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 blog 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

Kurt Fischer wrote:
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. ;-)

Kurt Fischer makes a very convincing argument that the target of the
HRS blog would not be Bacchetta et al, but the critics of Bacchetta et
al. Finally someone else with reason joins the argument.

Adding to the support of Kurt Fischer's hypothesis are the reports that
some of the most offensive posts on the now defunct Monkey Island II
came from those associated with the "highracer crowd" and not the
"lowracer group".

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

Jim McNamara wrote:
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.

Monkey Island II (MI II) allowed the posting of pictures. Is Mr.
McNamara that ignorant of the history of online lowracer/highracer
discussion? If so, he is hardly the person to be drawing conclusions
about the HRS blog authorship.

Speaking of SJ, I understand that many of the most offensive posts on
MI II DID NOT COME FROM THE CHICAGOLAND AREA. Could it be that one of
those posters who have no connection to Ed Gin and Company is
responsible for the HRS blog?

I agree about Tom. There are glimmers of breeding and education.

Breeding is a classist concept. Is Mr. McNamara a classist snob who
believes what one's ancestors have done is more important that what a
person actually does? Talk about immoral positions!

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?

How is saying that Mr. McNamara LACKS THE PROOF OF HRS BLOG AUTHORSHIP
defending the actual authors? Mr. McNamara needs to revisit the
concepts of logic, or is he just "flinging poo" (to use a Monkey Island
expression).

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?

Mr. McNamara demonstrates that he totally missed the context of what I
wrote. However, my point remains - while it may seem obvious what is
being parodied, BEING SEEMINGLY OBVIOUS IS NOT THE SAME AS PROOF.

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.

Mr. McNamara needs to read Kurt Fischer's follow-up post. As it has
been my contention all along, it is possible that the HRS blog is an
attempt to discredit members of the lowracer riding community, as
certain well known lowracer riders would be blamed by the ignorant for
being authors of the blog.

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.

Mr. McNamara is the one impaired if he can not understand there are
other obvious candidates for the HRS blog authorship that have initials
other than J, A and G, and that his circumstantial evidence is feeble
indeed.

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.

Please PROVE CONCLUSIVELY WHO THE REAL TARGETS OF THE HRS BLOG ARE. Can
Mr. McNamara do this? I think not.

As for the courts, anyone who thinks that decisions are made solely on
the basis of legal merit is naive. The courts respond to social
pressure, and often show bias to those with wealth and privilege.

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.

Well, I don't keep company with Mr., Jim (James?) McNamara, so I guess
I am doing alright. In addition, Mr. McNamara has yet to PROVE his
accusations towards Ed Gin. If we are to adopt Mr. McNamara's guilty
until proven innocent position, than Mr. McNamara has a problem since
there have been unpleasant (and as far as I know, unproven) accusations
against him. Or does Mr. McNamara deserve a special standard due to his
having better breeding than the rest of us?

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

Kurt Fischer wrote:
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 blog 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

Kurt,

On 11-12-04, in the "Curious -- Why Do You Continue To Stay With ARBR"
thread, in reference to flame wars, you wrote ... sometimes it can even
be fun to be a part of this absurdity. A little mud-wrestling now and
then cleans heart and soul, that's especially important when it's
winter and we can't go outside to ride enough.

Well, it's winter again (not officially, but...) and surely the threads
surrounding the HRS blog are among the more absurd to have surfaced
since the Johnny NoCom ones, so I guess you decided to join the
cyber-mud wrestling and baited Kevin in the process. Whereas you know
that I have a different take on this than you, I would be interesting
to hear what Kevin has to say. Yo, Kevin you listenin'?

JimmyMac

"Johnny Sunset" wrote in message
oups.com...

Jim McNamara wrote:
Ed,
[...]

I agree about Tom. There are glimmers of breeding and education.

Breeding is a classist concept. Is Mr. McNamara a classist snob who
believes what one's ancestors have done is more important that what a
person actually does? Talk about immoral positions!

No, Mr. Sherman is confusing Mr. McNamara with Mr. Dolan. I am the one who
thinks that one's ancestors are more important than I am. What a person
actually does never impresses me at all. It is what our ancestors did that
impress me. After all, they produced us, we did not produce them. Just like
Mr. Sherman to get everything backwards.

