Tom,
I've been trying to post this for two days now with two different
browsers without success. If you see this then perhaps I was right in
assuming that length was the source of the problem. Much as regretted
doing so, I removed quite a bit of older dialogue.
I was removing irrelevant material to my response - this is called
editing, and has been a well accepted practice for hundred of years.
--> Characteristically, you ducked the FACT/OPINION question regarding
writing ability. I know perfectly well what editing is, but relevancy
is a judgment call that you made on behalf of the author and the
readership and can just as easily be construed as censorship. We just
have different perspectives on this matter and it is pointless to
debate the issue. I will be the first to admit that it is probably
necessary since this has become more like a novel than a short story.
On various standardized tests (i.e. WAIS, ACT, SAT and GRE) I have
scored in the 99% percentile for comprehension of written English. If I
have trouble with comprehension, it is the fault of the writer not
expressing his or her thought clearly. My opinion stands that the
material was poorly written, and should have been edited for clarity
and concision before being posted.
--> You are the first person to have ever said that I write poorly,
but at least you qualified your accusation by calling it opinion this
time. I'll accept that since I don't value your opinion. Many have
told me that I write rather well and I pride myself in that regard. I
have even been published in newspapers and magazines, so there are
those that disagree with your assessment. I regret that my one post
does reflect how weary I was. I should have given it a fresh look at
upon rising before hastily posting. I can't recall if I ever took the
Wechsler, but I did the Stanford-Binet. I have always tested
exceptionally well and my scores on the S-B and a test taken in the
military automatically qualified me for membership in MENSA although I
never applied for membership, but I digress. This isn't a contest
about test scores now is it? Besides one need only be of average
intelligence to understand what is being written. Unlike you, I am
willing to overlook when someone makes an obvious keyboard slip, and
although that seldom applies to you, I have overlooked some of yours.
I understand that this doesn't make a person inarticulate, unclear or a
poor writer and it certainly doesn't challenge my comprehension the
written word. I am willing to make allowances. You are not. If you
have trouble comprehending that which I've written, my offer still
stands to dumb it down for you. In a notable departure from style, for
the remainder of this response, I will make every effort to keep the
majority of my responses succinct and terse to accommodate you, Tom.
> > One has to wonder why is it that you continue to associate
> > with and defend these scoundrels rather than denounce them, sever your
> > ties and abdicate your assumed role as their spokesperson....
> Mr. McNamara is assuming facts not in evidence. Since no one has proven
> (or admitted to me) authorship of either the Johnny NoCom posts or the
> HRS blog, how could I sever my (assumed) ties with them?
> --> And they won't, because they are cowards. They prefer to lash out
> cloaked in pseudonyms. Regardless, based on characteristic, parallel
> patterns of behavior you have said that you could produce a list of the
> likely candidates and it would be similar to the list that I could
> produce. Since you know whom I suspect, go over your list. Have you
> had any association with those whom I suspect that match you list? Do
> you call any of them friends? If they were ever admit to
> responsibility would you then acknowledge that you should have given
> the compelling preponderance of circumstantial evidence more credence
> or would you stubbornly persist in you defense and remains allied with
> those responsible. Inquiring minds want to know?
If he/she/they admitted to authoring the HRS blog and/or Johnny NoCom
posts, I would still be willing to go on a bike ride with he/she/they
(assuming that I would have been willing before the admission was
made). FLAME AWAY!
--> No flaming required here. Your telling admission speaks volumes
for what and who you are. I commend you for you honesty and extend my
gratitude.
> I have not expressed any opinion of approval of the HRS blog, and in
> fact pointed out that the blog author(s) erred in parodying private
> individuals.
> --> And that is all that you disapprove of? Like I said before, if you
> were on the receiving end, I suspect that you would have an entirely
> different perspective in this matter and you know it.
Mr. McNamara's suspicions are unfounded. He should look to the example
of AA and KK who have gone at it on this very forum, yet reportedly get
along in real life.
--> Forget the irrelevant diversionary tactic. This isn't about AA and
KK. This is about you. Once again you circumvented the question
regarding disapproval.
