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

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.

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

"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

"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

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

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

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

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

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