Rich is exposed!

Edward Dolan wrote:
...
The only real question I have at the moment is what are you doing still up?
Do you realize we have been up all night? Don't you have to go to work
today? I don't want to be responsible for you not getting a good night's
sleep. Mr. McNamara wants you to go to bed too, something I think he did at
least several hours ago....

At a certain point of fatigue, sleep become difficult, especially when
one is suffering some distress from ailments. I blame the cartel of
doctors and pharmacists for their anti-competitive, anti-free market
practice of restricting the sale of certain medications that could do
much to alleviate suffering. In addition, the doctors are now cowed by
the DEA accusations of feeding addicts' habits, so now doctors are
loath to prescribe both the needed medications and in the required
quantities.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
"the bacteria people tuned in-as to bioengineering at the correct
wave
Point" - G. Daniels

"Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" wrote in message
oups.com...

Edward Dolan wrote:
...
The only real question I have at the moment is what are you doing still
up?
Do you realize we have been up all night? Don't you have to go to work
today? I don't want to be responsible for you not getting a good night's
sleep. Mr. McNamara wants you to go to bed too, something I think he did
at
least several hours ago....

At a certain point of fatigue, sleep become difficult, especially when
one is suffering some distress from ailments. I blame the cartel of
doctors and pharmacists for their anti-competitive, anti-free market
practice of restricting the sale of certain medications that could do
much to alleviate suffering. In addition, the doctors are now cowed by
the DEA accusations of feeding addicts' habits, so now doctors are
loath to prescribe both the needed medications and in the required
quantities.

Tom, you should not be having any serious medical problems that would
prevent you from sleeping, not at your age. I am guessing that you are in
your 40's and since you bicycle you must be in reasonably good shape. Now
when you get to be my age (almost 70) you will have all kinds of health
issues which will drive you crazy. Finally it gets to the point where you
realize that only death itself is going to solve all your health problems.

No one has ever understood my sleeping habits. I sleep right around the
clock, turning night into day and day into night. I tell those who wish to
contact me that the best time to see me is about 3:00 AM., depending on the
day of the month. I have been cursed all my life because I cannot get up in
the morning. I don't believe I have been up before noon for at least 40
years, unless I have been up all the preceding night of course.

The problem with my life style is that you never get anything done, let
alone accomplished. I have a list of to do things a mile long, but they are
never going to get done. By the time I get up the day is shot, and so I just
fritter away the reminder of the day doing God knows what.

The main advantage of having to hold down a job is that it puts you on a
schedule. We humans need schedules. Otherwise, we tend to go off the deep
end. I almost envy folks who have regular jobs, except for the fact that I
hate all work. Leisure is the only thing that makes any sense to me, but not
everyone knows what to do with leisure. And so I do not recommend my life
style to anyone. It takes a lifetime of practice to live the way I do.

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

"Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" wrote in message
oups.com...

Edward Dolan wrote:
...
Well, yes, there is not much relationship anymore to where it all came
from.
But still we know where most leftist ideology comes from - Marx and
Lenin.

Groucho Marx?

Ah, for the good old days of the Berlin Wall. Damn that Reagan anyway for
winning the Cold War for America and the West!....

Ed Dolan must mean Gorbachev as the person responsible for ending the
cold war [1]. The cold war could have ended a decade earlier, but
certain people in the Ford administration deliberately sabotaged
detente' in the 1970's. They were Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
and White House Chief of Staff Richard Cheney - I wonder what ever
happened to those two?

[1] Fearless prediction. As time passes, Gorbachev's reputation will
gain luster, while Reagan's will become more tarnished.

All of the above is absurd! Any more Presidents like Carter and the US would
have been defeated. Reagan came along just in the nick of time to save us
from the liberal folly. The idea of détente with the Evil Empire just turns
my stomach!

Gorbachev is destined to be either forgotten altogether if Russia becomes a
success or to be reviled if Russia fails. The Russians will then hold
Gorbachev responsible for not adequately defending the old Soviet Union.

However the liberals want to play it, the fact is that the Soviet Union did
not fall of itself. The US had everything to do with it. The Cold War was
real and all the proxy wars that the US fought on behalf of the West,
particularly in Korea and Vietnam, had everything to do with the final
victory.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Edward Dolan wrote:
"Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" wrote in message
oups.com...

Edward Dolan wrote:
...
Well, yes, there is not much relationship anymore to where it all came
from.
But still we know where most leftist ideology comes from - Marx and
Lenin.

Groucho Marx?

Ah, for the good old days of the Berlin Wall. Damn that Reagan anyway for
winning the Cold War for America and the West!....

Ed Dolan must mean Gorbachev as the person responsible for ending the
cold war [1]. The cold war could have ended a decade earlier, but
certain people in the Ford administration deliberately sabotaged
detente' in the 1970's. They were Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
and White House Chief of Staff Richard Cheney - I wonder what ever
happened to those two?