But Mr. Sherman is a working class peasant, even though a civil engineer.
Mr. Dolan is a person of breeding and culture (in other words, an
aristocrat) who looks down his noble nose at all the peasants in the world,
Mr. Sherman foremost among them.
[...]

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

"Johnny Sunset" wrote in message
oups.com...

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).

There is quite a close connection between legality and morality. It is not
one to one of course, but a legal system is based on morality. In the case
of most Western nations it is based on a religion, namely Christianity. That
is why Western societies are so superior to most third world nations which
are not Christian.

You would not want to have your legal system based on Islamic morality
unless you are crazy as a bed bug. You would also not want your legal system
based on secularist thinking devoid of religion either. Logic and
rationality have ever failed mankind, as the history of the 20th century
illustrates to perfection to all but blooming idiots. The blooming idiots
these days are mostly liberals who think legality and morality are two
different things and they do not relate to one another. I wonder where Mr.
Sherman thinks legal rules come from if not some inkling of a moral
universe.

The reason abortion is such an abomination to all but liberal screwballs is
because it flies in the face of Christian teaching for a thousand years or
more. Our society badly needs to debate this issue in our legislatures and
not leave it to the courts to decide. A Supreme Court grounded in Christian
morality would never have ruled that abortion is OK.
[...]

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!

It is ever my delight to tweak the denizens of ARBR thereby bringing some
excitement into their drab lives. Mr. Sherman especially needs my
ministrations as he seems not be happy in his native country. I have been
urging him for years to emigrate to la belle France where he could be at one
with his own kind, cowards and traitors to Western Civilization. If he found
the French to be difficult, like most of the rest of the world does, then he
could emigrate to the Middle East, maybe even Palestine in as much as he has
previously expressed great sympathy for them.

Did you know there were a few Americans (left wing liberal wacko nuts) who
emigrated to the Soviet Union back in the 30's. Once they got there, they
realized it was the biggest mistake of their stupid lives, but they were
stuck. Several of them ended up in the Gulag for absolutely no reason other
than they were Americans. I guess the Soviets figured anyone stupid enough
to emigrate to the Soviet Union was a security risk. Mr. Sherman would
similarly have his eyes opened if he were to emigrate to a Moslem country in
the Middle East. In a matter of days, he would beg to be allowed to enter
Israel, the land of the Jews.
[...]

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

PS. Why would anyone say I cause contention when all anyone ever has to do
is just agree with me!

Readers,

Tom Sherman makes less sense with each post, but he does get funnier.

He shouldn't even have brought Monkey Island 2 into the mix, especially
since MI 2 and the HRS blog have something very much in common (SJ).

Readers, how do you suppose Mr. Sherman could think I was ignorant of
the history of the online lowracer/highracer discussions when the
subject matter has been cross-posted all over the internet and
archived? I admit knowing little about MI 2. Having seen quite enough
of the disgusting original (MI 1), I had no compulsion to view the
sequel, but that has no bearing whatsoever with regard to drawing
conclusions about the HRS blog authorship.

Readers, did you note where Mr. Sherman said ... Speaking of SJ, I
understand that ... followed by hearsay, assumptions and untenable
assertions none of which have been in anyway substantiated by a shred
of evidence let alone proof in a thinly veiled attempt to propose the
possibility of persons outside the Chicagoland area as possible HRS
blog authors. Mr. Sherman will do anything to divert attention away
from Ed Gin and company, but there is some truth to what he said since
JS does not live in the Chicagoland area.

I find it amusing how Mr. Sherman complains about gratuitous insults
and then bursts into a tirade regarding breeding, snobbery, what I
believe about my ancestors and immoral positions. Where does he come
up with this stuff? Just what is he raving and ranting about anyways?
Where did I make mention of breeding or ancestral beliefs? The guy is
losin' it I'm tellin' you and just when I was seriously thinking about
leaving this discussion. If this continues, I may simply have to stick
around here a little while longer just for the entertainment value.
You sure can't beat the price of admission.

Readers, remember how I remarked 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.

Tom replied (read REPEATED) ... Well, I don't keep company with Mr.,
Jim (James?) McNamara, so I guess I am doing alright. . Does Mr.
Sherman not understand what was said or is his just determined to
support what I said and prove how imperceptive and ILLOGICAL he is?

JimmyMac

wrote:
Readers,

Tom Sherman makes less sense with each post, but he does get funnier.

He shouldn't even have brought Monkey Island 2 into the mix, especially
since MI 2 and the HRS blog have something very much in common (SJ).

Mr. McNamara continues his dishonest practice of PRESENTING OPINION AS
FACT.

Where is the PROOF that SJ is involved with the HRS blog? (I am not
holding my breath here, since Mr. McNamara has yet to present any
definitive evidence regarding the authorship of the HRS blog).

Readers, how do you suppose Mr. Sherman could think I was ignorant of
the history of the online lowracer/highracer discussions when the
subject matter has been cross-posted all over the internet and
archived? I admit knowing little about MI 2. Having seen quite enough
of the disgusting original (MI 1), I had no compulsion to view the
sequel, but that has no bearing whatsoever with regard to drawing
conclusions about the HRS blog authorship.

Readers, did you note where Mr. Sherman said ... Speaking of SJ, I
understand that ... followed by hearsay, assumptions and untenable
assertions none of which have been in anyway substantiated by a shred
of evidence let alone proof in a thinly veiled attempt to propose the
possibility of persons outside the Chicagoland area as possible HRS
blog authors. Mr. Sherman will do anything to divert attention away
from Ed Gin and company, but there is some truth to what he said since
JS does not live in the Chicagoland area.

WHERE IS Mr. McNamara's PROOF of the AUTHORSHIP of the HRS blog?

I find it amusing how Mr. Sherman complains about gratuitous insults
and then bursts into a tirade regarding breeding, snobbery, what I
believe about my ancestors and immoral positions. Where does he come
up with this stuff? Just what is he raving and ranting about anyways?
Where did I make mention of breeding or ancestral beliefs?...

Mr. McNamara made mention of my breeding in this post:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent/msg/dba489d0d9fac98e?dmode=source&hl=en.
Mr. McNamara apparently can not remember comments he made one day
previously. The exact quote by Mr. McNamara is "I agree about Tom.
There are glimmers of breeding and education."

Mr. McNamara is losing it if he can not remember what he wrote the
previous day, not to mention his inability to distinguish opinion from
proven fact.

The guy is
losin' it I'm tellin' you and just when I was seriously thinking about
leaving this discussion. If this continues, I may simply have to stick
around here a little while longer just for the entertainment value.
You sure can't beat the price of admission.

Another attempt by Mr. McNamara to excuse himself from the fact that he
is going back on his word about discontinuing this discussion. This
speaks directly to Mr. McNamara's personal credibility.

Readers, remember how I remarked 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.

Tom replied (read REPEATED) ... Well, I don't keep company with Mr.,
Jim (James?) McNamara, so I guess I am doing alright. . Does Mr.
Sherman not understand what was said or is his just determined to
support what I said and prove how imperceptive and ILLOGICAL he is?\

It is clear, based on his posting history that Mr. McNamara is bitter
that he is less popular than Ed Gin among the members of the
Chicagoland recumbent riding community, and wishes to discredit Ed Gin
as a result. We should pity Mr. McNamara for being so angry and
frustrated for no good reason, but that does not excuse his presenting
OPINION AS FACT and posting accusations WHILE LACKING PROOF.

Enough said.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

Yep, again...

Mr. McNamara continues his dishonest practice of PRESENTING OPINION AS
FACT.

-- [YAWN]

Where is the PROOF that SJ is involved with the HRS blog? (I am not
holding my breath here, since Mr. McNamara has yet to present any
definitive evidence regarding the authorship of the HRS blog).

-- You profess not to accept circumstantial evidence, so why bother
and I've said we have reached an impasse and I'm done discussing the
matter.

Readers, how do you suppose Mr. Sherman could think I was ignorant of
the history of the online lowracer/highracer discussions when the
subject matter has been cross-posted all over the internet and
archived? I admit knowing little about MI 2. Having seen quite enough
of the disgusting original (MI 1), I had no compulsion to view the
sequel, but that has no bearing whatsoever with regard to drawing
conclusions about the HRS blog authorship.

Readers, did you note where Mr. Sherman said ... Speaking of SJ, I
understand that ... followed by hearsay, assumptions and untenable
assertions none of which have been in anyway substantiated by a shred
of evidence let alone proof in a thinly veiled attempt to propose the
possibility of persons outside the Chicagoland area as possible HRS
blog authors. Mr. Sherman will do anything to divert attention away
from Ed Gin and company, but there is some truth to what he said since
JS does not live in the Chicagoland area.

WHERE IS Mr. McNamara's PROOF of the AUTHORSHIP of the HRS blog?

-- Responded to nothing as usual. You profess not to accept
circumstantial evidence, so why bother and I've said we have reached an
impasse and I'm done discussing the matter.

I find it amusing how Mr. Sherman complains about gratuitous insults
and then bursts into a tirade regarding breeding, snobbery, what I
believe about my ancestors and immoral positions. Where does he come
up with this stuff? Just what is he raving and ranting about anyways?
Where did I make mention of breeding or ancestral beliefs?...

Mr. McNamara made mention of my breeding in this post:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent/msg/dba489d....

-- I made a passing remark in agreement with what Tom Dolan observed
and this is what brought all this on? And, form this you made these
wild assumptions about my beliefs regarding my ancestors and immoral
positions? [YAWN]

Mr. McNamara apparently can not remember comments he made one day
previously. The exact quote by Mr. McNamara is "I agree about Tom.
There are glimmers of breeding and education."

-- Sounds like a compliment to me, maybe even an overestimation on Tom
Dolan's part. I probably should not have agreed with him in the first
place. [YAWN]

Mr. McNamara is losing it if he can not remember what he wrote the
previous day, not to mention his inability to distinguish opinion from
proven fact.

The guy is
losin' it I'm tellin' you and just when I was seriously thinking about
leaving this discussion. If this continues, I may simply have to stick
around here a little while longer just for the entertainment value.
You sure can't beat the price of admission.

Another attempt by Mr. McNamara to excuse himself from the fact that he
is going back on his word about discontinuing this discussion. This
speaks directly to Mr. McNamara's personal credibility.

-- Merely a statement of fact. Sometimes this amuses me and I enjoy
it. Sometimes I find it a tedious waste of time. I'll be keeping my
word and will be leaving the discussion when I chose to and on my own
terms. I'll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory
insults from someone whose opinion matters not ... someone who defends
the HRS blog and Ed Gin and company. What does that say of your
credibility? [YAWN

Readers, remember how I remarked 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.

Tom replied (read REPEATED) ... Well, I don't keep company with Mr.,
Jim (James?) McNamara, so I guess I am doing alright. . Does Mr.
Sherman not understand what was said or is his just determined to
support what I said and prove how imperceptive and ILLOGICAL he is?

It is clear, based on his posting history that Mr. McNamara is bitter
that he is less popular than Ed Gin among the members of the
Chicagoland recumbent riding community, and wishes to discredit Ed Gin
as a result. We should pity Mr. McNamara for being so angry and
frustrated for no good reason, but that does not excuse his presenting
OPINION AS FACT and posting accusations WHILE LACKING PROOF.

-- You continue to jump to conclusions. This is becoming a bad habit
of yours and it is something that you would not tolerate from an
adversary, so why should you expect this to go unchallenged? You are
still operating from the misconception that there is some sort of a
popularity contest at work here as if I would even want to be popular
with some of Ed Gin's friends or be proud to call some of them friends
of my own. That's really is a stretch. Ed Gin has lost more friends
in the past few years than I and all my friends combined will ever lose
in a lifetime. The statistics speak for themselves. Besides, fiends
of Ed Gin that will not associate with me are those with whom I am
proud not to be associated. In the case of Ed Gin, I am ashamed to
having ever been associated with him. If the readers should pity me
for any reason at all, they should pity me for having ever been Ed
Gin's friend. Here is an interesting FACT for you to think about. Ed
Gin and I have, strange as this may seem, some common friends. Now,
how does that fit into your lame hypothesis? You continue to mistake
Ed Gin as my primary and only focus. I have only pointed this foible
of yours out to you about a dozen times. How many more times will it
take to penetrate that thick skull of yours. This is not now, nor has
it been from the beginning only about Ed Gin, so why do you insist that
it is? Do you think that repetition will somehow transform this into
something that it is not?

My opinion is my opinion. Circumstantial evidence supports my opinion.
I consider circumstantial evidence to be sufficient proof. Your
persistent harping does not in any way, shape or form change any of
that or matter to me in the least. [YAWN].

The usual trite, orthogonal, digressive drivel by the man who does it
best ... Tom Sherman. What amazes me though is the uncharacteristic
restraint that he demonstrated in not bringing to my attention that I
spelled ILLOGICAL ... ILLGOCAL. Was Tom being kind, not observant or
has finally realized how pointless it is to point out typos unless, of
course, they happen to change the context of what was said versus what
was meant. No matter, it was a pleasant change of pace.

JimmyMac

Johnny Sunset wrote:
wrote:
Readers,

Tom Sherman makes less sense with each post, but he does get funnier.

He shouldn't even have brought Monkey Island 2 into the mix, especially
since MI 2 and the HRS blog have something very much in common (SJ).

Mr. McNamara continues his dishonest practice of PRESENTING OPINION AS
FACT.

Where is the PROOF that SJ is involved with the HRS blog? (I am not
holding my breath here, since Mr. McNamara has yet to present any
definitive evidence regarding the authorship of the HRS blog).

Readers, how do you suppose Mr. Sherman could think I was ignorant of
the history of the online lowracer/highracer discussions when the
subject matter has been cross-posted all over the internet and
archived? I admit knowing little about MI 2. Having seen quite enough
of the disgusting original (MI 1), I had no compulsion to view the
sequel, but that has no bearing whatsoever with regard to drawing
conclusions about the HRS blog authorship.

Readers, did you note where Mr. Sherman said ... Speaking of SJ, I
understand that ... followed by hearsay, assumptions and untenable
assertions none of which have been in anyway substantiated by a shred
of evidence let alone proof in a thinly veiled attempt to propose the
possibility of persons outside the Chicagoland area as possible HRS
blog authors. Mr. Sherman will do anything to divert attention away
from Ed Gin and company, but there is some truth to what he said since
JS does not live in the Chicagoland area.

WHERE IS Mr. McNamara's PROOF of the AUTHORSHIP of the HRS blog?

I find it amusing how Mr. Sherman complains about gratuitous insults
and then bursts into a tirade regarding breeding, snobbery, what I
believe about my ancestors and immoral positions. Where does he come
up with this stuff? Just what is he raving and ranting about anyways?
Where did I make mention of breeding or ancestral beliefs?...

Mr. McNamara made mention of my breeding in this post:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent/msg/dba489d0d9fac98e?dmode=source&hl=en.
Mr. McNamara apparently can not remember comments he made one day
previously. The exact quote by Mr. McNamara is "I agree about Tom.
There are glimmers of breeding and education."

Mr. McNamara is losing it if he can not remember what he wrote the
previous day, not to mention his inability to distinguish opinion from
proven fact.

The guy is
losin' it I'm tellin' you and just when I was seriously thinking about
leaving this discussion. If this continues, I may simply have to stick
around here a little while longer just for the entertainment value.
You sure can't beat the price of admission.

Another attempt by Mr. McNamara to excuse himself from the fact that he
is going back on his word about discontinuing this discussion. This
speaks directly to Mr. McNamara's personal credibility.

Readers, remember how I remarked 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.

Tom replied (read REPEATED) ... Well, I don't keep company with Mr.,
Jim (James?) McNamara, so I guess I am doing alright. . Does Mr.
Sherman not understand what was said or is his just determined to
support what I said and prove how imperceptive and ILLOGICAL he is?\

It is clear, based on his posting history that Mr. McNamara is bitter
that he is less popular than Ed Gin among the members of the
Chicagoland recumbent riding community, and wishes to discredit Ed Gin
as a result. We should pity Mr. McNamara for being so angry and
frustrated for no good reason, but that does not excuse his presenting
OPINION AS FACT and posting accusations WHILE LACKING PROOF.

Enough said.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley