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

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

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

wrote:
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.

Considering the economic barriers to high-bandwidth Internet
connections (and the current battle over government versus private
Wi-Fi networks) are subjects of considerable discussion in the media,
the logical conclusion when someone describes himself as poor and the
mentions he has dial-up Internet access is that it is a matter driven
by personal finances. Mr. McNamara needs a better argument, or should
admit that his statement was misleading.

The fact remains in the HYPOTHETICAL case that Mr. McNamara wanted an
SBC DSL connection; it would not take extraordinary measures to obtain
such services.

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.

Nonsense. I excel at both.

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.

Why in the world would I bet money over an argument I never made? I
never said Mr. McNamara WAS the AUTHOR of the HRS blog; merely that it
was HYPOTHETICALLY POSSIBLE that Mr. McNamara COULD be the author of
the HRS blog. The two cases are distinctly different, as anyone with
normal intelligence can understand. If Mr. McNamara claims that I said
he WAS the author of the HRS blog, then he has a comprehension problem
or is being dishonest.

Actually, I do not believe Mr. McNamara is the HRS blog author, since
he lacks the sense of humor the real author(s) display. Oh, to be such
a dour person!

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.

It says I am not stupid enough to place a bet over an issue a never
contested. See above.

To reiterate, since Mr. McNamara seems to have trouble comprehending
this; I NEVER CLAIMED Mr. McNAMARA WAS THE HRS BLOG AUTHOR, MERELY THAT
IT WAS HYPOTHETICALLY POSSIBLE FOR Mr. McNAMARA TO BE THE HRS BLOG
AUTHOR. Any mentally competent 1st grader can tell the difference
between the two statements.

Time to retire the straw man!

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....

Mr. McNamara bringing straw men into the argument is logical?

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.

I will not reveal what has been told privately to me in a public forum.
To do so is a major breach of social etiquette (the reason I have
problems with a certain "Killer B").

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.

If I had the time and health to get in better riding shape, I would
show up to rides that involve Ed Gin on a regular (or semi-regular)
basis. Unless I am presented with definitive evidence that Ed Gin is
knowingly causing significant harm on an unwarranted basis (which has
not been the case) I will not change my position.

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.

This is Mr. McNamara's position/opinion. In no way does it justify Mr.
McNamara claiming the falsehood (straw man) that I said he was the HRS
blog author.

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.

What does ease of employment or unlikelihood of actual possibility have
to do with logic?

Since repetition seems to be required in this discussion, Mr. McNamara
has failed to prove my contention that Mr. McNamara could
HYPOTHETICALLY be the HRS blog author non-logical.

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.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

When did I portray Mr. McNamara being murdered as a child? If that was
the case, is he posting to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent from the
netherworld?

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?

My hypothesis would still be logically consistent with the available
facts.

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.

Have I ever engaged in Usenet discussion before to great length? Online
debating is FUN!

The question is why Mr. McNamara is pursuing this discussion, since
until he took it up; he had "no dog in the fight". The highly probable
answer, considering past history and behavior, is that Mr. McNamara
took the opportunity to vent at Ed Gin. I merely pointed out that this
was unwarranted based on the available evidence, at which point I
became the object of Mr. McNamara's personal attacks. What does this
say about Mr. McNamara?

I have no intention to challenge Mr. Sherman's
theoretical hypothesis.

....because it can not be challenged on a logical basis!

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.

Aw, Mr. McNamara no longer wants to play.

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 communicated to me that he/she/they/it are the author(s) of
the HRS blog. I have my suspicions, but unlike Mr. McNamara I will
avoid the possibility of naming the wrong person(s) in a public forum.

However, I am still suspicious of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee.

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?

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?

I have learned to forgive others for their imperfections, and to note
their positive characteristics. It is too bad that Mr. McNamara
apparently has not been able to do the same.

Time to retire the straw man, Mr. McNamara. He is rotting and his
stench is settling on you.

-- You first.

This is logically impossible, since I have not created any straw men
for this discussion.

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?

THE STRAW MAN REAPPEARS! I never claimed THAT Mr. McNamara WAS the HRS
blog author. (Sorry for the repetition, but Mr. McNamara seems to be
having trouble understanding what my argument was.)

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.

Whatever, indeed.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

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