Posted: Jun 19, 2019 2:30 pm
by Spearthrower
Jayjay4547 wrote:I am both of those things.

Yet not sufficiently observant to note that, following me saying I had in fact posted X, you then claimed that I hadn't in fact posted Y.

Yet not sufficiently educated to note that the requirement you're demanding of me is not possible to achieve, and the fact you demand it of me shows exactly that you aren't relevantly educated.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Order, challenge, request, whatever.

Order, JJ - you gave me an order. I then laughed at you believing that I was going to leap to obey.

Jayjay4547 wrote:You said I lied in claiming you had failed to put up what was needed to settle an issue:...

Every time you talk about this, the details change. Now it's to 'settle an issue'. To settle it to whose satisfaction, JJ? It's settled to my satisfaction. Perhaps you could ask others if it is settled to their satisfaction. But you can't ask that I settle it to your satisfaction given that you're denying it.

Jayjay4547 wrote: i.e. a pic of an australopithecus male with long pointy canines.

Already posted a pic of an australopithecine male with long pointy canines.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Then you said you had in fact put up several such.

Indeed, I have.

Jayjay4547 wrote: But you haven’t.

Oh, I have.

Jayjay4547 wrote:The only pics you have put up of primate males with long sharp canines, weren’t even of fossils.

That's untrue, JJ. So I believe that's where we go back to the start again.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:I know your tendency is towards historical revision, but the acceptance of that is usually aided when the subject of those histories is dead.

That’s too obscure for me. The record above shows that you reacted to my order, challenge,request by putting up pcs I had posted.

No that's not at all what the record shows.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:You really are being spectacularly arrogant today, aren't you JJ? Are you on the attack so that you don't have to defend the nonsense you posted last?

I didn’t post nonsense...

Might work if you were the defendant, judge, and jury, but of course, you're not.

Jayjay4547 wrote:... and I’m keen to get on to what I posted BEFORE you flared up this issue of canines.

Oh I bet you are, that's why you've only talked about these diversions since! :)

Jayjay4547 wrote:The options I raised are universal: (a) throw up a smokescreen (the option you are still taking), (b) prove using pics which I don’t recall you having posted (c) withdraw (d) discuss the pics you did post.

You are perfectly permitted to raise options you wish to engage in. The trouble you might be having is in expecting me to conform to them after you phrase them as commands.

I am, of course, under no obligation to jump hoops for your pleasure, and the fact that I have already posted the pics in this thread is sufficient for me to say I have posted them, and also sufficient to justify me saying that your claim I haven't posted them is untrue.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote: Which obviously contains a whole heap of inane assumptions.

Firstly, the notion that you would leave the website on account of anything factual - I already talked about this a page or two back - given your track record for simply evading reality and concocting fairy tales, for outright reality-denial... are we supposed to believe that a mere picture is going to send you scampering off with your tail between your legs?

If you posted up a pic of an australopithecus skull with long/pointy or sharp canines that would show me that my whole understanding of human origins was wrong. It would be a bit like finding the earth is actually flat. Certainly I would leave this forum.

So you respond to the point about how inane this is by repeating an inanity. If you want to keep on talking about this, perhaps you could fill in the gaping logical gap where you'd go from 'learning something you didn't know' to 'leaving the forum' because they don't seem related in the slightest to me. Are you saying you'd leave in shame? And the shame you'd be feeling is because you weren't aware of some morphological characteristics of australopithecines?

But you're still here JJ, and yet you were shown flat-footed outright unable to process that you didn't know you'd presented a female afarensis skull as a male afarensis skull.

So even waving over the silly logical gap which appears to revolve around you acknowledging a mistake, unlike you ever do, the fact is that if this really were to be the outcome, you'd have disappeared half a dozen pages ago after you called my post pointing out that the replica skull you had posted was a female the worst crap you'd ever read on the forum and then I gave you ample technical detail to understand why that was, in fact, factually the case.

What's actually happened is you've done everything you can to pretend it never happened! :grin:

So why are you drawing lines in the sand now? Do you think other people might consider your threats of self-harm to be credible?

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote: Secondly, you assume I want you to leave the forum. That's genuinely ridiculous and something I've certainly never expressed, but undoubtedly generates a whole lot of the victimhood and martyrdom narrative threads that certain types of Christian thrive on. Who says I want you to leave the forum, JJ? In reality, all you'll ever see me asking of you is that you stop bullshitting. For me, there's space enough for everyone here, so long as they can abide by simple universal etiquette.

