Re: Stacie, FILTHY *****! another one bites the dust.

[Johnny Sunset]

Jim Reilly <[email protected]> wrote:
> I see these as personal attacks not "malicious parodies".

I see no reason why the two have to be mutally exclusive. Malicious
parody as a personal attack, if you prefer.

> As for
> "offending BRYAN (spelling corrected)", perhaps the author's motives
> were revenge for Bryan's parodies on the author's wife. No, that's
> probably not it! Because the author probably doesn't have a wife. If
> he did, he would understand that personal attacks on a man's wife is
> off limits.

Jim Reilly makes my point here - this particular malicious
parody/personal attack is likely used precisely because it is so
offensive.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley (For a bit?)

 

[Johnny Sunset]

HH wrote:
> "Johnny Sunset" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > HH wrote:
> >>
> >> Strange. I was just sitting here wondering how many angels could swim in
> >> a
> >> RANs recumbent bicycle seat pan assuming it could hold water. It's a bit
> >> off topic I know, but I just felt I needed to share this with you and
> >> your
> >> pal Mr. Mac.
> >
> > The RANS seat foam will hold a lot of water, and can take several days
> > to dry out if saturated. It will feel dry after a day or so, but the
> > rider will get a wet butt after a few minutes of sitting on it. If the
> > bike needs to be parked in the rain, take the foam off, or used
> > something like a grocery bag or extra large shower cap as a cover.
> >
>
> That's nice...

No, sitting on a partially saturated foam pad is not nice.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley (For a bit?)

 

[Johnny Sunset]

JimmyMac wrote:
> Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > JimmyMac wrote:
> > > Readers,
> > >
> > > What we have here is a demonstration of one of Tom's favorite logical
> > > fallacy debating tactics known as the red herring. This involves
> > > introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question
> > > at hand. That is precisely what Tom did in his last two paragraphs to
> > > distract from the issues: 1. that although I misspelled the man's name,
> > > I did not do so because I was either ignorant or careless, 2. that he
> > > is a proofreader, but not a logician who is concerned more with form
> > > than function ... with spelling rather than communication of content,
> > > and 3. that his secondary intent was to deliberately be insulting by
> > > employing a gratuitous insult that was completely irrelevant and
> > > unnecessary in the conveying his intent unless that was part and parcel
> > > of what he intended to convey.
> > >
> > > It is worthy of note, that I generally spell the Bryan's name
> > > correctly. Although I am not the only one to have misspelled it, I was
> > > specifically singled out for having done so. Why? To quote Tommy boy
> > > ... no doubt because of our previous disagreement over the HRS blog
> > > authorship. The intent of Tom's post could have been conveyed without
> > > the inclusion of a presumptive, disingenuous remark regarding ignorance
> > > or carelessness. Tom's secondary intent was as obvious as his primary
> > > intent. Tom could have played his piffling game of proofreader that he
> > > takes such delight in without being insulting. No matter how he slices
> > > it, the intent of Tom's post was one that could best be described as a
> > > double-edged sword.
> >
> > Yo JimmyMac,
> >
> > I was responding to Jim Reilly's misspelling of "Bryan" as
> > "Brian", not anything you wrote. It is obvious you have an ax to
> > grind here, since you introduce the red herring of me specifically
> > singling you out for misspelling "Bryan" as "Brian". Claiming I
> > singled you out is a LIE. In my original post on this thread where I
> > pointed out the error, I did not quote a single word written by you,
> > Mr. Jim McNamara, nor did I mention you, Mr. Jim McNamara by name. DUH!
> >
> > Note: Jim Reilly, Reading, PA DOES NOT EQUAL Jim McNamara, Chicago, IL.
> > DUH!
> >
> > My original post in this thread had nothing to do with you Mr.
> > McNamara, so there is no reason you should respond as if that was the
> > case, unless you are looking to pick a fight? If so, that is being
> > disrespectful to the few readers of alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent who are
> > left.
> >
> > --
> > Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley (For a bit?)
>
> Tom,
>
> I think I misspelled the name once in the thread, but yout point is
> well taken. I wasn't singled out . The other Jim was. Sorry 'bout
> that ... must have been overly-tired ... mistake not a LIE. I still
> stand by my contention though that you a much more gifted
> proofreader/editor than logician.

Ah, so we agree that making a mistake is not the same as a lie.
Progress!

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley (For a bit?)