[1] Fearless prediction. As time passes, Gorbachev's reputation will
gain luster, while Reagan's will become more tarnished.

All of the above is absurd! Any more Presidents like Carter and the US would
have been defeated. Reagan came along just in the nick of time to save us
from the liberal folly. The idea of détente with the Evil Empire just turns
my stomach!

Gorbachev is destined to be either forgotten altogether if Russia becomesa
success or to be reviled if Russia fails. The Russians will then hold
Gorbachev responsible for not adequately defending the old Soviet Union.

However the liberals want to play it, the fact is that the Soviet Union did
not fall of itself. The US had everything to do with it. The Cold War was
real and all the proxy wars that the US fought on behalf of the West,
particularly in Korea and Vietnam, had everything to do with the final
victory.

Hey Eddie,

Go easy on your diet of right-wing talk radio and commentary. It is bad
for you mental health.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
"the bacteria people tuned in-as to bioengineering at the correct
wave
Point" - G. Daniels

Tom,

First order of business - the quoting is a mess due to the nonstandard
method employed by the program Mr. McNamara is using.

This has become a nightmare to follow, but it is not because of a
newsreader program that Mr. McNamara is using. I am not using a
program, just the Google Groups facility. So as not to add to the
confusion, I will just address a few issues right here at the top
rather than interspersed:

1. For what it is worth, unlike you, I have refrained from pointing out
many of your writing shortcomings (grammatical errors, misspellings,
mistakes, and keyboard slips) (egg "test" when you meant "text")
because your intent was communicated clearly enough and this is about
communication ... nothing more ... nothing less.

2. I am not in a contest with Mr. Dolan and appreciate his humor as
well, but understand, as Mr. Dolan so rightly pointed out it is not my
intention to amuse or entertain you.

3. When I have said something qualified with "as I know it", the
operative word being "I", it should be apparent that I understand this
means that I know something to be a fact. This does not imply that
said fact is not privy to someone else who does not know something "as
I know it". I didn't think that statement was in need of
clarification, but apparently you were again in need of interpreter and
I was happy to have been able to assist you in the clarification of
this rudimentary concept ... and, to think that you are someone who
regards himself as intelligent and logical.

4. As pointed out previously, there is nothing dishonest in having
employed a surname initial in order to facilitate communication that
would only be understood by those in or near the inner circle of the
JAG alliance. Just how was I being dishonest by complying with your
mandate that names not be mentioned until those names can be linked
conclusively to the events for which they have been accused? You
really do like putting your adversary in a damned if you do, damned if
you don't predicament don't you? Your finding that, with me, it is a
bit more difficult than it ordinarily is, aren't you?

5. I will not address your preposterous hypothetical story here since I
have already done so in another thread, but I will add that I have no
need or intention to prove that your possible conjecture is impossible
any more than you have any intention to prove that that my conjecture
is impossible. What is a "possible" conjecture? It either is or it is
not.

6. The Johnny NoCom posts and HRS blog have similarities other than
those that you selectively mentioned. I have faith in the readership's
ability to realize that without me having to enumerate. The clamoring
heard from them supports my contention.

7. The reason I have now been included in the blog only remotely has
something to do with accusing people without having proof. Those
involved need little provocation for them to spring into action and
their anticipated response serves to indicate that those whom I have
suspected all along are the ones responsible. It should be obvious,
even to you, that if it were someone other that those whom I suspect
.... whose surname initials I provided and whose first initials you
provided (thanks again), there would have been no cause for a response.
The predictable and telling response in and of itself, in addition to
the inherent attributes of the response, serve as an indictment of the
culpable.

8. Readers, do not be led astray. This is another one of Tom's baffle
'em with bull**** replies to confuse the issue. Defining a public
figure from a moral perspective is absurd. Morality has nothing to do
with how a public figure is define where it matters ... in a court
room. Tom, since you are admittedly not a lawyer or a judge then why
not consider what the constitutional law professionals and the Supreme
Court have to say in this matter. Public figures are defined as
follows ... 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, including myself. 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). Demonstration of malice is not required. 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. Please note that nowhere do constitutional law
professionals or the Supreme Court include morality in its definition
of a public person, as does Mr. Sherman

9. I've said all that I intend to say with regard to retaliation and
violence and even litigation (again conveniently and deliberately
overlooked). As said previously, I don't have to answer to Mr. Sherman
for feeling as I do. He is free to pass judgment. His opinion in this
regards matters not. I don't answer to him.

10. I see that it is time to enlighten the unenlightened obtuse one ...
Mr. Sherman. The notion that one cannot be convicted on circumstantial
evidence is, of course, FALSE. Most criminal convictions are based on
circumstantial evidence because most criminals are careful not to
generate any direct evidence during the commission of a crime. Courts
often rely on circumstantial evidence to determine the facts of a case.
The laws regarding circumstantial evidence are complex and can vary by
case, but his much can be said. It is a popularly held (particularly
by Tom Sherman) that direct evidence is more important than
circumstantial evidence, however, the two are equal in weight in the
eyes of the law. Some legal experts would even argue that
circumstantial evidence can carry more weight in a case than direct
evidence. Criminal prosecutors often rely heavily on circumstantial
evidence to prove their case. Civil cases are often based solely, or
primarily, on circumstantial evidence, particularly in cases involving
liability. Circumstantial evidence must prove beyond reasonable doubt
the guilt of a criminal defendant in order to elicit a conviction, the
keyword here being "reasonable", something that Tom is not. I trust
this clears things up regarding circumstantial evidence being
insufficient for conviction since this is an everyday occurrence in our
courtrooms. I think we can now put this one to rest. Tom can now quit
harping on this issue unless he wants to further embarrass himself.
Just a reminder, Tom ... don't forget to enroll in that basic logic
course.

11. Mr. McNamara did not misinterpret the "tongue in cheek" smiley
emoticon. I am well acquainted with the smiley as a staple of internet
culture. It should be noted that Mr. Sherman's statement could just as
easily have been made without the inclusion of a number (200), so
naturally assumed that the number had some degree of significance, at
least to Tom. I am convinced that Mr. Sherman would never compose a
sentence comprised of even the most minute, single detail that he would
deem insignificant. Consequently, my question still stands and remains
unanswered. I really am starting to question Tom's judgment. It makes
me wonder about his real mental state (note: a question, not an
accusation). On the other hand, Mr. Sherman consistently lives up to
my expectations.

12. Mr. Sherman has asked that I provide him with un-doctored
videotapes of those I accuse typing the HRS blog text into a computer
and then prove the blog was posted from that computer. He knows
perfectly well that direct evidence of this nature would be difficult,
if not impossible to obtain and might even require violation of the law
in the process and I'll not go there simply because that is what he
requires of me. I refer the readers, and Mr. Sherman, to #8 above. I
am sorry that Mr. Sherman is still having a problem grasping the very
rudimentary concept that circumstantial evidence is grounds not just
for suspicion, but also for conviction. The insistent Mr. Sherman
continually obliges me to conform to a higher a standard than is
required by law. To my disappointment, Mr. Sherman fails to comprehend
that I am under no obligation to jump through a hoop simply because he
has placed in front of me. DUH!!!

Jim McNamara

"Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" wrote in message
ups.com...

Edward Dolan wrote:
"Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" wrote in message
oups.com...

Edward Dolan wrote:
...
Well, yes, there is not much relationship anymore to where it all came
from.
But still we know where most leftist ideology comes from - Marx and
Lenin.

Groucho Marx?

Ah, for the good old days of the Berlin Wall. Damn that Reagan anyway
for
winning the Cold War for America and the West!....

Ed Dolan must mean Gorbachev as the person responsible for ending the
cold war [1]. The cold war could have ended a decade earlier, but
certain people in the Ford administration deliberately sabotaged
detente' in the 1970's. They were Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
and White House Chief of Staff Richard Cheney - I wonder what ever
happened to those two?

[1] Fearless prediction. As time passes, Gorbachev's reputation will
gain luster, while Reagan's will become more tarnished.

All of the above is absurd! Any more Presidents like Carter and the US
would
have been defeated. Reagan came along just in the nick of time to save us
from the liberal folly. The idea of détente with the Evil Empire just
turns
my stomach!

Gorbachev is destined to be either forgotten altogether if Russia becomes
a
success or to be reviled if Russia fails. The Russians will then hold
Gorbachev responsible for not adequately defending the old Soviet Union.

However the liberals want to play it, the fact is that the Soviet Union
did
not fall of itself. The US had everything to do with it. The Cold War was
real and all the proxy wars that the US fought on behalf of the West,
particularly in Korea and Vietnam, had everything to do with the final
victory.

Tom Sherman wrote:

Hey Eddie,

Go easy on your diet of right-wing talk radio and commentary. It is bad
for you[r] mental health.

Edward Dolan wrote:

The liberal media no longer have the news all to themselves like they used
to when old Walter Cronkite was pontificating on CBS. The execrable NY Times
and Washington Post have lots of competition now. Talk radio has changed
everything for the better as has Fox News and innumerable other conservative
media which hardly existed during the Vietnam War.

This forum, ARBR, was also overrun by liberal know nothings before I showed
up, but that is no longer the case thanks to me. Those who formerly thought
it was a grand thing to do nothing but bash Bush and the Republicans have
learned that they will now be rebutted. We have some balance here where
before there was none.

Liberals like Mr. Sherman would prefer that they be able to spout their
political nonsense without being heckled by the likes of me. However, that
isn't going to happen if I have anything to say about it. I don't listen to
Limbaugh and O'Reilly for nothing you know. Scarborough and Hannity are
pretty good too, but for a real dose of reality you have to go to Mike
Savage. Damn! I can't get him anymore. I think he has been canceled. He was
just too raw for most.

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota