|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Debate over, but unclaimed money remains on the table
Mr. Shermans asseverations:
1. Mr. McNamara has failed to convince that he could not have access to a Chicagoland SBC DSL account. 2. By his own admission, Mr. McNamara is "poor", so obviously he does not have $100,000.00 in liquid assets, so his offer is worthless (for this and other reasons previously discussed). 3. There are ten of thousands (or more) Chicagoland residences with SBC DSL service. It would take constant surveillance of Mr. McNamara to prove he was not using one of them, so his contention of showing proof is ridiculous in practical terms. Readership, each of these inane "Shermanisms" are completely without merit. I will address each one separately: 1. Readers, Mr. Sherman has failed to convince (read prove) that I have use of anyone's Chicagoland DSL account or that I have used any Chicagoland DSL account for nefarious purposes. I am under no obligation to defend myself. As the accuser, the burden to prove the plausibility this contention is Mr. Sheman's. Has not Mr. Sherman gone on record to state that he is proud to defend the innocent until proven guilty? Well that would be me, would it not? Defend me Mr. Sherman. It should come as no revelation that Mr. Sherman is a walking talking contradiction. 2. Readers, recognize this for what it is ... and unproven assumption stated by Mr. Sherman as though it were fact. Ask yourself ... were those quotation marks deliberately placed around "poor" or is this an example of an idiom that is simply not understood by an idiot? When I said ... poor Mr. McNamara has a dial-up connection, did anyone here understand that to mean that I was poverty stricken like the unperceptive Mr. Sherman? Mr. Sherman is apparently challenged by the vernacular. As a point of reference regarding my lack of liquid assets, I own my home (read no mortgage), own my car that I paid approximately $36,000 cash money for (read no loans ... no car payments), ride an upright and a recumbent that are worth in excess of $5000 and $3000 respectively, have a substantial amounts of money in passbook savings, certificates of deposit, stocks, savings bonds and precious metal collectible coins more than sufficient to cover the $100,000 challenge several times over. I have no liens or debts to contend with. What I don't have is Tom Sherman's acceptance of my challenge. Now Mr. Sherman will tell you that you only have my word on all this, but I am prepared to produce substantiating documentation to prove sufficient liquid assets and will gladly do so if and when Mr. Sherman accepts my challenge and puts his money where his mouth is. 3. Readers, couldn't I have used this very same argument regarding those whom I suspect as responsible for the HRS blog and conclude that Mr. Sherman's demand for direct evidence as the only acceptable proof was ridiculous in practical terms? Of course I could have. Would Mr. Sherman have considered that argument acceptable had I used it? Absolutely not, but as I have said before Mr. Sherman utterly refuses to play by the same set of rules the he demands his adversary to play by, but that should be apparent to all by now. Allow me to reiterate. Mr. McNamara is amenable to having his challenge drawn up so as to make it legal and binding to satisfy Mr. Sherman's objection in that regards and to prove liquid assets sufficient to cover the amount of the challenge. If Mr. Sherman can prove that Mr. McNamara is the author of the HRS blog, Mr. Sherman will be $100,000 richer. If Mr. McNamara cannot be proven to be the author of the HRS blog, then Mr. McNamara will be $100,000 richer. Depending upon Mr. Sherman's level of confidence or lack thereof, Mr. McNamara is willing to adjust these stakes up or down accordingly. Will Mr. Sherman accept? Of course not!!! Why??? Because Mr. Sherman does not like to lose and Mr. Sherman knows this to be a no win situation for which he would have to pay dearly. Both his ego and his pocketbook would suffer a loss. Mr. Sherman knows who the author is and he knows who the major contributor is. Mr. McNamara could just as easily extend this offer to Mr. Sherman to prove the innocence of those Mr. McNamara suspects, but again Mr. Sherman would be in the same no win situation. If this were not a no win situation, wouldn't Mr. Sherman have excepted Mr. McNamara's challenge to shut him up and take his money long ago rather than offer excuses for why the challenge is unacceptable? JimmyMac |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Debate over, but unclaimed money remains on the table