> Mr. McNamara is again assuming facts not in evidence. Since I have not
> stated my list of likely candidates, how can any claim of relationship
> be made? Similarly, since I have not produced a list, how can it be
> said that it would be similar to Mr. McNamara's list?
> --> You want an example of flawed logic. Well, here's one. You either
> have a relationship with your list of candidates or you don't
> regardless of whether you stated who they are. A claim of a
> relationship is not contingent upon revelation or lack thereof. How
> can your list be similar to my list you ask? You tell me. You're the
> one who originally made that statement and I took you at your word.
> Frankly, it is not that difficult to ascertain why our lists would be
> similar. Anyone who has known one or more of those involved, and has
> known them for years, can readily identify their modus operandi and
> compiled lists would likely match up rather well. Since I provided
> initials of the last names of the three I suspect you already know this
> for a fact. This isn't rocket science.
Mr. McNamara provided the initials EG, SJ and AA (who these people are
will be blatantly obvious to some). I had candidates in mind that have
initials other than those mentioned by Mr. McNamara.
--> Oh, but I most assuredly did not and I defy you to prove otherwise
or retract your statement. I'll be darned. Thanks for filling in the
blanks for us all, Tom. If anyone would care to read what I did write,
you will find ... I'll still not name any names here, but the initials
of the last names of the three that I suspect as being directly
involved, when placed side-by-side, spell JAG and I find that
particular sequence to be most appropriate. Now, listen up 'cause this
is real important ... I ONLY PROVIDED THE INITIALS OF THE SURNAMES.
All along I granted that Tom's list likely had more name than mine, but
I also said he'd likely be able to match 2 or 3 names and I guess the
number is in. 3 it is. See now was that so hard, Tom? You really
can make a contribution to the discussion when you put your mind to it.
Thanks again.
I could easily duplicate the writing style of the HRS blog (and the
Johnny NoCom posts) if I wanted to. For all I KNOW, the HRS blog COULD
be an effort by a Bacchetta supporter to gain favor for Bacchetta
through reverse psychology.
--> ILLOGICAL! I always know when diversion and subterfuge are being
ushered in when prefaced by ... For all I know. Can your ludicrous
conjecture. For someone who prides himself as being intelligent and
logical, you do introduce some rather untenable, hypothetical
scenarios. It should be obvious that the derogatory posts and the HRS
blog are both specifically formulated for one purpose and one purpose
only. Despite its absurdity, lets consider your unlikely premise. If
one were a Bacchetta supporter would they be willing to risk the
consequences of a failed reverse psychology initiatives and if one of
the blog authors were a Bacchetta supporter would he perhaps own and
ride a Bacchetta rather that a VOLAE? ..... Next.
The Johnny NoCom posts and HRS blog certainly have some similarities,
but no overwhelming evidence exists that the author(s) are the same.
--> Well, now we're gettin' somewhere. That wasn't so hard, now was
it? It has been a long and painful journey, but progress has been made
at long last. Apparently, admission is more difficult than
comprehension, but I am encouraged. There's hope for you after all.
Please inform me of the size and material composition of the pole. Then
I will decide if I wish to accept it. Or did you mean "poll"?
Why would I care about poll results anyhow? I believe I can make my own
judgments, and not rely on those of others who may well be misinformed
or prejudiced.
--> I have to give you your due, Tom (a gesture that you have yet to
master). That really was a good one and humorous at that, but as Ed
Dolan pointed out it was a predictable response. This bears repeating.
I make mistakes now and then, but one I don't make is denying when
I've made one. That arena is reserved exclusively for one Tom Sherman.
Since you surmised correctly, the question still awaits your
much-needed attention. I'm not interested in what you care about so
much as your enlightenment. I thought that you might find poll results
interesting in light of the fact that you accused me of being the ARBR
spokesperson. I thought a poll would aptly demonstrate what Ed Dolan
said all along, that regardless of what you've said on the matter, the
readership have long since decided where they stand. Fear not, when
the results were tabulated, I wouldn't have posed an unfair question
such as ... Are you contending that the majority are wrong, like the
one you asked of me regarding a religions precept held by the dominant
religious philosophy in western society.
Mr. McNamara has said many things repeatedly, so he should be more
specific. "Silence as omission" as a presumption of guilt in not a
moral or logical position. Silence is silence (yes a truism, but
pertinent in this context).
--> Well excuse me. Someone who resides in glass house, shouldn't
chuck rocks. Have you not been the least repetitious? DUUUH!!! Yes,
admittedly I have repeated things in an attempt to drum something into
that thick skull of your's or in an attempt to get you to answer a
question that you (here's that word) repeatedly ignore or side-step.
You have done likewise, but herein lies the difference. I haven't
chastised you for doing so because I understand the necessity of
restatement and repetition.
I disapprove of portions of the HRS blog. However, I find it
fascinating that someone would go to that much effort, unless
he/she/they felt seriously wronged by Bacchetta and/or person(s)
associated with Bacchetta. Some portions of the HRS blog are indeed
rather clever.
--> So then, you disapprove of at least portions of the blog. That's
all I was asking. What took you so long? Yes, if the HRS blog has any
redeeming factor, it is its creative components. You were deliberately
cautious in your choice of words when you employed the word "portions"
since it does not denote percentage. Portions could mean 5% or 95%.
Since you haven't said, I know not where your threshold is set beyond
which you would disapprove of the blog in its entirety. I've seen
enough objectionable material on it to totally disapprove of it. I too
am astounded that anyone would devote this much time and negative
energy to the HRS blog, but it is a quantum leap in logic to assume
that the motive is wrong doing by Bacchettta and/or its someone
associated with them. I think their is a myriad of possibilities and
the dynamics are likely complex. Only those in the inner circle of
involvement know the real reasons and, unlike you, I'd care not to
speculate. Come to think of it, that's what you condemn me of doing.
Do take note of my recent post regarding my recent induction into the
HRS blog. It is time for you to again denounce the HRS author(s) for
"parody" of a private person. I'll be waiting. For what it is worth,
you can tell from what I said, that I consider my induction to be
confirmation of whom I suspected all along ... at the very least, one
of them.
> The above is logically false. Next!
> --> True, but not so fast. I'm going to demonstrate something to you
> that you are absolutely incapable of doing. I am going to agree with
> you. I am going to say that in this particular instance, my logic was
> flawed. You could never and will never do that. Why? Because you
> mistakenly believe that you are not flawed and that it your biggest
> flaw, but I digress. Let me get back to the issue at hand. There's no
> middle ground here. It's decision time. You do remember how to make a
> decision don't you? Do you approve or disapprove of the blog? YES or
> NO? Pick one or just admit that you haven't the gumption to do either
> and just slip on out of here in silence as you commonly do. By the
> way, don't waste your breath with some **** about you have this private
> opinion for which there is no moral imperative that dictates that you
> make a choice.
See above. [YAWN]
--> Tired are you?
> Allowing parody of public individuals is essential to a free society.
> Whether or not I find the HRS blog humorous, tasteless, offensive, etc.
> is my personal opinion, and there is no moral imperative that requires
> me to publicly express my opinion.
> --> I repeat few, if any of those targeted, are public figures, so you
> can quit regurgitating that line of reasoning....
As Indiana Mike pointed out, I expressed my disapproval in those cases
of parodying private individuals on a public forum (without any
prompting from Mr. McNamara, I might add).
--> I take pleasure in the knowledge that there are those rare instance
when you muster the testicular fortitude to take a stand and do the
right thing without having to be coerced but who pray tell do you
consider a public figure?
> So, you actually do
> have a personal opinion. Well what's keepin' you? I'm all ears.
> Never mind. You're not going to share that with us now are you, Tom.
> You're just such a tease. Yep, Ed Dolan has you pegged all right.
> Just as well, you know. Something tells me that I wouldn't want to
> hear it anyways. Like I said before, I've never understood pacifists.
See above. [YAWN]
--> Another snappy comeback.
