Just like you "admitted you made mistakes" in the three examples I gave above? Have you also forgotten that you're a man named Lonny Eachus dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet while accusing scientists of fraudulent bullshit lies, or do I have to link to that again too? (Go ahead, pretend you don't remember any of this so I have to link it all again. Your absurd evasions are adorable.)
By now you've wrongly suggested that I'm four different people.
Really? And what people are those? [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-15]
But since you're struggling I'll throw you a bone. Some of the AC's on number four are a different matter. Seen a new squirrel you've never seen before? Squirrel!
And I'll repeat the question I asked you years ago: why do you ASSUME that meant you? Why do you ASSUME I named that file myself? Why do you ASSUME it was even my file to begin with? [Jane Q. Public]
So you didn't name or even make the file you linked in a public comment at my website. You didn't name or even make the screenshot of our conversation, which you defended after quoting me saying that you made the screenshot. You didn't name the file "asshole-pseudo-scientist.png" and that doesn't refer to me, despite the fact that you've been calling me an asshole for years. And still are.
Again, you're being absurdly evasive, just like every time your misinformation is challenged. Except this time you're blatantly lying. Are you also deliberately lying when you spread all your civilization-paralyzing misinformation? If true, this would imply that Jane/Lonny Eachus has betrayed humanity.
"A lying liar who has to keep lying to cover his previous lies. -- IndEx http://fb.me/2vQzP38Ln" [Joe Newby, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2013-12-10]
So when you repeatedly claimed I'd missed where you admitted you were wrong, you meant that I'd quoted you and explained that you'd manufactured unwarranted doubt by inserting words like could and theoretically. I also explained that at the same time, you made additional claims which were never challenged, like equating the MSW effect with lasers. That's why you asked "why didn't you bother to repeat the part...?" when I actually had repeated that part and responded to it?
Fourth time's the charm, maybe? It's fascinating that you wrongly accused me of wanting to ask you 20 questions (then 7 billion!) about your identity when I've only been asking one. Repeatedly. Are you Lonny Eachus? By now you've wrongly suggested that I'm four different people. When you get to 20, will you finally say whether or not you're Lonny Eachus?
I wrote "I now see how, theoretically anyway, it could be a probabilistically-determined superposition. That clears up a lot."
Again, that was the last quote in my debunking that you repeatedly and wrongly claimed I missed.
But what is funny about the whole thing is that it isn't actually an example of what you claim, because I had in fact already explained TO SOMEONE ELSE, IN ANOTHER THREAD, that I understood that I had made a mistake, and what that mistake was. [Jane Q. Public]
Since I already linked and quoted all the places where you'd "explained" your mistake before I debunked you, your complete lack of links to these genuinely vindicating admissions speaks volumes. But if I asked for a link, that would merely be the prelude to the Layzej link gambit where you'd accuse me of being a sociopath. Instead, could we please skip to the part where you provide the vindicating link where you actually admitted your mistake? Otherwise it still seems ironically meta for you to keep arguing endlessly that you admit your mistakes. (Seriously, read that Layzej link and soak it in.)
I have admitted my mistakes, when they were actually shown to be mistakes. You have not done the same. [Jane Q. Public]
Actually, I do. For example, I thanked TinyCO2 and Michael for correcting one mistake, and apologized for the confusion after another mistake.
On the other hand, you miss the point in subtle ways and argue endlessly, never quite coming to grips with reality, while always retreating to some absurd evasion that seems to acknowledge the obvious while, in fact, concluding the exact opposite.
It's so ironically meta for you to argue endlessly that you admit your mistakes. For instance, after I debunked your lecture on neutrino oscillation, you repeatedly claimed that I missed where you admitted you were wrong. Despite the fact that the last quote in my post was the closest example I could find to a genuine admission that you'd been wrong. Even then, you manufactured unwarranted doubt by inserting words like could and theoretically. At the same time, you made additional claims which were never challenged, like equating the MSW effect with lasers.
When I looked for other instances where you'd admitted you were wrong, I found you telling other people to STFU, which even you've called nasty and arrogant. I found you saying that you were continuing the fiction by allowing some to think you didn't get that your answer is incorrect, and not letting on that you know a hell of a lot about neutrino flavor oscillations. That doesn't sound like you understood you had been wrong after it was explained to you. It sounds like you'd been pretending to be ignorant from the very beginning.
If that's what you consider "admitting your mistakes" then do you also think this is a shining example of your intellectual integrity? Obviously you could retreat to some absurd evasion and argue endlessly that you admit your mistakes, but don't you see even a tiny bit of irony there?
You seemed to make it my business when you left a public comment at my website linking to http://things.titanez.net/dl/asshole-pseudo-scientist.png.
You could've posted a screenshot of our conversation anonymously at a site like PostImg, but your charming filename seemed like a message. So I wondered if your domain name was also a deliberate message, which would make it my business. But maybe it was just an unintentional rookie mistake.
Haha. No reasonable person (and I have spoken to a few) believe that AC was not you. From all appearances, that is just another aspect of your unethical behavior, and you're trying to parade it as evidence in your favor. I've said it already, but you seem to have a problem with this: your own actions have destroyed your own credibility. It wasn't me. It was you. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-13]
Third time's the charm? You and your Scooby gang of reasonable people should've noticed that I snipped a part of that AC's comment because it used a cuss word to describe you. I've never used that insult to describe you, despite you repeatedly using it to describe me and then complaining that I'm rude, insulting.
Your Scooby gang also should've noticed that if I'd I written that comment, then I wouldn't have to ask if you'd actually lectured on those topics. I've seen you make 40+ absurd claims, in addition to your lectures on climate change, dark matter, neutrino oscillation, the Alcubierre effect and Maxwell's equations, and creationists. I wouldn't have to make up absurd lectures from you, because I already have so many real examples.
... Possibly I am a friend of this person, which is WHY I asked him to post the file.
... [Jane Q. Public]
Thanks for confirming that you asked Lonny Eachus to post the file, because you know him and are possibly his friend. Why are you so ambiguous and evasive about your friendship with Lonny Eachus? It almost sounds like you're ashamed to be his friend. As I've pointed out, you and Lonny Eachus have so much in common that you're clearly soulmates.
Strangely, Lonny Eachus seems to feel the same way about Jane. After I debunked Lonny's claim that dark energy is dead, Lonny went on an evasive rant that seems almost identical to Jane's comments above. Why would Lonny Eachus be ashamed of being friends with Jane, when they have so much in common?
No, I quoted that AC because, as I said, I hadn't heard your lectures on the hollow earth, birds evolving from insects, bismuth being a stable element, water shrinking when it freezes, and super conductivity being the result of electron tripletting.
I have seen you spray nonsense like a firehose on dozens of similarly absurd topics, so I wouldn't be surprised. I just wanted to see if those particular topics were part of Jane/Lonny Eachus's comedy act.
No, dozens of experimental data points where Jane might have been honestly overwhelmed by his Sauron-class Morton's demon. One control data point where Jane is definitely lying, because he's a pathological liar named Lonny Eachus who's dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet. Consider this AC:
"... Jane Q exists to intentionally miss the point in subtle ways and argue endlessly, never quite coming to grips with reality, while always retreating to some absurd evasion that seems to acknowledge the obvious while, in fact, concluding the exact opposite.
While this is an accurate description of Jane and I've also noticed Jane's dark matter claims, I'm curious to hear Jane's lectures about the hollow earth, birds evolving from insects, bismuth being a stable element, water shrinking when it freezes, and super conductivity being the result of electron tripletting.
This file will self-destruct in five minutes.
