|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman
At this juncture, it is not unreasonable to assume that the readership
has understandably grown weary of this debate. All that was in need of being said has likely already been said several times over. It should be obvious that Mr. Sherman and I are both tenacious and determined, but I recognize that one of us had to be the least stubborn, exercise sound judgment and adjourn this debate lest it persist ad infinitum. Confident that Mr. Sherman would not be that person, I assumed the role in this capacity. I am well aware that when Mr. Sherman outlasts (read wears down) an opponent, he promptly declares himself the victor. Mr. Sherman will undoubtedly again delude himself and assert that he was triumphant over his adversary. Do not be misled by his charade. Pretense and posturing should not be confused with victory. What follows are my closing arguments and my parting thoughts. Please note that in this debate, there have been two fundamental components that are, without qualification, crucial for Mr. Sherman's mantra and doctrine to be valid and prevail. With the failure of either, Mr. Sherman's position in this debate crumbles into the ashes of obscurity. Let's subject each of these two key elements to critical analysis. ------------- Public Figure ------------- Mr. Sherman defines a public figure from a moral perspective, which is absurd. Morality has nothing to do with how a public figure is defined where it matters ... in the courtroom. How do constitutional law professionals and the Supreme Court define "public figures"? Public figures are defined as 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 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. Those specifically targeted by the HRS bog do not fall into the category of "public figures" as defined. It should be duly 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 the definition of a public figure. The bottom line is that MR. SHERMAN IS WRONG! By continually referring to those victimized by the HRS blog as "public figures", Mr. Sherman exposes himself for what and who he is. MR. SHERMAN IS ILLOGICAL! ----------------------- Circumstantial Evidence ----------------------- Mr. Sherman insists upon (read demands) what is known as direct evidence. He subscribes to the misconception that circumstantial evidence is insufficient in and of itself to establish adequate proof. Mr. Sherman demands "proof" in a form, which he knows to be costly and exceedingly difficult to obtain without transgressing the law and/or without securing an attorney and a court order. He demands a higher standard than required simply because, for Mr. Sherman, this debate was not about right and wrong but about winning. As concerns circumstantial evidence, Mr. Sherman would have you believe that one cannot be considered guilty solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Mr. Sherman is in error. That's right. MR. SHERMAN IS WRONG! His insistence in this regard proves that MR. SHERMAN IS ILLOGICAL! 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 this much can be said. It is a popularly held belief (particularly by Mr. 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 contend 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. --------------------- Some Parting Thoughts --------------------- Now that the debate has concluded, I can focus on tasks that are more pleasurable, more rewarding and less wasteful of my time. In closing, I would like to share a few words with Tom and the readership. Tom, argumentation is, for you, little more than an exercise in mental masturbation and linguistic gymnastics. Several times I referred to you as "Teflon Tom" for a specific reason that I am convinced did not escape your attention. You approach a debate as though it were a sporting event, but not a contact sport like one played out on the gridiron, but more like the non-contact sport of dodge ball where the object of the game is evasion. In a debate you craft the rules of engagement on the fly to suit your whims and fancy. You demand that your adversary conform to your set of rules from which you exempt yourself. Debate for you is more about form than function. You attempt to frustrate your opponent by nitpicking writing proficiency, and identifying grammatical errors, typos and misspellings of your adversary as if you were not remiss in this regard. You deliberately misconstrue that which your adversary intended when you are unable or unwilling to counter or when you endeavor to divert the attention of your opponent or the readership. I prefer engaging an adversary who enters into the field of battle with the understanding that we play fairly (by the same rules) knowing full well that you win some and you lose some. You regard any concession as a sign of weakness rather than one of recognition. Consequently, you are unwilling to concede anything, twisting and distorting, rationalizing at every turn, deluding yourself into believing that you have made your point even when you've failed. Tom, until I encountered you, I was unaware that anyone could stack bull**** 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. 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. At this time, I would like to delegate the task of unscrewing the inscrutable over to your archrival and nemesis ... Ed Dolan. Tom, here is word of advice. The next time you are itching for a public fight, it would prudent for you to select your adversary more judiciously. Doing so will ensure a greater possibility of success and minimize the probability of further embarrassment. Sorry to just, as you say, "cut and run", but I take great joy in knowing just how much that infuriates you. Jim McNamara |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman
Jimmy Mac,
Better change that filthy underwear! http://highracers.blogspot.com/2005/...rks-at-st.html It's party time at Winter Walkbike Camp in St Petes. JimmyMac and company are having fun on the lawn of their deluxe accommodations suite. After the 10 mile morning training ride in the parking lot, they burn off some more calories twisting the afternoon away. We at HRS has learned there is a shortage of Killer Bee Asswipe at walkbike camp. JimmyMac, on the far right of this photo definitely needs a roll of Killer Bee Asswipe before this game of twister gets out of hand. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman
Jim McNamara posted before cutting and running: At this juncture, it is not unreasonable to assume that the readership has understandably grown weary of this debate. All that was in need of being said has likely already been said several times over. It should be obvious that Mr. Sherman and I are both tenacious and determined, but I recognize that one of us had to be the least stubborn, exercise sound judgment and adjourn this debate lest it persist ad infinitum. Confident that Mr. Sherman would not be that person, I assumed the role in this capacity. I am well aware that when Mr. Sherman outlasts (read wears down) an opponent, he promptly declares himself the victor. Mr. Sherman will undoubtedly again delude himself and assert that he was triumphant over his adversary. Do not be misled by his charade. Pretense and posturing should not be confused with victory. Translation: Cut and Run. What follows are my closing arguments and my parting thoughts. Please note that in this debate, there have been two fundamental components that are, without qualification, crucial for Mr. Sherman's mantra and doctrine to be valid and prevail. With the failure of either, Mr. Sherman's position in this debate crumbles into the ashes of obscurity. Let's subject each of these two key elements to critical analysis. ------------- Public Figure ------------- Mr. Sherman defines a public figure from a moral perspective, which is absurd. Morality has nothing to do with how a public figure is defined where it matters ... in the courtroom. How do constitutional law professionals and the Supreme Court define "public figures"? Public figures are defined as 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 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. Those specifically targeted by the HRS bog do not fall into the category of "public figures" as defined. It should be duly 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 the definition of a public figure. The bottom line is that MR. SHERMAN IS WRONG! By continually referring to those victimized by the HRS blog as "public figures", Mr. Sherman exposes himself for what and who he is. MR. SHERMAN IS ILLOGICAL! [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. Besides, who is being parodied on the HRS blog? Except for one case, I see no real names of people and companies. Certainly, the similarity to certain actual persons and organizations is notable, but that is not the same as parodying using actual identities. The difference is significant, as connecting the parody figures to real persons and organizations requires UNPROVEN ASSUMPTIONS. ----------------------- Circumstantial Evidence ----------------------- Mr. Sherman insists upon (read demands) what is known as direct evidence. He subscribes to the misconception that circumstantial evidence is insufficient in and of itself to establish adequate proof. Mr. Sherman demands "proof" in a form, which he knows to be costly and exceedingly difficult to obtain without transgressing the law and/or without securing an attorney and a court order. He demands a higher standard than required simply because, for Mr. Sherman, this debate was not about right and wrong but about winning. As concerns circumstantial evidence, Mr. Sherman would have you believe that one cannot be considered guilty solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Mr. Sherman is in error. That's right. MR. SHERMAN IS WRONG! His insistence in this regard proves that MR. SHERMAN IS ILLOGICAL! 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 this much can be said. It is a popularly held belief (particularly by Mr. 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 contend 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. 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. Mr. McNamara UTTERLY FAILED in PROVING BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT the IDENTITY of the HRS blog AUTHOR(S). --------------------- Some Parting Thoughts --------------------- Now that the debate has concluded, I can focus on tasks that are more pleasurable, more rewarding and less wasteful of my time. In closing, I would like to share a few words with Tom and the readership. Tom, argumentation is, for you, little more than an exercise in mental masturbation and linguistic gymnastics. Several times I referred to you as "Teflon Tom" for a specific reason that I am convinced did not escape your attention. You approach a debate as though it were a sporting event, but not a contact sport like one played out on the gridiron, but more like the non-contact sport of dodge ball where the object of the game is evasion. In a debate you craft the rules of engagement on the fly to suit your whims and fancy. You demand that your adversary conform to your set of rules from which you exempt yourself. Debate for you is more about form than function. You attempt to frustrate your opponent by nitpicking writing proficiency, and identifying grammatical errors, typos and misspellings of your adversary as if you were not remiss in this regard. You deliberately misconstrue that which your adversary intended when you are unable or unwilling to counter or when you endeavor to divert the attention of your opponent or the readership. I prefer engaging an adversary who enters into the field of battle with the understanding that we play fairly (by the same rules) knowing full well that you win some and you lose some. You regard any concession as a sign of weakness rather than one of recognition. Consequently, you are unwilling to concede anything, twisting and distorting, rationalizing at every turn, deluding yourself into believing that you have made your point even when you've failed. Translation: If you can not stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Tom, until I encountered you, I was unaware that anyone could stack bull**** 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). 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. At this time, I would like to delegate the task of unscrewing the inscrutable over to your archrival and nemesis ... Ed Dolan. Tom, here is word of advice. The next time you are itching for a public fight, it would prudent for you to select your adversary more judiciously. I think I picked my opponent well. He was "hoisted on his own petard" by posting a hypothesis he could not back up. WHERE IS THE PROOF OF THE HRS BLOG AUTHOR(S) IDENTIES, Mr. McNAMARA? Doing so will ensure a greater possibility of success and minimize the probability of further embarrassment. Sorry to just, as you say, "cut and run", but I take great joy in knowing just how much that infuriates you. Others cutting and running does not bother me at all, since I enjoy pointing it out. -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman
"Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" wrote in message ups.com... [...] [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 bull**** 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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman
"Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" wrote in message ups.com... 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. ... [...] There is just no way I am going to give the above a free pass, at least not with the likes of Mr. Sherman. What absolute standard, pray tell? Unless you are appealing to a religion, there are no absolute standards for morality. Logic is totally irrelevant to the issue of what is moral. With logic, you can make anything either moral or immoral. Logic is simply a means, not an end. Is Mr. Sherman religious since that is the only possible appeal he can make to an absolute morality. I recommend Christianity to him if he is serious about searching for an absolute morality. Do not even think about any other religions as they are all steeped in tribal roots and possessed of all kinds of barbarisms. However, for Mr. Sherman to adequately understand the human dilemma, he would have to embrace the concept of original sin, a key part of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Secularists like to think that human nature is a blank slate that can be written on by experience whereas we original sinners know that is not the case. Human nature is so damn despicable (due to original sin) that it has to be rigidly circumscribed if we are to live together in society. That incidentally is why I am a conservative and why liberalism is wrong headed and never works in the long run in any society. Christians tend to be conservative and can even be Democrats, but can never be liberal. Abhor your liberalism if you would be saved from your situational morality, oh you seeker of absolute morality! The Chicago area (Fox River Valley) is just chock full of Catholic Churches where you can go to learn all about absolute morality. A good and holy celibate priest will take you under his wing and teach you everything you will ever have to know about absolute morality. I recommend my brother's church, St. John Cantius, where I understand they also have an outstanding musical program. Go my son, with God, Ed Dolan - Minnesota |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman
wrote in message ups.com... 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 crap 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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman
Jim McNamara 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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman
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 ... CRAP!!!. 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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman
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/...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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! | [email protected] | Recumbent Biking | 79 | December 22nd 05 03:06 AM |
Ed Dolan's final farewell to freaking ARBR! | Edward Dolan | Recumbent Biking | 23 | September 3rd 05 11:06 AM |
2004 Mayors' Ride FINAL Report | Cycle America | Rides | 0 | August 5th 04 04:21 PM |
Unicon XII is upon us -- some final words | Jack Halpern | Unicycling | 9 | July 22nd 04 08:37 AM |
[iuf-discuss] Unicon XII is upon us -- some final words | Angie Guinid | Unicycling | 1 | July 22nd 04 04:22 AM |