> Besides, if you were to indicate your disapproval (don't think you have
> it in you by the way) you'd be crossing those on your list of
> candidates who are most likely to be those responsible parties and you
> just might end up being blog fodder. Then I'd like to see ho much you
> like it and how determined you'd remain to rise to their defense. I'm
> thinking you might have an opinion then ... one that you might even be
> disposed to share with us.
See above. [YAWN]
--> And to think that you accused me of repetition.
> > If retribution extends beyond the written word, that is the risk that
> > those responsible knowingly and willingly took and the consequences
> > that they must accept. We must all take responsibility for our
> > decisions and the consequences of those decisions. If the parties who
> > are responsible find that their payback extends beyond the written
> > word, be it in the form of litigation, violence or whatever, so be it.
> > I'll not shed a tear. They will have reaped what they sowed ... earned
> > and deserve whatever form of reprisal comes their way.
> Ah, so Jim McNamara believes that physical violence is a just response
> to parody? I see where his moral standards are.
Mr. McNamara refuses to morally disapprove of physical violence in
response to a verbal slight (or slights). The immorality of that
position is clear, as the response is entirely disproportionate to the
stimulus.
--> Why has your highly touted comprehension skills abandoned you?
Read what I said about encouraging and/or condoning violence. Once
again, you ignored the mention of the possibility of litigation. Like
I said, retaliation in the form of violence is not an uncommon
occurrence and that's the risk that has been knowingly taken. That's
just the world we live in today. If retaliation took the form of
violence, one could argue that the response was disproportionate to the
offense. Sorry to disappoint, but I still would not shed a tear and I
don't have to answer to you for feeling as I do.
> > > 5. Despite you assertion to the contrary, I didn't accuse Ed of
> > > authorship of the blog, but there is no doubt in my mind regarding his
> > > active participation in the blog or in his authorship of past and
> > > present objectionable posts and this is an OPINION that is shared by
> > > most here regardless of your drum beating about FACTS. Your logic
> > > reads much like this. If you enter a room and lying on the floor is a
> > > person dead from a gunshot wound and a person is standing over the body
> > > holding a gun that is later found to have been purchased by and
> > > registered in his name. In his pocket is found a receipt for recently
> > > purchased bullets and the open box, on the table, just happens to have
> > > the same number of bullets missing that were chambered in the gun,
> > > there still remains sufficient reason to consider that the person found
> > > holding the gun was not the murderer simply because the preponderance
> > > of evidence is purely circumstantial since the event was not captured
> > > on videotape. Sorry, but I just buy your line of reasoning....
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> It is good to see that Jim McNamara has come around to see the logic of
> my position.
> --> Nonsense. You really are a dunderhead. It was late, I was tired,
> should have done a better job of proofreading. Unlike you I'm human
> and have human frailties. I know utter blasphemy if those words were
> to pass your lips. The bottom line is that I omitted the word DON'T (I
> just DON'T buy your line of reasoning). Now, care to answer the
> question that you ducked?
Should I respond to what is written, or what I could possibly imagine
what might have been written?
--> You should have answered the question as corrected above, but
predictably you asked a question rather than answering one. You opted
for a one-liner to avoid answering the question for a second time and
counting.
Since no competent person is going to take the HRS blog seriously, I
fail to see how it can be more than a minor offense.
--> I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that one. It is not
unreasonable to assume though that the victims feel differently about
this than you do and being victims, their opinion inherently has
greater weight.
> Where is the definition of parody that mandates inoffensiveness?
> I have been called worse things on Usenet than anything in the HRS blog
> or Johnny NoCom posts. As long is it is opinion, and not misstatement
> of fact I could care less.
> --> Your kind inspires name-calling of the worst sort. You know, you
> dismiss things all too readily. The accusation referred to above
> regarding my mother, I can assure you is misstatement of fact. I will,
> assume for the sake of argument that if I said of you what was said of
> me, I would have made a misstatement of fact that even you might find
> offensive and objectionable. Am I right? If not, then you contradict
> your statement regarding misstatement of fact in reference to what you
> do and do not care about.
No one would believe Mr. McNamara if he made statements of the sort he
mentions above, so I would not give it much thought.
--> You are probably right. It would probably be assumed to be an
obvious misstatement of fact, however, you stipulated that you care
about misstatement of fact, but then you said that you would not give
my misstatement much thought. I'd call that ILLOGICAL and a
contradiction. You are a conundrum.
> > > 7. Personally, it is my opinion (I know you're fond of that word) that
> > > even you have little doubt as to who the culprits are. You as much as
> > > said so when you indicated that we would likely produce similar lists...
> I assume Jim McNamara is referring to the paragraph below (from a
> previous post of mine).
> "Based on past events, I can think of several people who names have not
> been mentioned on this thread who might be responsible for the HRS blog
> and postings. (I suspect that Jim McNamara might well come up with a
> similar list.) This is another reason why there is reasonable doubt as
> to the identity of the person(s) behind HRS."
> Similar should be taken to me "a list of alternative candidates to
> those whose names have been mentioned". It should not necessarily be
> interpreted to say that my list of names would be identical to the list
> of names Jim McNamara would generate.
> --> Your twisting things again. Only one name has been mentioned thus
> far. A list by its very nature assumes more than one, but why have you
> unnecessarily introduced the concept of alternative candidates. Why,
> unless you specifically intend to confuse, would you want to complicate
> the issue by attempting to "clarify" your original statement, which
> wasn't in need of clarification? I find it most peculiar that you now
> have a problem with me accepting your statement as originally written?
> Now, similar and identical are not synonyms and I never used the word
> identical, but I agree with your former premise, we would produce
> SIMILAR lists. In fact, I'm thinking you would probably match two if not
> all three of the names I have in mind and since I provided those
> initials, you should have a very good idea just how similar our lists
> would be so there is no need to pretend otherwise. I know, you'd
> prefer not to comment about any similarities.
See above - there are distinct possibilities beyond the three (3)
mentioned by Mr. McNamara.
--> I never contended that there were only three. Prove me wrong. I
contended that there were at least three. Just curious how many are on
your list? Not the names, just the number pleases. What I have said
in this regard is if more than three, they likely served in a minor
capacity. Why do you continue to misinterpret what I've said? Never
mind. I understand. This is where lack of comprehension comes into
play in defiance of your test scores.
If you want to concede the argument, I will then discontinue the
argument. I have posted more than 200 times in a single argument on one
thread, but I do not object to setting a new personal record.
--> 200 times ... you actuall kept a tally ... stange? Well, that's
proof positive of all that Ed Dolan has said of you, particularly that
you are stubborn. You're looking for an easy way out are you? I'll
concede nothing. In fact I'll do a Tom Sherman and won't even admit
that there is anything to concede. I'm sure I'm up to the task to
assist you in breaking that record. I am always amazed how some people
take such great joy and such great pride in from such minor
achievements ... strange.
I have no interest in continuing this argument in private, as that
would not entertain me in the least.
--> So then, you are in it for the entertainment value?
See above - I disapprove of parodying private individuals in a public
forum, as my previous posts on other threads should have made clear.
--> Yes but you have not defined of made a distinction between "public"
and "private". As my previous post clearly indicated, most of those
targeted are private, not public individuals. Those who by reason of
the notoriety of their achievements or the vigor and success with which
they seek the public's attention, or those who occupy positions of
persuasive power and influence, or those who have assumed roles of
especial prominence in the affairs of society and have assumed special
prominence in the resolution of public questions, or those who have
thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies
in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved are
classified as public figures under the First Amendment. Nonetheless,
determination of public figure status is a question of law, not fact.
It is the trial judge who makes that determination. It does not appear
that the targeted individuals fall into the category of "public
figures" as defined. It should also be noted that private individuals
need only show that a defamatory falsehood was made negligently (with
reckless disregard as to its truth) and not that it was made with
actual malice. If someone believes that a defamation has occurred
through publication of a known falsehood, the victim can initiate a
civil action of libel against the offending party and collect both
compensatory and punitive damages. The bottom line is that libel and
libelous statements are beyond First Amendment protection. The blog
participants are on shaky grounds, but 1st amendment rights are a
complicated issue and topic of jurisprudence and 1st amendment
interpretation is best left to the Constitutional law professional and
the court system.