Jim McNamara wrote: Mr. Shermans asseverations: 1. Mr. McNamara has failed to convince that he could not have access to a Chicagoland SBC DSL account. 2. By his own admission, Mr. McNamara is "poor", so obviously he does not have $100,000.00 in liquid assets, so his offer is worthless (for this and other reasons previously discussed). 3. There are ten of thousands (or more) Chicagoland residences with SBC DSL service. It would take constant surveillance of Mr. McNamara to prove he was not using one of them, so his contention of showing proof is ridiculous in practical terms. Readership, each of these inane "Shermanisms" are completely without merit. I will address each one separately: 1. Readers, Mr. Sherman has failed to convince (read prove) that I have use of anyone's Chicagoland DSL account or that I have used any Chicagoland DSL account for nefarious purposes. I am under no obligation to defend myself. As the accuser, the burden to prove the plausibility this contention is Mr. Sheman's. Has not Mr. Sherman gone on record to state that he is proud to defend the innocent until proven guilty? Well that would be me, would it not? Defend me Mr. Sherman. It should come as no revelation that Mr. Sherman is a walking talking contradiction. As anyone with a brain could see, I was NOT CLAIMING that Mr. McNamara has a Chicagoland SBC DSL account, merely that obtaining access to such an account would be within normal means are therefore it was THEOTETICALLY POSSIBLE that Mr. McNamara could have access to such an account. Mr. McNamara presents a "straw man" above by falsely claiming something that is not true. 2. Readers, recognize this for what it is ... and unproven assumption stated by Mr. Sherman as though it were fact. Ask yourself ... were those quotation marks deliberately placed around "poor" or is this an example of an idiom that is simply not understood by an idiot? When I said ... poor Mr. McNamara has a dial-up connection, did anyone here understand that to mean that I was poverty stricken like the unperceptive Mr. Sherman? Mr. Sherman is apparently challenged by the vernacular. As a point of reference regarding my lack of liquid assets, I own my home (read no mortgage), own my car that I paid approximately $36,000 cash money for (read no loans ... no car payments), ride an upright and a recumbent that are worth in excess of $5000 and $3000 respectively, have a substantial amounts of money in passbook savings, certificates of deposit, stocks, savings bonds and precious metal collectible coins more than sufficient to cover the $100,000 challenge several times over. I have no liens or debts to contend with. What I don't have is Tom Sherman's acceptance of my challenge. Now Mr. Sherman will tell you that you only have my word on all this, but I am prepared to produce substantiating documentation to prove sufficient liquid assets and will gladly do so if and when Mr. Sherman accepts my challenge and puts his money where his mouth is. Mr. McNamara should not call himself "poor" and imply he could not afford a SBC DSL connection if that is not the case. It does reflect poorly on his credibility. Mr. McNamara produces a second straw man by claiming that I said he was the HRS blog author when I said no such thing, as even an idiot could understand. To restate the obvious, I stated that it was THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE that Mr. McNamara was the HRS blog author. Mr. McNamara's arguments to the contrary have not been convincing (as the resources required to create the HRS blog are hardly exceptional). Mr. McNamara is creating so many straw men that one suspects he made his fortune in scarecrow production. Mr. McNamara's $100,000 challenge is made in bad faith on a false premise, and therefore is not worth the electrons used to display it. I am seriously UNIMPRESSED. [yawn] 3. Readers, couldn't I have used this very same argument regarding those whom I suspect as responsible for the HRS blog and conclude that Mr. Sherman's demand for direct evidence as the only acceptable proof was ridiculous in practical terms? Of course I could have. Would Mr. Sherman have considered that argument acceptable had I used it? Absolutely not, but as I have said before Mr. Sherman utterly refuses to play by the same set of rules the he demands his adversary to play by, but that should be apparent to all by now. The burden of proof lies upon the accuser, unless the accuser is THE GREAT MR. McNAMARA, IN WHICH CASE THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT. Nice double standard, Mr. McNamara. Allow me to reiterate. Mr. McNamara is amenable to having his challenge drawn up so as to make it legal and binding to satisfy Mr. Sherman's objection in that regards and to prove liquid assets sufficient to cover the amount of the challenge. If Mr. Sherman can prove that Mr. McNamara is the author of the HRS blog, Mr. Sherman will be $100,000 richer. If Mr. McNamara cannot be proven to be the author of the HRS blog, then Mr. McNamara will be $100,000 richer. Depending upon Mr. Sherman's level of confidence or lack thereof, Mr. McNamara is willing to adjust these stakes up or down accordingly. Will Mr. Sherman accept? Of course not!!! Why??? (As stated above) Mr. McNamara's challenge is based upon a false straw man premise. Presenting the challenge in this manner reveals much that is unpleasant about Mr. McNamara's debating tactics and character. No wonder certain former acquaintances no longer wish to associate with him. Mr. McNamara has failed to challenge my real position, that it is THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE that he could be the author of the HRS blog. Please note that proving someone else to be the HRS blog author would not invalidate my argument, as it is base on THEORETICAL POSSIBLITY, not actual authorship (as Mr. McNamara's straw man falsely proclaims). Because Mr. Sherman does not like to lose and Mr. Sherman knows this to be a no win situation for which he would have to pay dearly. Both his ego and his pocketbook would suffer a loss. Mr. Sherman knows who the author is and he knows who the major contributor is. The above is a lie, but is not surprising considering the source. No one has admitted authorship to me. In fact, I have had no communication with those Mr. McNamara accuses of authoring the HRS blog since the time the blog came into existence (due to various constraints totally unrelated to anything being discussed here, and for the sake of openness, I expect that I will have contact with some or all of the parties Mr. McNamara accuses in the near future). Time to retire the straw man, Mr. McNamara. He is rotting and his stench is settling on you. Mr. McNamara could just as easily extend this offer to Mr. Sherman to prove the innocence of those Mr. McNamara suspects, but again Mr. Sherman would be in the same no win situation. Yes, it is a no win situation, which is why in all MORAL legal systems guilt has to be proved, not innocence. And why should Mr. McNamara extend this offer when he can not prove his own innocence (a near impossibility, it should be noted, even in the case that Mr. McNamara has no connection at all to the HRS blog). Mr. McNamara commenting on debating tactics is the pot calling the kettle black. If this were not a no win situation, wouldn't Mr. Sherman have excepted Mr. McNamara's challenge to shut him up and take his money long ago rather than offer excuses for why the challenge is unacceptable? Mr. McNamara presents something unreasonable as reasonable, which is similar to presenting a falsehood. That straw man of Mr. McNamara's is getting very tired and smelly. -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Debate over, but unclaimed money remains on the table
McNamara should not call himself "poor" and imply he could not
afford a SBC DSL connection if that is not the case. It does reflect poorly on his credibility. -- Readers, is this not an example of an idiom that is simply not understood by an idiot? When I said ... poor Mr. McNamara has a dial-up connection, was anyone except for Mr. Sherman so unperceptive as to understand that to mean that Mr. McNamara was poverty-stricken and could not afford and SBC DSL connection? Mr. Sherman is counting on the reader not to have read Mr. McNamara's explanation of why he neither has nor wants an SBC DLS connection. Mr. Sherman's intentional deception reflects poorly on his credibility. Mr. McNamara is creating so many straw men that one suspects he made his fortune in scarecrow production. -- Mr. Sherman is far better at standup than he is at logic. Mr. McNamara's $100,000 challenge is made in bad faith on a false premise, and therefore is not worth the electrons used to display it. -- Mr. McNamara's $100,000 challenge was not made in good faith, then there is no risk in accepting the challenge. The offer still stands. 3. Readers, couldn't I have used this very same argument regarding those whom I suspect as responsible for the HRS blog and conclude that Mr. Sherman's demand for direct evidence as the only acceptable proof was ridiculous in practical terms? Of course I could have. Would Mr. Sherman have considered that argument acceptable had I used it? Absolutely not, but as I have said before Mr. Sherman utterly refuses to play by the same set of rules the he demands his adversary to play by, but that should be apparent to all by now. The burden of proof lies upon the accuser, unless the accuser is THE GREAT MR. McNAMARA, IN WHICH CASE THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT. Nice double standard, Mr. McNamara. -- Readers, I refer you to #3 above. I told you that Tom's reason for not having to provide evidence, though valid for him would not be valid for me (read would b e contested). Remember what I said about Mr. Sherman not playing by the same set of rules. Mr. Sherman introduced the double standard here and this was not first time. This is an all too familiar bad habit of Mr. Sherman's that he needs to work on. Allow me to reiterate. Mr. McNamara is amenable to having his challenge drawn up so as to make it legal and binding to satisfy Mr. Sherman's objection in that regards and to prove liquid assets sufficient to cover the amount of the challenge. If Mr. Sherman can prove that Mr. McNamara is the author of the HRS blog, Mr. Sherman will be $100,000 richer. If Mr. McNamara cannot be proven to be the author of the HRS blog, then Mr. McNamara will be $100,000 richer. Depending upon Mr. Sherman's level of confidence or lack thereof, Mr. McNamara is willing to adjust these stakes up or down accordingly. Will Mr. Sherman accept? Of course not!!! Why??? (As stated above) Mr. McNamara's challenge is based upon a false straw man premise. Presenting the challenge in this manner reveals much that is unpleasant about Mr. McNamara's debating tactics and character. No wonder certain former acquaintances no longer wish to associate with him. -- Nonsense followed by a gratuitous insult. Mr. McNamara first expressed a willingness to comply with Mr. Sherman's legality requirement. Then Mr. McNamara expressed a willingness to comply with Mr. Sherman's liquid assets requirement. Mr. Sherman had to find some way to weasel out of this (verb intentionally chosen to reflect the demeanor of my adversary). Mr. Sherman's failure to accept Mr. McNamara's challenge speaks volumes about his lack of character. Mr. Sherman asserts that my challenge somehow says something about Mr. McNamra's "character" and from this Mr. Sherman concludes, "No wonder blah, blah, blah...". Mr. Sherman should stick to what you know best .... the field of engineering, because logic is certainly is not his area of expertise. Since Mr. Sherman raised the issue, I defy him to name names of these former acquaintances that no longer wish to associate with Mr. McNamara. One is Ed Gin and I'll not associate him so he doesn't even have the option of associating with me. The numbers of those that will not associate with Ed Gin far outnumber the number of those who will not associate with me and 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 those 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. Mr. McNamara has failed to challenge my real position, that it is THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE that he could be the author of the HRS blog. Please note that proving someone else to be the HRS blog author would not invalidate my argument, as it is base on THEORETICAL POSSIBLITY, not actual authorship (as Mr. McNamara's straw man falsely proclaims). -- I have previously demonstrated that this "straw man" challenge is just merely an exercise in mental masturbation and linguistic gymnastics, and nothing more. I refer you to the following previous post ... Hypothetically speaking, Mr. Sherman could be a child molester. Whereas there is no proof to support the contention that Mr. Sherman is a child molester, there is also no proof to support the contention that he is not a child molester. Consequently, in the absence of such proof, it cannot be said with any degree of certainty that Mr. Sherman is not a child molester. In the interim, until Mr. Sherman can produce definitive proof that he is a not child molester, the possibility that Mr. Sherman is a child molester must be maintained. Does anyone see just how ridiculous Mr. Sherman's emulated hypothetical "logic" can become? Do I have any reason to believe that Mr. Sherman is a child molester? NO. I do not. I merely endeavored to demonstrate just how easy it is to employ Mr. Sherman's style of tedious, hypothetical reasoning to one's advantage regardless of how reasonable or fair it is to do so. Please note the one very essential difference here. I did not challenge Mr. Sherman to disprove that he was not a child-molester and was gracious enough to indicate that I had no reason to assume that he was. He did not extend the same courtesy when he portrayed me to be a child-murdered. What does this say of the man. I emphatically stated that I was merely demonstrating how Mr. Sherman employs his twisted logic in a debate. Remember what I said about this not being about right and wrong, but about winning. Now, back to Mr. Sherman's hypothesis. Readers ask yourself this question. If someone were to be proven to be the HRS blog author, at that juncture what relevance would Mr. Sherman's theoretical hypothesis have? What reason would I have to argue with him over a moot point and who among the readership would be the least bit interest in all this other than the one who's ego was at stake. I think someone has revealed something here about his basic insecurities. I have no intention to challenge Mr. Sherman's theoretical hypothesis. I challenged the validity of his reasoning process and I'll not entertain his theoretical nonsense any further. If he wants to continue play childish games, he'll have to find someone else for his entertainment. Because Mr. Sherman does not like to lose and Mr. Sherman knows this to be a no win situation for which he would have to pay dearly. Both his ego and his pocketbook would suffer a loss. Mr. Sherman knows who the author is and he knows who the major contributor is. The above is a lie, but is not surprising considering the source. -- Be more specific. Are saying you enjoy losing or you refuse to admit that it is a no win situation, or you don't know whose responsible? No one has admitted authorship to me. In fact, I have had no communication with those Mr. McNamara accuses of authoring the HRS blog since the time the blog came into existence (due to various constraints totally unrelated to anything being discussed here, and for the sake of openness, I expect that I will have contact with some or all of the parties Mr. McNamara accuses in the near future). -- Constraints? Sounds kinky! At the New Year's Eve party at Porky Gin's on Deming, you will of course come into contact with some or all of the parties I suspect as well as a few more that you have reason to suspect. I remind the readers about the old adage of judging someone by the company they keep. Need I comment any further about how this reflects upon Mr. Sherman? Time to retire the straw man, Mr. McNamara. He is rotting and his stench is settling on you. -- You first. Mr. McNamara could just as easily extend this offer to Mr. Sherman to prove the innocence of those Mr. McNamara suspects, but again Mr. Sherman would be in the same no win situation. Yes, it is a no win situation, which is why in all MORAL legal systems guilt has to be proved, not innocence. And why should Mr. McNamara extend this offer when he can not prove his own innocence (a near impossibility, it should be noted, even in the case that Mr. McNamara has no connection at all to the HRS blog). -- To provide you with the opportunity to prove that your right and take my money. Why else? Mr. McNamara commenting on debating tactics is the pot calling the kettle black. -- Mr. Sherman commenting on debating tactics is the kettle calling the pot black. If this were not a no win situation, wouldn't Mr. Sherman have excepted Mr. McNamara's challenge to shut him up and take his money long ago rather than offer excuses for why the challenge is unacceptable? Mr. McNamara presents something unreasonable as reasonable, which is similar to presenting a falsehood. -- And, Mr. Sherman desperately struggles to transform what is reasonable into something that is appears to be unreasonable and he talks of post and kettles? Nice little twist there Tom, but correct me if I'm wrong. Something is either true or it is false. How is something similar to a falsehood? You do like to play with concepts and with words. Keep at it and one day you might even get good at it. That straw man of Mr. McNamara's is getting very tired and smelly. -- Whatever. JimmyMac |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Debate over, but unclaimed money remains on the table
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Debate over, but unclaimed money remains on the table
Mike Rice wrote: ... Need I remind anyone of the company Jesus of Nazareth kept according to the New Testament? While not considering myself comparable to the one the Muslim's consider a Holy Prophet and the Christian's consider The Messiah, could I not also be a positive influence? No way. I hear you ride one of those goofy bikes.... For the record, I do blame Ed Gin for all the money I have spent on lowracers! Mr. Gin, being An Aerogant (sic) Recumbent Pusher tempted me with rides on his Ross Festina and Earth Cycles Sunset. I suggest avoiding Mr. Gin at all costs if you wish to avoid lowracer addiction! -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
legit money | Will | Australia | 3 | July 26th 05 10:33 AM |
Making Money | Hitchy | Australia | 6 | March 17th 04 09:00 PM |
HOW TO TURN $6 INTO $6000 | AnthonyT12341234 | Marketplace | 2 | January 7th 04 07:51 PM |
FAST MONEY!!! | Busy73 | Marketplace | 0 | July 25th 03 09:39 PM |
FAST MONEY!!! | Busy73 | Marketplace | 0 | July 25th 03 09:38 PM |