topic.

Whatever his motives are, it's obvious the man has a pathological need for attention and conflict so why do people continue to encourage him? Is it a form of entertainment here? A kind of metaphorical piñata?

Not for me.
I'm hoping that either David comes to his senses or the mods uphold the FUA (no, I am not asking for David to be banned).

That is the biggest load of doodoos I've ever heard. This is (or WAS!) my thread on the biology of the vertebrate eye, and why RD got it all wrong.
PS, I'm so glad that you are not calling for me to be banned. Such a relief!
Also, I think that the off-topic stuff was all started by my interlocutors, and I would have thought that was obvious.

Dolorosa wrote:Well, whatever you are doing it's clearly not working so, at a risk of coming across preachy, perhaps it's time to change tactics and just ignore all of his off topic remarks.

I would, if said remarks did not consist of lies about myself, my motivations or my actions.

DavidMcC wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Dolorosa wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Yes you've repeated that baseless accusation numerous times.
Still won't magically make it true nor hide your failure to stick to the thread topic yourself.
The very first post when you return in this thread and once again your attack your interlocutors rather than discuss the topic.

Whatever his motives are, it's obvious the man has a pathological need for attention and conflict so why do people continue to encourage him? Is it a form of entertainment here? A kind of metaphorical piñata?

Not for me.
I'm hoping that either David comes to his senses or the mods uphold the FUA (no, I am not asking for David to be banned).

That is the biggest load of doodoos I've ever heard.

Since you say that just about every other post, that isn't really a high standard.

DavidMcC wrote: This is (or WAS!) my thread on the biology of the vertebrate eye, and why RD got it all wrong.

And when people corrected your claims or asked you to substantiate them, you immediately jumped to accusing them of having all manner of nefarious motives and making shit up about their posting history.
Which is itself a derailment, not to mention dishonest.

DavidMcC wrote:PS, I'm so glad that you are not calling for me to be banned. Such a relief!

It's got nothing to do with your relief and everything with your persistent need to accuse those who don't accept your assertions as wanting you to be banned.

DavidMcC wrote:Also, I think that the off-topic stuff was all started by my interlocutors, and I would have thought that was obvious.

Yes, you seem to be terminally incapable of reflecting on your own behavior and how you keep dragging threads off-topic with your incessant persecution complex.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Dolorosa wrote:Well, whatever you are doing it's clearly not working so, at a risk of coming across preachy, perhaps it's time to change tactics and just ignore all of his off topic remarks.

I would, if said remarks did not consist of lies about myself, my motivations or my actions.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that his claims have little to no merit, so what purpose does your defending yourself serve? You know he is talking nonsense, everyone else posting here seems to know he is talking nonsense, I've only just started posting here and I know he is talking nonsense. So what is your end game? Because it doesn't seem to be working.

Dolorosa wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Dolorosa wrote:Well, whatever you are doing it's clearly not working so, at a risk of coming across preachy, perhaps it's time to change tactics and just ignore all of his off topic remarks.

I would, if said remarks did not consist of lies about myself, my motivations or my actions.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that his claims have little to no merit, so what purpose does your defending yourself serve?

Just correcting falsehoods. Also as a sort of bookmark of the instances David does this, because he also tends to derail threads with it that he did not start.

Dolorosa wrote:You know he is talking nonsense, everyone else posting here seems to know he is talking nonsense, I've only just started posting here and I know he is talking nonsense. So what is your end game? Because it doesn't seem to be working.

You admit you don't know what my endgame is so how can you assess whether it is working?
I have no 'endgame'.
I respond to posts for various reasons. Reasons that are not subject to your idiosyncratic notions of what works and not.

Let me ask you the same question: Why are bothering with whether my posts are working or not? What's your endgame?

Thomas Eshuis wrote:You admit you don't know what my endgame is so how can you assess whether it is working? I have no 'endgame'.

Well, given David's history or more specifically the history of people berating him, it doesn't look like he'd be coming to his senses any time soon, if ever. He seems to be thriving on conflict and attention, suggesting that people's efforts to disabuse him of his delusion of persecution are having quite the opposite effect. The fact that the mods, on the face of it, do not appear to be holding him in breach of FUA, also hints that the tactic is not working.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:I respond to posts for various reasons. Reasons that are not subject to your idiosyncratic notions of what works and not.

Of course. By no means am I suggesting that you should stop responding to him or take heed of any of my notions (some of which can be quite idiosyncratic indeed).

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Let me ask you the same question: Why are bothering with whether my posts are working or not? What's your endgame?

Oh, the reason is simple - curiosity. I am a black sheep here. I don't know anyone and am not in on all the in-house jokes and politics. To me even if things do appear black and white the question of 'why' persists - so I dig. It's the sort of conversation that most would have in private, however, I don't like talking about people behind their backs and am not too keen on PMs. So, I apologise if this seemed a bit inquisitorial and out of place. I hope you don't take offence to my posing those questions. I certainly didn't mean to single you out. Anyway, I realise that my butting in is not going to solve this ancient conflict so I shall bow out and leave you guys in peace.