Simple universal etiquette doesn’t include calling someone a liar,..

Again JJ, you can keep trying with this but the simple fact is that you have lied. Not once, not twice, but half a dozen times.

When someone lies, calling their declarations a lie is not uncivil, not lacking in etiquette at all.

You keep trying to pretend you're the victim, but all you're doing is gaslighting.

Jayjay4547 wrote:... failing to back that up

Um, I have backed up my accusations of your lies each and every time I've made that accusation.

Jayjay4547 wrote:... and making out you couldn’t respond to an “Order”.

Ahh you misunderstand. I never said I couldn't respond to your command, I told you I wouldn't respond to your command. Slight difference in terms of spelling perhaps, but a world of difference in terms of implied status differences. I am simply not yours to command, JJ - so if you want something of me, then you can make a request.

You do seem to struggle in that regard. Before you couldn't bring yourself to request information as to how I knew the replica afarensis skull you posted wasn't a male as you'd implied, but was actually a female. I made fun of your attempts to get to that information without lowering yourself to having to make a request of someone you exhibit endless arrogant disdain for, so I am surprised you think this will be any different.

As usual JJ, if you don't like how the tango's going, there's two people involved in it, so blaming your dance-partner is perhaps missing the point.

Jayjay4547 wrote:I don’t assume you want me to leave this forum,...

You've just contradicted yourself - before you were suggesting that this should incentivize me to perform your command.

Jayjay4547 wrote: just that you could earn kudos for sending this creationist off with his tail between his legs as you put it.

I doubt everything about that.

I doubt that you'd actually go. It's not like you've shown any acknowledgment of your errors in the past, so why would this be any different?

I doubt that I would earn kudos from anyone simply for you ceasing to post. I expect you'd be forgotten pretty quickly, to be frank, up until someone used an argument in the same vein of paucity as yours and then it would bring back fond memories ala Robert Byers.

I doubt anyone would even care, to be honest... in fact, the only people who might care might think quite the opposite, and be critical of me if I were literally the reason you left the forum.

So yeah, I don't find your notional exercise to be grounded on any thing real. I do feel it's probably part of the delusional bigotry you routinely formulate about people here though.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote: Thirdly, I neither expect nor aim for anyone's approval - not in this life, chap! :) My peers, in terms of rational skepticism, includes you - we're all equal members here, after all. In terms of this topic, who is supposed to be my peer here? There used to be some very knowledgeable palaeoanthropological folks here like Gib and Steviepinhead, and their presence would have made this discussion much more interesting for me (they'd have spotted the same errors you made, for example, and would also probably have noted some of the amusement I intentionally generated which you missed completely), and they'd have been able to actually have a technical conversation with me about anatomy which you can't.

My arguments aren’t about details of anatomy...

Umm? They are, though JJ. Yes, yes, I know they're not ULTIMATELY about anatomy - what I call your babushka arguments, but you are making claims about anatomy which I have shown wrong.

Jayjay4547 wrote: but about obvious messages that are clear from pics readily available on the internet and that were indeed drawn by Dart nearly 90 years ago.

Yeeeeaaah, but no, no, not at all. They're not 'obvious' just because you see them; you need to consider whether you just have flawed vision with respect to them. I don't know whether you possess the kind of hubris that makes such introspection impossible for you, but even in the fields I specialize and teach in, I still don't ever claim to be in possession of absolute confidence about anything. That's because I know and value how tenuous knowledge really is. How easily a new find could throw out so much that was previously so obvious.

And those pics you keep showing are part of the problem JJ. It's ironic that you claim to be able to see these messages in pictures, but don't seem able to pick up messages in messages written in English directed straight at you. The pics you are showing aren't fossils JJ - they're replica / composites made by.... who? I don't know? No one who's necessarily credible.

When I talk about these hominids, I am not looking at your pictures, I am looking at the actual fossils found, and they are nearly always fragmentary, and thus compositing them would require being aware of things like geographical and temporal differences, the age of death of the specimens, and trying to see the entire group of fossil fragments typologically.

One of the key messages you should have taken away from the outset of this thread is how unreliable those pics you're finding on the internet are. The afarensis 'skull' you posted, for example, is at least 60% just made up. Wholly made up. And the largest part that's made up? All the dentition. I told you this. Either you ignored it because it was inconvenient, you ignored it because you're not interested in fact-based discussion, or you aren't aware that you ignored it and it's basically cognitive dissonance. Well, there's one other possibility, I suppose... you bluntly dismissed what I said believing that the bone clones model was right because you posted it.

Sometimes JJ, it might help if you engaged in a little empathy and thought: how do my posts come across to other people?

And follow that up with: can I really expect them to always employ the principle of charity endlessly?

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote: Fourthly, when I've already made a post, it is not really my obligation to scurry off and find it on your command. Whether you acknowledge reality or not, there it remains.

It would at least help you establish your point, provided such a post existed.

With whom? With you? Well, if you need me to repost pictures I already posted, then it's clearly not going to make the slightest bit of difference given it didn't the first time round.

With others? Honestly... I think anyone following this conversation would agree with me not you.

And that's really quite integral to all of these side-topics you've generated in the last couple of pages - they're all about expecting me to satisfy you, to do things that you want, in the way you want me to do them, and for you to be the judge of it all. Of course, you're entitled to engage in any kind of control drama you want, but I am not obliged to adhere to such a fiction.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:Well, I could also just as easily have compiled a list of your lies, because it's not like I've forgotten them JJ. This is just one example where you claim I haven't posted any pics of australopithecine crania when anyone reading this thread knows I have.

Ha ha Spearthrower my friend, an australopithecus skull WITH LONG SHARP CANINES, of which you claimed to have posted several, “within hours” of my post.

What's with all the joviality? What's with the caps lock?

There's a fundamental Dunning Kruger illusion of superiority and consequent lack of metacognitive awareness going on here. I've already told you that the 'skull notion' is problematic. Why is it problematic? Because there aren't any 'skulls'... there are no whole afarensis skulls complete with dentition JJ - there are 'partially complete crania' and 'associated mandibles', for example, but what you're asking me to produce is something that simply doesn't exist as far as anyone knows.

It's one of the many points I've made to you criticizing your reliance on bone clones pictures. And it does inescapably point out that you aren't in possession of any real knowledge on the subject if you don't even know the fossils in question, yet think you can draw massive generalizations from something that you basically know nothing about.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:Which is fantastically convoluted because to have made this 'collation' of pics that I posted then you must recognize that I did in fact post said pics, ergo... :doh:

But dear friend, the only image in this collation (compilation?) of an animal with long pointy canines (c), doesn’t seem to be even be of a fossil, let alone an australopithecus.


According to whom, JJ?

And what's that 'seem' business?

And who's telling who this?

And you think there's not an australopithecine in the picture?

B, D, E, F are all australopithecines JJ - even more specifically, they're all Australopithecus afarensis.

Why you've labeled them A, B, and C I don't know because they were posted together as one picture expressly for a reason; to show the similarity of afarensis dentition to chimpanzees comparative to humans.

But what I DO know is that you don't know what's in those pictures, and it's like you feel like you'd be lowering yourself in people's estimation if you had to ask to find out what's in those pictures.

I specifically cut away their URL's so you didn't have an easy time of blagging them JJ. Really, it wouldn't be THAT hard to go and find those pictures anyway if you wanted to profess knowledge about them that you don't have, but instead you've played this genuinely bizarre game where you talk around them pretending that I haven't done something and that even if I had done something then it isn't what I said I'd done, and even if I've done what I said then why would you believe me anyway....

How hard is it really for you to ask?

Straight up: why half a dozen pages of this guessing game? If you'd asked me straight away, I would have told you. Just like if you'd lowered yourself to asking me how I knew the afarensis composite you posted was female, I would have told you right away. Again, your behavior - outlandish behavior I might add - is what's generating all this aside because I sure as shit am not going to make it easy for you to blag or pretend to knowledge or to act so arrogantly; that's exactly what I have set out to let you do - burst your own bubble JJ. So if you're all worried about your credibility being damaged and how the shame would drive you away, then you have only yourself to blame here.

Your credibility on this topic at the moment can only go up.

I can identify the very moment for you when you lost any pretense of credibility you might have had if you like? It's when you ignored all the technical morphological descriptions to sex afarensis.

What you still don't know yet is that the descriptions I gave actually comprised some gotchas as well.

Yeah, I am playing you JJ, albeit not in the way you think. But you do really, really deserve it.