Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

[Edward Dolan]

"Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
[...]
> [YAWN] Legality and morality are obviously not the same things. In
> various times and places (including in some cases the US), slavery,
> infanticide, gender discrimination, class based discrimination, racial
> based discrimination, genocide, domestic violence and rape have been
> legal. I rest my case on this matter.

All of the above items that Mr. Sherman mentions were regarded as moral too
at the time and place where they took place. Abortion is now legal and
liberals like Sherman regard it as moral too. I think it ought to be legal
to kill (murder) abortionists and all who practice it. And that would also
be the moral thing to do according to my lights.
[...]

> Many people have been convicted for crimes they did not commit, and
> many more for legal crimes that were not immoral. I, of course hold to
> the higher absolute standard of morality and logic.
[...]

Nonsense! Most criminals have gotten away with many crimes by the time they
are finally caught for something or other. They are all guilty of something.
I say off with their heads! It is far, far better that ten innocent men be
executed than that one guilty man go free. (Now, we will see if anyone is
reading this thread.)
[...]

> Translation: If you can not stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Jim is writing about a thousand words to every one of Tom's. Mr. Sherman is
the laziest cook in the kitchen, heat or no heat.

Jim McNamara wrote:

>> Tom, until I encountered you, I was unaware that anyone could stack
>> ******** so high. Regardless of what you have said or will say in your
>> own feeble defense, as self-appointed spokesperson, your efforts for
>> vindication for the JAG alliance condemn you as a collaborator. Thanks
>> for making it clear to the ARBR readership just where you stand and
>> with whom. I no longer have the ambition, the forbearance, the
>> dedication or the time required to endure you, your specious reasoning
>> or your incoherent rhetoric.
>
> At the end, Mr. McNamara insists on stating suspicion as fact. No
> wonder is quitting the argument, since Mr. McNamara LACKS PROOF OF THE
> IDENTITY of the HRS blog author(s).

Circumstantial evidence is all that is required by any sane person.

>> Tom, nothing is nearly so dangerous as sincere ignorance coupled with
>> conscientious stupidity. You resemble those remarks. You are an
>> obtuse, sanctimonious ARBR contaminant ... a pretentious windbag and a
>> master of subterfuge. You are arrogant, obstinate, pompous narcissist.
>> You are a myopic, incorrigible dunderhead. You are self-righteous and
>> filled with your own self-importance. You are an appalling waste of
>> raw material that would be of most benefit if recycled into the food
>> chain. I regret that I wasted so much time on someone so unworthy.
>
> Lacking PROOF of his contentions, Mr. McNamara resorts to a long string
> of insults.

You drive others to it by your standoffishness (only the Great Ed Dolan can
make up words like this - the rest of you are prohibited from doing it). I
would not waste so many words on you, but then I am not Jim.
[...]

> Others cutting and running does not bother me at all, since I enjoy
> pointing it out.

Mr. Sherman just normally disappears without any announcements. He is unlike
me that way. Once when he left ARBR he said nothing at all. He just
disappeared like the Cheshire cat.

When I leave ARBR, quite often and regularly, I always make an announcement
and a big event of it. That is because I deserve it. I am not a disappearing
cat like Mr. Sherman who slinks quietly away into the night.

My next final farewell will be my 6th I believe. I promise lots of
fireworks!

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[[email protected]]

Ed,

Thanks for you insight.

I see that Tom still confuses morality and legality.

It amuses me that he thinks I can't stand the heat. What I can't stand
is Tom and his nonsense and I just won't waste any more time on him.

Did you notice how he virtually steered clear of the public versus
private and circumstantial evidence issues? You remember that I said
about fundamental components being crucial for his mantra and doctrine
to be valid and prevail and with the failure of either his position in
the debate crumbles. Well it has, hasn't it? So what did he do? He
asserted that in the HRS blog there existed only similarities to the
objects of defamation that had onlu some parallel to reality. So the
joke's on us then? The blog isn't about what we thought it was all
this time? What is this guy smokin'? Next he'll be saying that the
graphics merely resemble the objects of defamation. Worse yet, he'll
insit that we believe it too.

You've gone toe to toe with this goof for years now. Is this wacko for
real or what? One thing that he has in common with his good buddies is
that he has too much time on his hands. To think that he wastes it on
the likes of the blog jerks. You know what they say about judging you
by the company you keep.

Jim

 

[Edward Dolan]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ed,
>
> Thanks for your insight.
>
> I see that Tom still confuses morality and legality.
>
> It amuses me that he thinks I can't stand the heat. What I can't stand
> is Tom and his nonsense and I just won't waste any more time on him.
>
> Did you notice how he virtually steered clear of the public versus
> private and circumstantial evidence issues? You remember what I said
> about fundamental components being crucial for his mantra and doctrine
> to be valid and prevail and with the failure of either his position in
> the debate crumbles. Well it has, hasn't it? So what did he do? He
> asserted that in the HRS blog there existed only similarities to the
> objects of defamation that had only some parallel to reality. So the
> joke's on us then? The blog isn't about what we thought it was all
> this time? What is this guy smokin'? Next he'll be saying that the
> graphics merely resemble the objects of defamation. Worse yet, he'll
> insist that we believe it too.
>
> You've gone toe to toe with this goof for years now. Is this wacko for
> real or what? One thing that he has in common with his good buddies is
> that he has too much time on his hands. To think that he wastes it on
> the likes of the blog jerks. You know what they say about judging you
> by the company you keep.
>
> Jim

Jim, I once briefly looked in on the Monkey Island website (or was it a
blog?) and had to turn away from it as it was full of obscene pictures and
full of the kind of words I hadn't heard since I was in the Navy some 50
years ago. That Mr. Sherman can find such goings on the least bit amusing or
"fascinating" (his own word) is beyond me. I gave up on this teenager ****
long ago and in fact I never liked it even when I was a teenager.

But I am high class and who knows what Mr. Sherman is. He give clues from
time to time that he has some breeding and education, but than at other
times he goes off slumming with characters who have no character. I do not
understand it at all.

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Johnny Sunset]

Jim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ed,
>
> Thanks for you insight.
>
> I see that Tom still confuses morality and legality.

What confusion (another accusation without proof from Mr. McNamara)?

Legality is a set of rules established by whoever happens to have power
in society at the moment. There is no inherent connection to morality,
unless one believes that the ruler(s) have been granted their authority
by a higher power (e.g. the divine right of kings).

I am eagerly waiting for Mr. McNamara's explanation of how legality and
morality are the same.

> It amuses me that he thinks I can't stand the heat.

Then why is Mr. McNamara constantly mentioning how he wishes to leave
the discussion?

> What I can't stand
> is Tom and his nonsense and I just won't waste any more time on him.

I can only hope I never meet Mr. McNamara in real life (a disadvantage
of close geographical proximity).

> Did you notice how he virtually steered clear of the public versus
> private and circumstantial evidence issues?

In the context of a recumbent discussion forum, principal's of
organizations that participate in the discussions as representatives of
their companies are public figures within that context (and no, I do
not care what the courts say, since legal decisions are not made on a
moral basis).

As for circumstantial evidence, there are several individuals whose
names do not starts with the letters J, A or G that would have the
means, motive and ability to create the HRS blog, so Mr. McNamara's
veiled accusations have little merit, since NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE HAS
BEEN PRESENTED.

> You remember that I said
> about fundamental components being crucial for his mantra and doctrine
> to be valid and prevail and with the failure of either his position in
> the debate crumbles. Well it has, hasn't it?

The burden is on Mr. McNamara to prove his veiled accusations. WHERE IS
THE PROOF?

> So what did he do? He
> asserted that in the HRS blog there existed only similarities to the
> objects of defamation that had onlu some parallel to reality. So the
> joke's on us then? The blog isn't about what we thought it was all
> this time? What is this guy smokin'? Next he'll be saying that the
> graphics merely resemble the objects of defamation. Worse yet, he'll
> insit that we believe it too.

While the objects of parody appear similar to real persons and
organizations (does this mean the real Mr. McNamara is similar to the
"Jimmy Mac" presented in the blog?), without knowing the mind of the
HRS blog author(s) we can not KNOW what the real objects of parody are.
Perfectly logical (which may be why it escapes Mr. McNamara).

> You've gone toe to toe with this goof for years now. Is this wacko for
> real or what?

Mr. McNamara is asking Ed Dolan for advice here, when Ed Dolan's
purpose on alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent is to be provocative and cause
contention. Now that is funny!

> One thing that he has in common with his good buddies is
> that he has too much time on his hands. To think that he wastes it on
> the likes of the blog jerks.

How about my wasting it on the likes of Mr. McNamara?

> You know what they say about judging you by the company you keep.

Well, I do not associate with Mr. McNamara, so I guess I am alright.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

 

[[email protected]]

Ed,

Sorry about those typos (you/your ... onlu/only). I thought I'd point
those out before Tom did. That's one of his favorite pastimes. My
fingers seem to be very uncooperative as of late. Fortunately,
communication is unimpaired for all by the imperceptive Mr. Sherman.

I hear you about Monkey Island. It was a forum though devoid of
pictures, so you must have visited a blog or website ... maybe Seth
Jayson's. I never found anything worthwhile coming from the MI
bunch anyways. The HRS blog continues in the fine Jayson/Gin tradition
of hatred and defamation. Oops, did I slip and name names. Tom will
be outraged.

I agree about Tom. There are glimmers of breeding and education. There
are even glimmers of intelligence, but none of integrity. How can he
expect to command respect of the readership when he defends those that
disrespect other respected members in the recumbent community? Tom
would say, the HRS blog doesn't disrespect anything. It merely
disrespects that which has similar parallels in the reality ...
****!!!. What does that say of the HRS blog? Are we to believe that
it is a parody of itself, not to be taken seriously? If so, then there
should be no need to defend it. Similarities? The company denigrated
just happens to reside in the same locale as the company in the HRS
blog. Brolies couldn't possibly be BROL members, JimmyMac couldn't
possibly be Jim McNamara (jimmymac_4) and Killer Bees are what ...
insects?

This bears repeating. The HRS blog has a specific objective and that
objective is not mimicry and satire of that which only has parallel
similarities in reality. The objective is defamation of specific
designated targets. The HRS blog fails in its objective to define
those that it denigrates. The HRS blog succeeds in defining its author
and its contributors. The denigrated will survive character
assassination, but the author and contributors will struggle to escape
their own self-inflicted, sullied reputations that they have merited
and will continue to be haunted by. Remembered for the significant
role that he played will be their spokesperson and defender ... Tom
Sherman.

Check out Mr. Sherman's latest feeble ramblings. He asked why I
mention my intention to leave the discussion. His question is in
response to an answer already provided when I stated that I can't stand
Tom and his nonsense and don't intend to waste time on him. I am
beginning to wonder if Tom is hearing impaired, suffering from
perceptual deficiencies or both.

You will also notice that Tom still refuses to recognize the definition
of private and public figures as defined by law, but, by his own
admission, he doesn't have any regard for the court system either. His
response to both issues (public persons and circumstantial), are
pitifully unimpressive.

I remarked that we are judged by the company that we keep and Tom
replied that he doesn't associate with me, so he must be alright.
This is another example of a conclusion derived from twisted logic
(read ILLGOCAL). My remark was not with regard to who doesn't
associate with whom, but rather with whom one associates. I do not
associate with Ed Gin. Tom Sherman does. Enough said on that account.

Jim

 

[Kurt Fischer]

<[email protected]> wrote:

[...]
> The HRS blog continues in the fine Jayson/Gin tradition
> of hatred and defamation.
[...]

In my opinion there is no hatred or (real) defamation in this blog, at
least not against Bacchetta or highracers. Poor, tasteless jokes, yes,
more than enough, but in my eyes the author of the HRS blog doesn't try
to bash Bacchetta - on the contrary: in fact this blog is *pro*
Bacchetta and *pro* highracer, mainly for one simple reason: The insults
and accusations on this block are too far away from reality to be taken
seriously, hardly anyone who isn't completely out of his senses is
willing to give them credit.

Simple deliberation: I hate someone and start looking for the best way
to bash and discredit him. Would it be wise or useful to accuse him of
things easily recognizable *at first glance* as not true and obviously
faked?

No, that would turn out quite contrary to my goals. My intentions soon
will be obvious, nobody will take me serious anymore and my "enemy" will
get all the sympathies. Only a real fool could choose this strategy. I
don't know the author of this blog, but I can't imagine he's that
stupid. There's a lot of wit and creativity involved in this blog,
unfortunately in a very tasteless and primitive manner. Much to my
chagrin a lot of creative potential gets lost this way every day.

Now, if it's not Bacchetta, who is the target this blog tries to bash?
In my opinion the author aims among others at individuals who criticize
Bacchetta, e.g. for insufficient braking power of some models or
consider the seat height too high.

"Oh, your saying the brakes are poor and the seats too high? Yes, you're
right. Look at the millions of people getting killed or seriously
injured while falling off this dangerous bikes..."
In other words: he ridicules the critics by exaggerating their concerns.

I don't know about the role Bacchetta plays in this game, but their
sales are certainly not decreasing because of this blog. In fact I
suspect they kind of profit in this affair, at least the popularity of
the brand is increasing.

I also suspect the Author doesn't like the folks at Volae very much. He
writes:
http://highracers.blogspot.com/2005/12/bwian-joins-killer-bee-company-as
-head.html

" If you must buy a recumbent highracer, please support the Volae
Company run by hard working, honest American folks with decent morals."

At first glance this sounds like a pretty neat compliment, but from the
mouth of someone who either talks pure b***s*** or usually says exactly
the opposite of what he thinks, that's actually a serious insult.

So, if you are looking for the man behind this blog, I suggest searching
for someone who is obsessed by recumbents, esp. by highracers, who most
probably rides one himself, doesn't like Volae and Trek and has a very,
very poor and tasteless sense of humor. Maybe we should ask Kevin K.
first, he seems to have the right connections. ;-)

Regards,
Kurt

 

[Kurt Fischer]

<[email protected]> wrote:

[...]
> The HRS blog continues in the fine Jayson/Gin tradition
> of hatred and defamation.
[...]

In my opinion there is no hatred or (real) defamation in this blog, at
least not against Bacchetta or highracers. Poor, tasteless jokes, yes,
more than enough, but in my eyes the author of the HRS blog doesn't try
to bash Bacchetta - on the contrary: in fact this blog is *pro*
Bacchetta and *pro* highracer, mainly for one simple reason: The insults
and accusations on this blog are too far away from reality to be taken
seriously, hardly anyone who isn't completely out of his senses is
willing to give them credit.

Simple deliberation: I hate someone and start looking for the best way
to bash and discredit him. Would it be wise or useful to accuse him of
things easily recognizable *at first glance* as not true and obviously
faked?