> Not at all.
> --> Really. You've asked the question several times now, so it would
> seem that you have unfinished business (lack of closure) over this
> particular issue and you seem frustrated with your lack of success in
> drawing Rich out, but since Rich has not struck a nerve, I guess you
> can refrain from asking him for a response.
I was looking for a public fight, so I could demonstrate that Mr. Pinto
could not back up his insults. Mr. Pinto disappointed me by cutting and
running. Ask Ed Dolan if I am the type to back down. See
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent/browse_frm/...>.
--> Have you just run out of things to do in you spare time? Your past
skirmishes do not interest me. Plenty of my lengthy ones are archived
as well. Since cutting and running disturbs you, perhaps that's what I
should have done and may still do especially since that would obviate
the possibility of breaking that cherished record of yours. Sorry but
I just might have to disappoint you in that regard.
> As for Rich Pinto, he should stay away from the discussion completely
> or back up his accusations. Instead, he has "cut and run". It is in his
> best interest, since there is no possible way he could prove my
> statements "illogical" and "delusional".
> --> I must have missed the announcement when you were appointed the
> forum moderator. And to think that you still expect us to believe that
> Rich hasn't struck a nerve. It obvious that he has whether you will
> admit it or not. Admitting anything to anyone just isn't your thing is
> it Tom? There's that "prove" word again. Get real. You would not
> accept proof from anyone that you are in any way, shape or form ...
> flawed. Therein, lies a very real difference between us. You refuse
> to recognize let alone acknowledge your flaws. I have pointed out a
> few things that you have said that are certainly illogical just as you
> have to me. When you were right, I made an acknowledgment. I refer
> you to my response in answer to "logically false". You, on the other
> hand, cannot and will not ever make such an admission. When you are
> wrong you will make no such acknowledgment because you consider
> yourself to be omniscient and infallible and an acknowledgment is a
> concession that you cannot bear to make. This is in and of itself
> illogical and a flaw. Delusional? No, you're quite there yet, but
> after a couple more rounds, perhaps...
The above reveals much about Mr. McNamara, but nothing about me, so I
will not respond further due to disinterest on my part.
--> Nothing? I thought you ser intelligent and logical? On what basis
do you draw that conclusion? I see that your comprehension problem has
reared its ugly head again. The above says something about the both of
us. What it says about you is just something that you'd care not to
become a topic of conversation, so you feign disinterest. How very
clever of you ... NOT.
> > A more pertinent
> > question to ask is where are the cowardly culprits? Like you, at least
> > Rich used his real email address and name, but we've been through all
> > that innumerable times. Those who are responsible have good reason to
> > remain anonymous ... fear factor. Rich is not alone in his assertions.
> > I've as much as said that at times you were illogical...
Said by Jim McNamara, but never proven.
--> You have to be more specific. To which do you refer ... the
culprit's cowardice, use of a real email address and name, good reason
to remain anonymous or that at times you are illogical?
> Go back and read some of my responses and perhaps you will get a
> clue as to when and where I cited examples of you flawed logic. I
> haven't the time go back and footnote everything for you. That would
> be a complete waste of time, because your primary flaw is that like all
> egomaniacs you really believe that you have none. It would be foolish
> of me to even attempt to prove that you are at times illogical. That
> you fail to realize that you are capable of being illogical, flies in
> the face of logic.
Gee, I missed all the CONCLUSIVE ARGUMENTS PROVING THAT I AMD
ILLOGICAL.
--> Finally ... a confession. This is one of those rare instances
where an admission has been made and Tom and I are in complete
agreement.
But where is the proof? The world wonders [1]?
[1] Gratuitous Task Force 34 reference.
Thought I'd leave the important part.
Indiana Mike
--> Like you need someone else to do you talking for you? But where is
you common sense. The world wonders. Once you've made up your mind
that someone couldn't possibly prove something to you, the task becomes
an impossible one. I did ask though what you would consider to be
acceptable proof and you went mute. I have all the proof I require, so
I don't share your dilemma.
Jim McNamara
