It's like reading a Roger Irrelevant comic strip.

I don't think it's even as functional as a hatstand.

Greg the Grouper wrote:Silver tongued genitals...?

He's just making sure we all understand that his knowledge of anatomy is just as lacking as his knowledge of physics and biology in general.

pfrankinstein wrote:
You rubbing your silver tongued genitals up against my leg again.

Incoherent in so many ways.

pfrankinstein wrote:You have lied bullied and tried to manipulate the powers that be.

Lied now too? Intriguing, you haven't accused me of that before, and you no doubt will be able to provide substantiation for this accusation, right?

Bullying, yeah you whined about that before, but either you're going to need to ask the moderators to look at these alleged bullying cases, or you can shove this whine back up your rectum as it's so obviously an attempt to distract, as is entirely routine for you.

And the last one - I have not a scooby what you're ranting on about, but can you please keep the saliva spraying to a minimum - we're in the midst of an epidemic here, remember?

Again Paul, your ability to (barely) string words together into sentences doesn't make those sentences true. I can accuse you of all manner of things too - I'll show you.

Pfrankinstein's a child-snatcher who urinates in peoples' gardens and reads the Daily Mail.

Are these accusations now fact because I wrote the words? Try and use your brain here for once, Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote:You failed.

I am not a participant in this thread who stands to win or lose anything. You are.

Your inability to post in coherent writing.
Your denial of facts.
Your ignorance.
Your aggression.
Your repetition of falsehoods.

These all mean you are a complete loser*, and will remain one until you can do something about your entirely unwarranted hubris,

pfrankinstein wrote:Who are you?

The guy you've failed to convince that you even know what you're yammering about, let alone that the idea is worth more than a turd.




* in the context of the win/loss paradigm of this thread - wouldn't want to make any personal attack that could be seen as bullying, like calling someone a 'tool' for example.

Spearthrower wrote:

Greg the Grouper wrote:Silver tongued genitals...?

He's just making sure we all understand that his knowledge of anatomy is just as lacking as his knowledge of physics and biology in general.

Maybe he's just making sure we all understand that his skill at creating metaphors is just as lacking as his knowledge of physics and biology in general.

He really can relax in that regard: we're already quite satisfactorily aware of his lack of knowledge in general.

Though perhaps he has expertise in 1980's pop songs?

Spearthrower wrote:...perhaps he has expertise in 1980's pop songs?

Don't know. I stopped following up on his Youtube pointers a long time ago. They reminded me of Dennis Markuze's links to pop songs that felt meaningful to him.

pfrankinstein wrote:
You have lied bullied and tried to manipulate the powers that be.

You failed.

The shit you're pulling, here, and up-thread, does not rise to the level of "damaging". That's why you're still around, a harmless, confused, unfocused, yet arrogant know-nothing with access to the internet. Essentially, your hobby is trying to break other people's toys. You're not good at that, along with all the other stuff, including communication, you're not good at. If you're just pretending to be bad at communicating, you're not very good at that, either.

Hermit wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:...perhaps he has expertise in 1980's pop songs?

Don't know. I stopped following up on his Youtube pointers a long time ago. They reminded me of Dennis Markuze's links to pop songs that felt meaningful to him.

I have to be honest and admit that I assume they're still just URLs to pop songs on YT, because I also don't bother clicking such links - I rarely do even when they're from a respected source. Unless people put in the time to explain why they're citing a link and giving some context, I think it's eminently ignorable taking just about as much time to ignore as it took them to copy and paste it.

But what a truly unique way of emulating being quirky and eccentric on the internet, eh?

pfrankinstein wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:


Is that in the learned opinion of the fabricated sister you sometimes feel the need to have defend you?

Provide evidence or be branded a liar and bully.

Branded by you?

Well, that's surely going to have a lot of impact!



Actually, Kiore - the senior moderator - until recently had a message from you from years ago on his profile, well from your "sister", but profile messages had to be turned off. I am sure he'd be more than willing to corroborate what I've said, which would be rather uncomfortable for you all in all, because then not only is it re-established by the highest authority on this forum that you pretended to be your sister to get yourself out of bother you'd created, but it must also mean you'd have to brand yourself a liar!

Ok lets test the senior moderators integrity.

(I thought pm stood for private message.)

I wave the right for the private message to be kept private.

Let the highest authority produce the evidence.

Let's have it.

The sooner the better, I'd like to get on with the organon.

You have never defended yourself against the bullying charge I see. Most telling.

Your the one who should be feeling uncomfortable and embarrassed.

Paul

So apparently Paul is now trying to frame this as me having manipulated the moderators.

This is either stunningly thick of Paul indicating that his reading comprehension is as bad as his writing, or it's manipulative bullshit that he later tries to leverage to claim I've been terribly unfair.

In reality, it's perfectly clear to note that nowhere in my post did I refer to 'private message'.

What I was actually talking about was profile messages, wherein you left a public comment on someones' profile page.

Not only did I not mention anything about 'private messages' but the sum context of what I wrote also obviates any sense in which I could have been talking about private message.

This is readily established by the fact that I referred to them - profile messages - as having recently been disabled, whereas private messaging still works as intended.

Paul, whether by innocent ineptitude, or perhaps by some other motivation, failed to notice that what I was talking about wasn't 'private messages' but then introduced the idea that the moderators were somehow in cahoots with me and that their integrity is in question, whereas in the very best reading, it's Paul's reading comprehension that's the only resulting question.

Of course, Paul could quickly clear this all up by acknowledging that he made an elementary reading comprehension error, apologize for the confusion and resulting accusations, and then we could accept it as an innocent mistake.

Or he could...

Clearly, the only reason why we would all refuse to praise Paul's foolish notions is because you're our Illithid master and our minds have been flayed.

I've come to the conclusion that any sufficiently advanced knowledge of any kind - not just technology - is indistinguishable from magic. It's something I've been mulling for a while, since writing a blog post aimed at demystifying specialised notation, wherein I treated notation as technology (because it is).

That's also why apologists for various bits of wibble retreat to language like 'somehow' and 'by itself' and 'randomly' (this is, in fact, the core definition of 'random' employed in a certain mindset), simply because it's magic to them, as they're incapable of grasping it. To a dumb rube, understanding even a simple thing like the interplay of selection and selected can seem like total gibberish, let alone when we start getting into the nitty gritty of differential survival, fitness gradients, etc. It's all just squiggles on a blackboard to them.

ETA: Might as well link, just because.

In on the Secret

Method : To measure the process of evolution by its own broad key characteristics.
To regress the Darwinian process, and explore its possible advancement.


The experiment is done in the hope of placing the Darwinian process into context of its own EVOLUTION explained by its own measure.

To place a subject and hold it within strict parameters and insist it's understanding only relates to YOUR specific; is a faulty construct.

My theory/organon may also be faulty, but then my three types of selection explain the observed data better than your one.

Paul.

Spearthrower wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:


Provide evidence or be branded a liar and bully.

Branded by you?

Well, that's surely going to have a lot of impact!



Actually, Kiore - the senior moderator - until recently had a message from you from years ago on his profile, well from your "sister", but profile messages had to be turned off. I am sure he'd be more than willing to corroborate what I've said, which would be rather uncomfortable for you all in all, because then not only is it re-established by the highest authority on this forum that you pretended to be your sister to get yourself out of bother you'd created, but it must also mean you'd have to brand yourself a liar!

Ok lets test the senior moderators integrity.

(I thought pm stood for private message.)

I wave the right for the private message to be kept private.

Let the highest authority produce the evidence.

Let's have it.

The sooner the better, I'd like to get on with the organon.

You have never defended yourself against the bullying charge I see. Most telling.

Your the one who should be feeling uncomfortable and embarrassed.

Paul

So apparently Paul is now trying to frame this as me having manipulated the moderators.

This is either stunningly thick of Paul indicating that his reading comprehension is as bad as his writing, or it's manipulative bullshit that he later tries to leverage to claim I've been terribly unfair.

In reality, it's perfectly clear to note that nowhere in my post did I refer to 'private message'.

What I was actually talking about was profile messages, wherein you left a public comment on someones' profile page.

Not only did I not mention anything about 'private messages' but the sum context of what I wrote also obviates any sense in which I could have been talking about private message.

This is readily established by the fact that I referred to them - profile messages - as having recently been disabled, whereas private messaging still works as intended.

Paul, whether by innocent ineptitude, or perhaps by some other motivation, failed to notice that what I was talking about wasn't 'private messages' but then introduced the idea that the moderators were somehow in cahoots with me and that their integrity is in question, whereas in the very best reading, it's Paul's reading comprehension that's the only resulting question.

Of course, Paul could quickly clear this all up by acknowledging that he made an elementary reading comprehension error, apologize for the confusion and resulting accusations, and then we could accept it as an innocent mistake.

Or he could...

He said she said... blah blah blah knee cap hill blah blah blah all makes sense.

Forget it.

Paul.

I doubt that anyone here is surprised by the notion that evolution doesn't really explain much outside of biodiversity.

pfrankinstein wrote:Method : To measure the process of evolution by its own broad key characteristics.
To regress the Darwinian process, and explore its possible advancement.

That's not a method, that's a statement of intent. By what method will you achieve this?

The experiment is done in the hope of placing the Darwinian process into context of its own EVOLUTION explained by its own measure.

Excellent. What will the experiment consist of?

To place a subject and hold it within strict parameters and insist it's understanding only relates to YOUR specific; is a faulty construct.

Which is almost word-for-word what we've been trying to tell you throughout.

My theory/organon may also be faulty, but then my three types of selection explain the observed data better than your one.

Except for the small matter of natural selection as applied to biodiversity (which is all NS is supposed to explain) actually a) having utility as heuristic and b) being quantifiable and predictive in its action. There's no good reason to suppose your arse-biscuit applies to anything, not least because you've yet to identify precisely what's being selected, by what mechanism and what the outcomes are. Contrast this to the formulation of Darwin's theory, wherein he not only laid all this out, he also laid out every objection he could conceive of for the precise purpose of showing how the explanation defeated them. You have not only not done that, you've studiously ignored all the valid objections presented by people who demonstrably have far greater understanding of the subject matter.

pfrankinstein wrote:Method : To measure the process of evolution by its own broad key characteristics.
To regress the Darwinian process, and explore its possible advancement.


The experiment is done in the hope of placing the Darwinian process into context of its own EVOLUTION explained by its own measure.

To place a subject and hold it within strict parameters and insist it's understanding only relates to YOUR specific; is a faulty construct.

My theory/organon may also be faulty, but then my three types of selection explain the observed data better than your one.

Paul.

Excellent! Then what are you waiting for? Present the data that explains the 3 generations of fermions observed hitherto and we'll have something to discuss. It reads like you've got at least 1 Nobel Prize sewn up.

What's increasingly hilarious is that we've already given Paul the answer to the question he thinks he's asking.

There IS selection at play in the evolution of the cosmos, and the thing doing the selecting is exactly the same thing that's doing the selecting in natural selection (if you squint at it a bit... ). We know what's doing the selecting, we know the mechanism of selection, and we can quantitatively predict its outcomes using the theory that deals with it. He's repeatedly and in ways many and diverse been given the entire shebang, from entire articles to the one-word answer that he still fails to acknowledge.

And should Paul ever put his thesis on a rigorous footing, get it all measured and calculated, Latexed up and presented to Phil. Trans., his rejection letter will contain a single comment:

Congratulations! You just discovered the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

pfrankinstein wrote:Method : To measure the process of evolution by its own broad key characteristics.
To regress the Darwinian process, and explore its possible advancement.


The experiment is done in the hope of placing the Darwinian process into context of its own EVOLUTION explained by its own measure.

To place a subject and hold it within strict parameters and insist it's understanding only relates to YOUR specific; is a faulty construct.

My theory/organon may also be faulty, but then my three types of selection explain the observed data better than your one.

Paul.

You can't just write the words 'experiment is done' when no experiment has been done.

As for your absurd self-gratification - Paul, I am not being mean, I am being honest: you're a no one with a nothing idea which is why you've been touting it on random internet fora 15 years. If you were serious, credible, had integrity - you'd work on your hypothesis, perform experiments, and publish your theory in a proper peer-reviewed journal. But you're not serious, you're not credible, and your integrity is non-existent. You don't look clever Paul, you look like a crackpot.