No, that would turn out quite contrary to my goals. My intentions soon
will be obvious, nobody will take me serious anymore and my "enemy" will
get all the sympathies. Only a real fool could choose this strategy. I
don't know the author of this blog, but I can't imagine he's that
stupid. There's a lot of wit and creativity involved in this blog,
unfortunately in a very tasteless and primitive manner. Much to my
chagrin a lot of creative potential gets lost this way every day.

Now, if it's not Bacchetta, who is the target this blog tries to bash?
In my opinion the author aims among others at individuals who criticize
Bacchetta, e.g. for insufficient braking power of some models or
consider the seat height too high.

"Oh, your saying the brakes are poor and the seats too high? Yes, you're
right. Look at the millions of people getting killed or seriously
injured while falling off this dangerous bikes..."
In other words: he ridicules the critics by exaggerating their concerns.

I don't know about the role Bacchetta plays in this game, but their
sales are certainly not decreasing because of this blog. In fact I
suspect they kind of profit in this affair, at least the popularity of
the brand is increasing.

I also suspect the Author doesn't like the folks at Volae very much. He
writes:
http://highracers.blogspot.com/2005/12/bwian-joins-killer-bee-company-as
-head.html

" If you must buy a recumbent highracer, please support the Volae
Company run by hard working, honest American folks with decent morals."

At first glance this sounds like a pretty neat compliment, but from the
mouth of someone who either talks pure b***s*** or usually says exactly
the opposite of what he thinks, that's actually a serious insult.

So, if you are looking for the man behind this blog, I suggest searching
for someone who is obsessed by recumbents, esp. by highracers, who most
probably rides one himself, doesn't like Volae and Trek and has a very,
very poor and tasteless sense of humor. Maybe we should ask Kevin K.
first, he seems to have the right connections. ;-)

Regards,
Kurt

 

[Johnny Sunset]

Kurt Fischer wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [...]
> > The HRS blog continues in the fine Jayson/Gin tradition
> > of hatred and defamation.
> [...]
>
> In my opinion there is no hatred or (real) defamation in this blog, at
> least not against Bacchetta or highracers. Poor, tasteless jokes, yes,
> more than enough, but in my eyes the author of the HRS blog doesn't try
> to bash Bacchetta - on the contrary: in fact this blog is *pro*
> Bacchetta and *pro* highracer, mainly for one simple reason: The insults
> and accusations on this block are too far away from reality to be taken
> seriously, hardly anyone who isn't completely out of his senses is
> willing to give them credit.
>
> Simple deliberation: I hate someone and start looking for the best way
> to bash and discredit him. Would it be wise or useful to accuse him of
> things easily recognizable *at first glance* as not true and obviously
> faked?
>
> No, that would turn out quite contrary to my goals. My intentions soon
> will be obvious, nobody will take me serious anymore and my "enemy" will
> get all the sympathies. Only a real fool could choose this strategy. I
> don't know the author of this blog, but I can't imagine he's that
> stupid. There's a lot of wit and creativity involved in this blog,
> unfortunately in a very tasteless and primitive manner. Much to my
> chagrin a lot of creative potential gets lost this way every day.
>
> Now, if it's not Bacchetta, who is the target this blog tries to bash?
> In my opinion the author aims among others at individuals who criticize
> Bacchetta, e.g. for insufficient braking power of some models or
> consider the seat height too high.
>
> "Oh, your saying the brakes are poor and the seats too high? Yes, you're
> right. Look at the millions of people getting killed or seriously
> injured while falling off this dangerous bikes..."
> In other words: he ridicules the critics by exaggerating their concerns.
>
> I don't know about the role Bacchetta plays in this game, but their
> sales are certainly not decreasing because of this blog. In fact I
> suspect they kind of profit in this affair, at least the popularity of
> the brand is increasing.
>
> I also suspect the Author doesn't like the folks at Volae very much. He
> writes:
> http://highracers.blogspot.com/2005/12/bwian-joins-killer-bee-company-as
> -head.html
>
> " If you must buy a recumbent highracer, please support the Volae
> Company run by hard working, honest American folks with decent morals."
>
> At first glance this sounds like a pretty neat compliment, but from the
> mouth of someone who either talks pure b***s*** or usually says exactly
> the opposite of what he thinks, that's actually a serious insult.
>
> So, if you are looking for the man behind this blog, I suggest searching
> for someone who is obsessed by recumbents, esp. by highracers, who most
> probably rides one himself, doesn't like Volae and Trek and has a very,
> very poor and tasteless sense of humor. Maybe we should ask Kevin K.
> first, he seems to have the right connections. ;-)

Kurt Fischer makes a very convincing argument that the target of the
HRS blog would not be Bacchetta et al, but the critics of Bacchetta et
al. Finally someone else with reason joins the argument.

Adding to the support of Kurt Fischer's hypothesis are the reports that
some of the most offensive posts on the now defunct Monkey Island II
came from those associated with the "highracer crowd" and not the
"lowracer group".

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

 

[Johnny Sunset]

Jim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ed,
>
> Sorry about those typos (you/your ... onlu/only). I thought I'd point
> those out before Tom did. That's one of his favorite pastimes. My
> fingers seem to be very uncooperative as of late. Fortunately,
> communication is unimpaired for all by the imperceptive Mr. Sherman.
>
> I hear you about Monkey Island. It was a forum though devoid of
> pictures, so you must have visited a blog or website ... maybe Seth
> Jayson's. I never found anything worthwhile coming from the MI
> bunch anyways. The HRS blog continues in the fine Jayson/Gin tradition
> of hatred and defamation. Oops, did I slip and name names. Tom will
> be outraged.

Monkey Island II (MI II) allowed the posting of pictures. Is Mr.
McNamara that ignorant of the history of online lowracer/highracer
discussion? If so, he is hardly the person to be drawing conclusions
about the HRS blog authorship.

Speaking of SJ, I understand that many of the most offensive posts on
MI II DID NOT COME FROM THE CHICAGOLAND AREA. Could it be that one of
those posters who have no connection to Ed Gin and Company is
responsible for the HRS blog?

> I agree about Tom. There are glimmers of breeding and education.

Breeding is a classist concept. Is Mr. McNamara a classist snob who
believes what one's ancestors have done is more important that what a
person actually does? Talk about immoral positions!

> There
> are even glimmers of intelligence, but none of integrity. How can he
> expect to command respect of the readership when he defends those that
> disrespect other respected members in the recumbent community?

How is saying that Mr. McNamara LACKS THE PROOF OF HRS BLOG AUTHORSHIP
defending the actual authors? Mr. McNamara needs to revisit the
concepts of logic, or is he just "flinging poo" (to use a Monkey Island
expression).

> Tom
> would say, the HRS blog doesn't disrespect anything. It merely
> disrespects that which has similar parallels in the reality ...
> ****!!!. What does that say of the HRS blog? Are we to believe that
> it is a parody of itself, not to be taken seriously? If so, then there
> should be no need to defend it. Similarities? The company denigrated
> just happens to reside in the same locale as the company in the HRS
> blog. Brolies couldn't possibly be BROL members, JimmyMac couldn't
> possibly be Jim McNamara (jimmymac_4) and Killer Bees are what ...
> insects?

Mr. McNamara demonstrates that he totally missed the context of what I
wrote. However, my point remains - while it may seem obvious what is
being parodied, BEING SEEMINGLY OBVIOUS IS NOT THE SAME AS PROOF.

> This bears repeating. The HRS blog has a specific objective and that
> objective is not mimicry and satire of that which only has parallel
> similarities in reality. The objective is defamation of specific
> designated targets. The HRS blog fails in its objective to define
> those that it denigrates. The HRS blog succeeds in defining its author
> and its contributors. The denigrated will survive character
> assassination, but the author and contributors will struggle to escape
> their own self-inflicted, sullied reputations that they have merited
> and will continue to be haunted by. Remembered for the significant
> role that he played will be their spokesperson and defender ... Tom
> Sherman.

Mr. McNamara needs to read Kurt Fischer's follow-up post. As it has
been my contention all along, it is possible that the HRS blog is an
attempt to discredit members of the lowracer riding community, as
certain well known lowracer riders would be blamed by the ignorant for
being authors of the blog.

> Check out Mr. Sherman's latest feeble ramblings. He asked why I
> mention my intention to leave the discussion. His question is in
> response to an answer already provided when I stated that I can't stand
> Tom and his nonsense and don't intend to waste time on him. I am
> beginning to wonder if Tom is hearing impaired, suffering from
> perceptual deficiencies or both.

Mr. McNamara is the one impaired if he can not understand there are
other obvious candidates for the HRS blog authorship that have initials
other than J, A and G, and that his circumstantial evidence is feeble
indeed.

> You will also notice that Tom still refuses to recognize the definition
> of private and public figures as defined by law, but, by his own
> admission, he doesn't have any regard for the court system either. His
> response to both issues (public persons and circumstantial), are
> pitifully unimpressive.

Please PROVE CONCLUSIVELY WHO THE REAL TARGETS OF THE HRS BLOG ARE. Can
Mr. McNamara do this? I think not.

As for the courts, anyone who thinks that decisions are made solely on
the basis of legal merit is naive. The courts respond to social
pressure, and often show bias to those with wealth and privilege.

> I remarked that we are judged by the company that we keep and Tom
> replied that he doesn't associate with me, so he must be alright.
> This is another example of a conclusion derived from twisted logic
> (read ILLGOCAL). My remark was not with regard to who doesn't
> associate with whom, but rather with whom one associates. I do not
> associate with Ed Gin. Tom Sherman does. Enough said on that account.

Well, I don't keep company with Mr., Jim (James?) McNamara, so I guess
I am doing alright. In addition, Mr. McNamara has yet to PROVE his
accusations towards Ed Gin. If we are to adopt Mr. McNamara's guilty
until proven innocent position, than Mr. McNamara has a problem since
there have been unpleasant (and as far as I know, unproven) accusations
against him. Or does Mr. McNamara deserve a special standard due to his
having better breeding than the rest of us?

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

 

[[email protected]]

Kurt Fischer wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [...]
> > The HRS blog continues in the fine Jayson/Gin tradition
> > of hatred and defamation.
> [...]
>
> In my opinion there is no hatred or (real) defamation in this blog, at
> least not against Bacchetta or highracers. Poor, tasteless jokes, yes,
> more than enough, but in my eyes the author of the HRS blog doesn't try
> to bash Bacchetta - on the contrary: in fact this blog is *pro*
> Bacchetta and *pro* highracer, mainly for one simple reason: The insults
> and accusations on this blog are too far away from reality to be taken
> seriously, hardly anyone who isn't completely out of his senses is
> willing to give them credit.
>
> Simple deliberation: I hate someone and start looking for the best way
> to bash and discredit him. Would it be wise or useful to accuse him of
> things easily recognizable *at first glance* as not true and obviously
> faked?
>
> No, that would turn out quite contrary to my goals. My intentions soon
> will be obvious, nobody will take me serious anymore and my "enemy" will
> get all the sympathies. Only a real fool could choose this strategy. I
> don't know the author of this blog, but I can't imagine he's that
> stupid. There's a lot of wit and creativity involved in this blog,
> unfortunately in a very tasteless and primitive manner. Much to my
> chagrin a lot of creative potential gets lost this way every day.
>
> Now, if it's not Bacchetta, who is the target this blog tries to bash?
> In my opinion the author aims among others at individuals who criticize
> Bacchetta, e.g. for insufficient braking power of some models or
> consider the seat height too high.
>
> "Oh, your saying the brakes are poor and the seats too high? Yes, you're
> right. Look at the millions of people getting killed or seriously
> injured while falling off this dangerous bikes..."
> In other words: he ridicules the critics by exaggerating their concerns.
>
> I don't know about the role Bacchetta plays in this game, but their
> sales are certainly not decreasing because of this blog. In fact I
> suspect they kind of profit in this affair, at least the popularity of
> the brand is increasing.
>
> I also suspect the Author doesn't like the folks at Volae very much. He
> writes:
> http://highracers.blogspot.com/2005/12/bwian-joins-killer-bee-company-as
> -head.html
>
> " If you must buy a recumbent highracer, please support the Volae
> Company run by hard working, honest American folks with decent morals."
>
> At first glance this sounds like a pretty neat compliment, but from the
> mouth of someone who either talks pure b***s*** or usually says exactly
> the opposite of what he thinks, that's actually a serious insult.
>
> So, if you are looking for the man behind this blog, I suggest searching
> for someone who is obsessed by recumbents, esp. by highracers, who most
> probably rides one himself, doesn't like Volae and Trek and has a very,
> very poor and tasteless sense of humor. Maybe we should ask Kevin K.
> first, he seems to have the right connections. ;-)
>
> Regards,
> Kurt

Kurt,

On 11-12-04, in the "Curious -- Why Do You Continue To Stay With ARBR"
thread, in reference to flame wars, you wrote ... sometimes it can even
be fun to be a part of this absurdity. A little mud-wrestling now and
then cleans heart and soul, that's especially important when it's
winter and we can't go outside to ride enough.

Well, it's winter again (not officially, but...) and surely the threads
surrounding the HRS blog are among the more absurd to have surfaced
since the Johnny NoCom ones, so I guess you decided to join the
cyber-mud wrestling and baited Kevin in the process. Whereas you know
that I have a different take on this than you, I would be interesting
to hear what Kevin has to say. Yo, Kevin you listenin'?

JimmyMac

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Johnny Sunset" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Jim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ed,
[...]

>> I agree about Tom. There are glimmers of breeding and education.
>
> Breeding is a classist concept. Is Mr. McNamara a classist snob who
> believes what one's ancestors have done is more important that what a
> person actually does? Talk about immoral positions!

No, Mr. Sherman is confusing Mr. McNamara with Mr. Dolan. I am the one who
thinks that one's ancestors are more important than I am. What a person
actually does never impresses me at all. It is what our ancestors did that
impress me. After all, they produced us, we did not produce them. Just like
Mr. Sherman to get everything backwards.

But Mr. Sherman is a working class peasant, even though a civil engineer.
Mr. Dolan is a person of breeding and culture (in other words, an
aristocrat) who looks down his noble nose at all the peasants in the world,
Mr. Sherman foremost among them.
[...]

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Johnny Sunset" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Jim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ed,
>>
>> Thanks for you insight.
>>
>> I see that Tom still confuses morality and legality.
>
> What confusion (another accusation without proof from Mr. McNamara)?
>
> Legality is a set of rules established by whoever happens to have power
> in society at the moment. There is no inherent connection to morality,
> unless one believes that the ruler(s) have been granted their authority
> by a higher power (e.g. the divine right of kings).

There is quite a close connection between legality and morality. It is not
one to one of course, but a legal system is based on morality. In the case
of most Western nations it is based on a religion, namely Christianity. That
is why Western societies are so superior to most third world nations which
are not Christian.

You would not want to have your legal system based on Islamic morality
unless you are crazy as a bed bug. You would also not want your legal system
based on secularist thinking devoid of religion either. Logic and
rationality have ever failed mankind, as the history of the 20th century
illustrates to perfection to all but blooming idiots. The blooming idiots
these days are mostly liberals who think legality and morality are two
different things and they do not relate to one another. I wonder where Mr.
Sherman thinks legal rules come from if not some inkling of a moral
universe.

The reason abortion is such an abomination to all but liberal screwballs is
because it flies in the face of Christian teaching for a thousand years or
more. Our society badly needs to debate this issue in our legislatures and
not leave it to the courts to decide. A Supreme Court grounded in Christian
morality would never have ruled that abortion is OK.
[...]

>> You've gone toe to toe with this goof for years now. Is this wacko for
>> real or what?
>
> Mr. McNamara is asking Ed Dolan for advice here, when Ed Dolan's
> purpose on alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent is to be provocative and cause
> contention. Now that is funny!

It is ever my delight to tweak the denizens of ARBR thereby bringing some
excitement into their drab lives. Mr. Sherman especially needs my
ministrations as he seems not be happy in his native country. I have been
urging him for years to emigrate to la belle France where he could be at one
with his own kind, cowards and traitors to Western Civilization. If he found
the French to be difficult, like most of the rest of the world does, then he
could emigrate to the Middle East, maybe even Palestine in as much as he has
previously expressed great sympathy for them.

Did you know there were a few Americans (left wing liberal wacko nuts) who
emigrated to the Soviet Union back in the 30's. Once they got there, they
realized it was the biggest mistake of their stupid lives, but they were
stuck. Several of them ended up in the Gulag for absolutely no reason other
than they were Americans. I guess the Soviets figured anyone stupid enough
to emigrate to the Soviet Union was a security risk. Mr. Sherman would
similarly have his eyes opened if he were to emigrate to a Moslem country in
the Middle East. In a matter of days, he would beg to be allowed to enter
Israel, the land of the Jews.
[...]

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

PS. Why would anyone say I cause contention when all anyone ever has to do
is just agree with me!

 

[[email protected]]

Readers,

Tom Sherman makes less sense with each post, but he does get funnier.

He shouldn't even have brought Monkey Island 2 into the mix, especially
since MI 2 and the HRS blog have something very much in common (SJ).

Readers, how do you suppose Mr. Sherman could think I was ignorant of
the history of the online lowracer/highracer discussions when the
subject matter has been cross-posted all over the internet and
archived? I admit knowing little about MI 2. Having seen quite enough
of the disgusting original (MI 1), I had no compulsion to view the
sequel, but that has no bearing whatsoever with regard to drawing
conclusions about the HRS blog authorship.

Readers, did you note where Mr. Sherman said ... Speaking of SJ, I
understand that ... followed by hearsay, assumptions and untenable
assertions none of which have been in anyway substantiated by a shred
of evidence let alone proof in a thinly veiled attempt to propose the
possibility of persons outside the Chicagoland area as possible HRS
blog authors. Mr. Sherman will do anything to divert attention away
from Ed Gin and company, but there is some truth to what he said since
JS does not live in the Chicagoland area.

I find it amusing how Mr. Sherman complains about gratuitous insults
and then bursts into a tirade regarding breeding, snobbery, what I
believe about my ancestors and immoral positions. Where does he come
up with this stuff? Just what is he raving and ranting about anyways?
Where did I make mention of breeding or ancestral beliefs? The guy is
losin' it I'm tellin' you and just when I was seriously thinking about
leaving this discussion. If this continues, I may simply have to stick
around here a little while longer just for the entertainment value.
You sure can't beat the price of admission.

Readers, remember how I remarked I remarked that we are judged by the
company that we keep and Tom replied that he doesn't associate with me,
so he must be alright. This is another example of a conclusion derived
from twisted logic (read ILLGOCAL). My remark was not with regard to
who doesn't associate with whom, but rather with whom one associates.
I do not associate with Ed Gin. Tom Sherman does. Enough said on that
account.

Tom replied (read REPEATED) ... Well, I don't keep company with Mr.,
Jim (James?) McNamara, so I guess I am doing alright. . Does Mr.
Sherman not understand what was said or is his just determined to
support what I said and prove how imperceptive and ILLOGICAL he is?

JimmyMac

 

[Johnny Sunset]

[email protected] wrote:
> Readers,
>
> Tom Sherman makes less sense with each post, but he does get funnier.
>
> He shouldn't even have brought Monkey Island 2 into the mix, especially
> since MI 2 and the HRS blog have something very much in common (SJ).

Mr. McNamara continues his dishonest practice of PRESENTING OPINION AS
FACT.

Where is the PROOF that SJ is involved with the HRS blog? (I am not
holding my breath here, since Mr. McNamara has yet to present any
definitive evidence regarding the authorship of the HRS blog).

> Readers, how do you suppose Mr. Sherman could think I was ignorant of
> the history of the online lowracer/highracer discussions when the
> subject matter has been cross-posted all over the internet and
> archived? I admit knowing little about MI 2. Having seen quite enough
> of the disgusting original (MI 1), I had no compulsion to view the
> sequel, but that has no bearing whatsoever with regard to drawing
> conclusions about the HRS blog authorship.
>
> Readers, did you note where Mr. Sherman said ... Speaking of SJ, I
> understand that ... followed by hearsay, assumptions and untenable
> assertions none of which have been in anyway substantiated by a shred
> of evidence let alone proof in a thinly veiled attempt to propose the
> possibility of persons outside the Chicagoland area as possible HRS
> blog authors. Mr. Sherman will do anything to divert attention away
> from Ed Gin and company, but there is some truth to what he said since
> JS does not live in the Chicagoland area.

WHERE IS Mr. McNamara's PROOF of the AUTHORSHIP of the HRS blog?

> I find it amusing how Mr. Sherman complains about gratuitous insults
> and then bursts into a tirade regarding breeding, snobbery, what I
> believe about my ancestors and immoral positions. Where does he come
> up with this stuff? Just what is he raving and ranting about anyways?
> Where did I make mention of breeding or ancestral beliefs?...

Mr. McNamara made mention of my breeding in this post:
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent/msg/dba489d0d9fac98e?dmode=source&hl=en>.
Mr. McNamara apparently can not remember comments he made one day
previously. The exact quote by Mr. McNamara is "I agree about Tom.
There are glimmers of breeding and education."

Mr. McNamara is losing it if he can not remember what he wrote the
previous day, not to mention his inability to distinguish opinion from
proven fact.

> The guy is
> losin' it I'm tellin' you and just when I was seriously thinking about
> leaving this discussion. If this continues, I may simply have to stick
> around here a little while longer just for the entertainment value.
> You sure can't beat the price of admission.

Another attempt by Mr. McNamara to excuse himself from the fact that he
is going back on his word about discontinuing this discussion. This
speaks directly to Mr. McNamara's personal credibility.

> Readers, remember how I remarked I remarked that we are judged by the
> company that we keep and Tom replied that he doesn't associate with me,
> so he must be alright. This is another example of a conclusion derived
> from twisted logic (read ILLGOCAL). My remark was not with regard to
> who doesn't associate with whom, but rather with whom one associates.
> I do not associate with Ed Gin. Tom Sherman does. Enough said on that
> account.
>
> Tom replied (read REPEATED) ... Well, I don't keep company with Mr.,
> Jim (James?) McNamara, so I guess I am doing alright. . Does Mr.
> Sherman not understand what was said or is his just determined to
> support what I said and prove how imperceptive and ILLOGICAL he is?\

It is clear, based on his posting history that Mr. McNamara is bitter
that he is less popular than Ed Gin among the members of the
Chicagoland recumbent riding community, and wishes to discredit Ed Gin
as a result. We should pity Mr. McNamara for being so angry and
frustrated for no good reason, but that does not excuse his presenting
OPINION AS FACT and posting accusations WHILE LACKING PROOF.

Enough said.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

 

[[email protected]]

Yep, again...

Mr. McNamara continues his dishonest practice of PRESENTING OPINION AS
FACT.

--> [YAWN]

Where is the PROOF that SJ is involved with the HRS blog? (I am not
holding my breath here, since Mr. McNamara has yet to present any
definitive evidence regarding the authorship of the HRS blog).

--> You profess not to accept circumstantial evidence, so why bother
and I've said we have reached an impasse and I'm done discussing the
matter.

> Readers, how do you suppose Mr. Sherman could think I was ignorant of
> the history of the online lowracer/highracer discussions when the
> subject matter has been cross-posted all over the internet and
> archived? I admit knowing little about MI 2. Having seen quite enough
> of the disgusting original (MI 1), I had no compulsion to view the
> sequel, but that has no bearing whatsoever with regard to drawing
> conclusions about the HRS blog authorship.

> Readers, did you note where Mr. Sherman said ... Speaking of SJ, I
> understand that ... followed by hearsay, assumptions and untenable
> assertions none of which have been in anyway substantiated by a shred
> of evidence let alone proof in a thinly veiled attempt to propose the
> possibility of persons outside the Chicagoland area as possible HRS
> blog authors. Mr. Sherman will do anything to divert attention away
> from Ed Gin and company, but there is some truth to what he said since
> JS does not live in the Chicagoland area.

WHERE IS Mr. McNamara's PROOF of the AUTHORSHIP of the HRS blog?

--> Responded to nothing as usual. You profess not to accept
circumstantial evidence, so why bother and I've said we have reached an
impasse and I'm done discussing the matter.

> I find it amusing how Mr. Sherman complains about gratuitous insults
> and then bursts into a tirade regarding breeding, snobbery, what I
> believe about my ancestors and immoral positions. Where does he come
> up with this stuff? Just what is he raving and ranting about anyways?
> Where did I make mention of breeding or ancestral beliefs?...

Mr. McNamara made mention of my breeding in this post:
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent/msg/dba489d...>.

--> I made a passing remark in agreement with what Tom Dolan observed
and this is what brought all this on? And, form this you made these
wild assumptions about my beliefs regarding my ancestors and immoral
positions? [YAWN]

Mr. McNamara apparently can not remember comments he made one day
previously. The exact quote by Mr. McNamara is "I agree about Tom.
There are glimmers of breeding and education."

--> Sounds like a compliment to me, maybe even an overestimation on Tom
Dolan's part. I probably should not have agreed with him in the first
place. [YAWN]

Mr. McNamara is losing it if he can not remember what he wrote the
previous day, not to mention his inability to distinguish opinion from
proven fact.

> The guy is
> losin' it I'm tellin' you and just when I was seriously thinking about
> leaving this discussion. If this continues, I may simply have to stick
> around here a little while longer just for the entertainment value.
> You sure can't beat the price of admission.

Another attempt by Mr. McNamara to excuse himself from the fact that he
is going back on his word about discontinuing this discussion. This
speaks directly to Mr. McNamara's personal credibility.

--> Merely a statement of fact. Sometimes this amuses me and I enjoy
it. Sometimes I find it a tedious waste of time. I'll be keeping my
word and will be leaving the discussion when I chose to and on my own
terms. I'll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory
insults from someone whose opinion matters not ... someone who defends
the HRS blog and Ed Gin and company. What does that say of your
credibility? [YAWN

> Readers, remember how I remarked I remarked that we are judged by the
> company that we keep and Tom replied that he doesn't associate with me,
> so he must be alright. This is another example of a conclusion derived
> from twisted logic (read ILLGOCAL). My remark was not with regard to
> who doesn't associate with whom, but rather with whom one associates.
> I do not associate with Ed Gin. Tom Sherman does. Enough said on that
> account.

> Tom replied (read REPEATED) ... Well, I don't keep company with Mr.,
> Jim (James?) McNamara, so I guess I am doing alright. . Does Mr.
> Sherman not understand what was said or is his just determined to
> support what I said and prove how imperceptive and ILLOGICAL he is?

It is clear, based on his posting history that Mr. McNamara is bitter
that he is less popular than Ed Gin among the members of the
Chicagoland recumbent riding community, and wishes to discredit Ed Gin
as a result. We should pity Mr. McNamara for being so angry and
frustrated for no good reason, but that does not excuse his presenting
OPINION AS FACT and posting accusations WHILE LACKING PROOF.

--> You continue to jump to conclusions. This is becoming a bad habit
of yours and it is something that you would not tolerate from an
adversary, so why should you expect this to go unchallenged? You are
still operating from the misconception that there is some sort of a
popularity contest at work here as if I would even want to be popular
with some of Ed Gin's friends or be proud to call some of them friends
of my own. That's really is a stretch. Ed Gin has lost more friends
in the past few years than I and all my friends combined will ever lose
in a lifetime. The statistics speak for themselves. Besides, fiends
of Ed Gin that will not associate with me are those with whom I am
proud not to be associated. In the case of Ed Gin, I am ashamed to
having ever been associated with him. If the readers should pity me
for any reason at all, they should pity me for having ever been Ed
Gin's friend. Here is an interesting FACT for you to think about. Ed
Gin and I have, strange as this may seem, some common friends. Now,
how does that fit into your lame hypothesis? You continue to mistake
Ed Gin as my primary and only focus. I have only pointed this foible
of yours out to you about a dozen times. How many more times will it
take to penetrate that thick skull of yours. This is not now, nor has
it been from the beginning only about Ed Gin, so why do you insist that
it is? Do you think that repetition will somehow transform this into
something that it is not?

My opinion is my opinion. Circumstantial evidence supports my opinion.
I consider circumstantial evidence to be sufficient proof. Your
persistent harping does not in any way, shape or form change any of
that or matter to me in the least. [YAWN].

 

[[email protected]]

The usual trite, orthogonal, digressive drivel by the man who does it
best ... Tom Sherman. What amazes me though is the uncharacteristic
restraint that he demonstrated in not bringing to my attention that I
spelled ILLOGICAL ... ILLGOCAL. Was Tom being kind, not observant or
has finally realized how pointless it is to point out typos unless, of
course, they happen to change the context of what was said versus what
was meant. No matter, it was a pleasant change of pace.

JimmyMac

Johnny Sunset wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Readers,
> >
> > Tom Sherman makes less sense with each post, but he does get funnier.
> >
> > He shouldn't even have brought Monkey Island 2 into the mix, especially
> > since MI 2 and the HRS blog have something very much in common (SJ).
>
> Mr. McNamara continues his dishonest practice of PRESENTING OPINION AS
> FACT.
>
> Where is the PROOF that SJ is involved with the HRS blog? (I am not
> holding my breath here, since Mr. McNamara has yet to present any
> definitive evidence regarding the authorship of the HRS blog).
>
> > Readers, how do you suppose Mr. Sherman could think I was ignorant of
> > the history of the online lowracer/highracer discussions when the
> > subject matter has been cross-posted all over the internet and
> > archived? I admit knowing little about MI 2. Having seen quite enough
> > of the disgusting original (MI 1), I had no compulsion to view the
> > sequel, but that has no bearing whatsoever with regard to drawing
> > conclusions about the HRS blog authorship.
> >
> > Readers, did you note where Mr. Sherman said ... Speaking of SJ, I
> > understand that ... followed by hearsay, assumptions and untenable
> > assertions none of which have been in anyway substantiated by a shred
> > of evidence let alone proof in a thinly veiled attempt to propose the
> > possibility of persons outside the Chicagoland area as possible HRS
> > blog authors. Mr. Sherman will do anything to divert attention away
> > from Ed Gin and company, but there is some truth to what he said since
> > JS does not live in the Chicagoland area.
>
> WHERE IS Mr. McNamara's PROOF of the AUTHORSHIP of the HRS blog?
>
> > I find it amusing how Mr. Sherman complains about gratuitous insults
> > and then bursts into a tirade regarding breeding, snobbery, what I
> > believe about my ancestors and immoral positions. Where does he come
> > up with this stuff? Just what is he raving and ranting about anyways?
> > Where did I make mention of breeding or ancestral beliefs?...
>
> Mr. McNamara made mention of my breeding in this post:
> <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent/msg/dba489d0d9fac98e?dmode=source&hl=en>.
> Mr. McNamara apparently can not remember comments he made one day
> previously. The exact quote by Mr. McNamara is "I agree about Tom.
> There are glimmers of breeding and education."
>
> Mr. McNamara is losing it if he can not remember what he wrote the
> previous day, not to mention his inability to distinguish opinion from
> proven fact.
>
> > The guy is
> > losin' it I'm tellin' you and just when I was seriously thinking about
> > leaving this discussion. If this continues, I may simply have to stick
> > around here a little while longer just for the entertainment value.
> > You sure can't beat the price of admission.
>
> Another attempt by Mr. McNamara to excuse himself from the fact that he
> is going back on his word about discontinuing this discussion. This
> speaks directly to Mr. McNamara's personal credibility.
>
> > Readers, remember how I remarked I remarked that we are judged by the
> > company that we keep and Tom replied that he doesn't associate with me,
> > so he must be alright. This is another example of a conclusion derived
> > from twisted logic (read ILLGOCAL). My remark was not with regard to
> > who doesn't associate with whom, but rather with whom one associates.
> > I do not associate with Ed Gin. Tom Sherman does. Enough said on that
> > account.
> >
> > Tom replied (read REPEATED) ... Well, I don't keep company with Mr.,
> > Jim (James?) McNamara, so I guess I am doing alright. . Does Mr.
> > Sherman not understand what was said or is his just determined to
> > support what I said and prove how imperceptive and ILLOGICAL he is?\
>
> It is clear, based on his posting history that Mr. McNamara is bitter
> that he is less popular than Ed Gin among the members of the
> Chicagoland recumbent riding community, and wishes to discredit Ed Gin
> as a result. We should pity Mr. McNamara for being so angry and
> frustrated for no good reason, but that does not excuse his presenting
> OPINION AS FACT and posting accusations WHILE LACKING PROOF.
>
> Enough said.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

 

[Johnny Sunset]

Edward Dolan wrote:
> ...
> It is ever my delight to tweak the denizens of ARBR thereby bringing some
> excitement into their drab lives. Mr. Sherman especially needs my
> ministrations as he seems not be happy in his native country.

Ed Dolan errs in his assumption of my native country [1]. It is not one
(unlike the US) that grants automatic citizenship by place of birth, or
I might well move (if for no other reason, to get away from the summer
heat - only to get worse with global warming).

> I have been
> urging him for years to emigrate to la belle France where he could be at one
> with his own kind, cowards and traitors to Western Civilization....

French policy towards immigration is rather unfriendly, so that is
easier said than done. [2]

[1] An error Mr. Dolan should not make since I already stated this
before - his memory is slipping, I fear.
[2] All the people in the US that say "then leave" to any criticism of
US government policy should be lobbying the US government to arrange a
treaty with a more politically progressive nation to accept unhappy US
residents that wish to emigrate.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
"are there stones on distant mountain decents marking the gored and
deceased? arms and wrists broken ?
or is this unreported?" - G. Daniels

 

[Johnny Sunset]

[email protected] wrote:
> The usual trite, orthogonal, digressive drivel by the man who does it
> best ... Tom Sherman. What amazes me though is the uncharacteristic
> restraint that he demonstrated in not bringing to my attention that I
> spelled ILLOGICAL ... ILLGOCAL. Was Tom being kind, not observant or
> has finally realized how pointless it is to point out typos unless, of
> course, they happen to change the context of what was said versus what
> was meant. No matter, it was a pleasant change of pace.

Mr. McNamara either has the most "final words" in the known universe,
or he is going back on his statement that he is quitting the
discussion.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

 

[Johnny Sunset]

[email protected] wrote:
> Yep, again...
>
> Mr. McNamara continues his dishonest practice of PRESENTING OPINION AS
> FACT.
>
> --> [YAWN]
>
> Where is the PROOF that SJ is involved with the HRS blog? (I am not
> holding my breath here, since Mr. McNamara has yet to present any
> definitive evidence regarding the authorship of the HRS blog).
>
> --> You profess not to accept circumstantial evidence, so why bother
> and I've said we have reached an impasse and I'm done discussing the
> matter.

For someone who says he is done discussing the matter, Mr. McNamara
seems to post a lot of verbiage about it.

To repeat (a necessary action with Mr. McNamara it seems), Mr.
McNamara's circumstantial evidence is weak, and does nothing to even
make one person a prime suspect. If what is presented is the best Mr.
McNamara can come up with regarding the HRS blog authorship, he should
refrain from indicting anyone.

> > Readers, how do you suppose Mr. Sherman could think I was ignorant of
> > the history of the online lowracer/highracer discussions when the
> > subject matter has been cross-posted all over the internet and
> > archived? I admit knowing little about MI 2. Having seen quite enough
> > of the disgusting original (MI 1), I had no compulsion to view the
> > sequel, but that has no bearing whatsoever with regard to drawing
> > conclusions about the HRS blog authorship.
>
> > Readers, did you note where Mr. Sherman said ... Speaking of SJ, I
> > understand that ... followed by hearsay, assumptions and untenable
> > assertions none of which have been in anyway substantiated by a shred
> > of evidence let alone proof in a thinly veiled attempt to propose the
> > possibility of persons outside the Chicagoland area as possible HRS
> > blog authors. Mr. Sherman will do anything to divert attention away
> > from Ed Gin and company, but there is some truth to what he said since
> > JS does not live in the Chicagoland area.
>
> WHERE IS Mr. McNamara's PROOF of the AUTHORSHIP of the HRS blog?
>
> --> Responded to nothing as usual. You profess not to accept
> circumstantial evidence, so why bother and I've said we have reached an
> impasse and I'm done discussing the matter.

See above.

> > I find it amusing how Mr. Sherman complains about gratuitous insults
> > and then bursts into a tirade regarding breeding, snobbery, what I
> > believe about my ancestors and immoral positions. Where does he come
> > up with this stuff? Just what is he raving and ranting about anyways?
> > Where did I make mention of breeding or ancestral beliefs?...
>
> Mr. McNamara made mention of my breeding in this post:
> <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent/msg/dba489d...>.
>
> --> I made a passing remark in agreement with what Tom Dolan observed
> and this is what brought all this on? And, form this you made these
> wild assumptions about my beliefs regarding my ancestors and immoral
> positions? [YAWN]

Who is "Tom Dolan"? One presumes Mr. McNamara means Ed Dolan. Mr.
McNamara should be able to get Ed Dolan's name correct, since Mr. Dolan
has posted in excess of five-thousand (5,000) messages to
alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent.

> Mr. McNamara apparently can not remember comments he made one day
> previously. The exact quote by Mr. McNamara is "I agree about Tom.
> There are glimmers of breeding and education."
>
> --> Sounds like a compliment to me, maybe even an overestimation on Tom
> Dolan's part. I probably should not have agreed with him in the first
> place. [YAWN]

Who the heck is this "Tom Dolan" Mr. McNamara keeps referencing?

> Mr. McNamara is losing it if he can not remember what he wrote the
> previous day, not to mention his inability to distinguish opinion from
> proven fact.
>
> > The guy is
> > losin' it I'm tellin' you and just when I was seriously thinking about
> > leaving this discussion. If this continues, I may simply have to stick
> > around here a little while longer just for the entertainment value.
> > You sure can't beat the price of admission.
>
> Another attempt by Mr. McNamara to excuse himself from the fact that he
> is going back on his word about discontinuing this discussion. This
> speaks directly to Mr. McNamara's personal credibility.
>
> --> Merely a statement of fact. Sometimes this amuses me and I enjoy
> it. Sometimes I find it a tedious waste of time. I'll be keeping my
> word and will be leaving the discussion when I chose to and on my own
> terms. I'll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory
> insults from someone whose opinion matters not ... someone who defends
> the HRS blog and Ed Gin and company. What does that say of your
> credibility? [YAWN

The HRS blog is often humorous, and obviously parody, and therefore
harmless.

Other than from Mr. McNamara (who appears to be a biased source due to
his vindictive manner on the subject), Wayne SooHoo on the trikes list
(an apparently similar case) [1] and Mr. Edward Dolan (who apparently
knows nothing beyond what is posted on alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent) I
have yet to hear anything obviously bad about Ed Gin.

> > Readers, remember how I remarked I remarked that we are judged by the
> > company that we keep and Tom replied that he doesn't associate with me,
> > so he must be alright. This is another example of a conclusion derived
> > from twisted logic (read ILLGOCAL). My remark was not with regard to
> > who doesn't associate with whom, but rather with whom one associates.
> > I do not associate with Ed Gin. Tom Sherman does. Enough said on that
> > account.
>
> > Tom replied (read REPEATED) ... Well, I don't keep company with Mr.,
> > Jim (James?) McNamara, so I guess I am doing alright. . Does Mr.
> > Sherman not understand what was said or is his just determined to
> > support what I said and prove how imperceptive and ILLOGICAL he is?
>
> It is clear, based on his posting history that Mr. McNamara is bitter
> that he is less popular than Ed Gin among the members of the
> Chicagoland recumbent riding community, and wishes to discredit Ed Gin
> as a result. We should pity Mr. McNamara for being so angry and
> frustrated for no good reason, but that does not excuse his presenting
> OPINION AS FACT and posting accusations WHILE LACKING PROOF.
>
> --> You continue to jump to conclusions. This is becoming a bad habit
> of yours and it is something that you would not tolerate from an
> adversary, so why should you expect this to go unchallenged? You are
> still operating from the misconception that there is some sort of a
> popularity contest at work here as if I would even want to be popular
> with some of Ed Gin's friends or be proud to call some of them friends
> of my own. That's really is a stretch. Ed Gin has lost more friends
> in the past few years than I and all my friends combined will ever lose
> in a lifetime. The statistics speak for themselves. Besides, fiends
> of Ed Gin that will not associate with me are those with whom I am
> proud not to be associated. In the case of Ed Gin, I am ashamed to
> having ever been associated with him. If the readers should pity me
> for any reason at all, they should pity me for having ever been Ed
> Gin's friend. Here is an interesting FACT for you to think about. Ed
> Gin and I have, strange as this may seem, some common friends. Now,
> how does that fit into your lame hypothesis? You continue to mistake
> Ed Gin as my primary and only focus. I have only pointed this foible
> of yours out to you about a dozen times. How many more times will it
> take to penetrate that thick skull of yours. This is not now, nor has
> it been from the beginning only about Ed Gin, so why do you insist that
> it is? Do you think that repetition will somehow transform this into
> something that it is not?

Mr. McNamara is not credible when he implies he has no bias against Ed
Gin in this discussion.

For what it is worth, I had a neutral opinion of Mr. McNamara prior to
his witch hunt equivalent attacks on Ed Gin over the HRS blog. The
longer this discussion goes on, the worse my impression gets.

If I am repetitive, it is because Mr. McNamara keeps diverting from the
primary point of discussion - WHERE IS THE PROOF OF HRS BLOG
AUTHORSHIP?

> My opinion is my opinion. Circumstantial evidence supports my opinion.

In JimmyMac World [TM] and Ed Dolan World [TM] the circumstantial
evidence is convincing. In the real world it is not, no matter how many
times Mr. McNamara repeats that it is. (Repetition of opinion as fact
only works on the credulous who are predisposed by bias).

> I consider circumstantial evidence to be sufficient proof.

Then Mr. McNamara is dull intellect or a fool.

> Your persistent harping does not in any way, shape or form change any of
> that or matter to me in the least. [YAWN].

And I could care less about what Mr. McNamara thinks, but it is fun to
let him dig the hole he is in even deeper.

Note: It appears that Mr. McNamara has some concern over what I think,
since he addresses his posts to me. However, I address my posts to the
general audience, since that is whom I am writing for (why I
disregarded the suggestion to take this discussion to email).

[1] See <http://www.ihpva.org/pipermail/trikes/2000q1/000784.html>.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Johnny Sunset" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> ...
>> It is ever my delight to tweak the denizens of ARBR thereby bringing some
>> excitement into their drab lives. Mr. Sherman especially needs my
>> ministrations as he seems not be happy in his native country.
>
> Ed Dolan errs in his assumption of my native country [1]. It is not one
> (unlike the US) that grants automatic citizenship by place of birth, or
> I might well move (if for no other reason, to get away from the summer
> heat - only to get worse with global warming).

Have you not made reference to a boyhood spent in Wisconsin? Yes, I know
about tiny Denmark. So, you were born there and then your parents came to
America (Wisconsin)? The newsgroup needs to know!

>> I have been
>> urging him for years to emigrate to la belle France where he could be at
>> one
>> with his own kind, cowards and traitors to Western Civilization....
>
> French policy towards immigration is rather unfriendly, so that is
> easier said than done. [2]

Half of North Africa is now in France, so that clearly is not the case. If
the French had any brains, they would prohibit all immigration - period. And
so would the rest of Europe, most especially tiny England. They are already
crowded enough without letting in the rest of the world. The English are
almost as stupid as the French apparently.

> [1] An error Mr. Dolan should not make since I already stated this
> before - his memory is slipping, I fear.
> [2] All the people in the US that say "then leave" to any criticism of
> US government policy should be lobbying the US government to arrange a
> treaty with a more politically progressive nation to accept unhappy US
> residents that wish to emigrate.

France would suit you to T. However, I don't think the French would like you
any better than do we native Americans.

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota