Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!!

I now have to retract what I said to Indiana Mike about not being
attacked in the HRS blog. Gee, do you think it was something I said?
From the picture one would think that I should take stock of myself, if
it were me that is. I'm 6 feet tall and the last time I weigh a shade
under 170 pounds. I don't take Prozac and never have. The only thing
that they got right is that I did suffer a recent bout with acute
bacterial prostatitis, but that's behind me now. I find it most
telling that I have become the latest target candidate right after Tom
Sherman's blunder when he provided the suspects first initials to the
last initials that I had provided. Now, Tom might not agree, but it is
not unreasonable to assume that I would only have been added to the
inane, defamatory HRS blog if those initials were applicable to one or
more of the suspects. I can hear Tom now ... coincidence ...
circumstantial ... where's the proof? My response is that there have
been way too many coincidences and the circumstantial evidence
continues to mount. This might come as a surprise to you, but
anticipated this predictable response and I am overjoyed that I have
been included. Why? Well, because my inclusion lends credence to my
contention regarding who is responsible and stands in evidence that
what I have had to say has hit home and stuck a nerve. Thanks for
tipping your hand guys. You're not the brightest crayons in the box
are you? You know, the way I look at it, the more target candidates
they include, the more time they will have to devote to (read waste on)
an initiative that no one cares abut cares about. I'll give them their
due though. These toddlers are a clever lot. If they hadn't cracked
their mommy's password, we wouldn't be subjected to their infantile
drivel. Be patient. Perhaps one day they will grow up. Don't hold
your breath though.

Jim McNamara

Mike,

I got a good laugh concerning your observation that Tom could regard
this coincidence as possible evidence that you might be behind the
site, but he'd regard that as circumstantial ... requiring further
investigation and lack of definitive proof and I would tend to agree
with him in this instance. I didn't miss your reference, but I think
the seed was planted long beforehand. I fully anticipated this would
occur. Frankly, much to their disappointment, I'm not bothered in the
least by my induction. I welcome it as an affirmation and confirmation
of those that I regard as responsible. As concern this bothering me
out of proportion to it's merit, I understand what you're saying, but
this all comes down to a matter of perspective. I just feel that all
that is said in jest is not a joke and what is amusing from the outside
looking in is generally far less amusing when one is the brunt of a
joke. The bottom line is that HRS blog is a purposefully tasteless,
denigrating monologue with no avenue for rebuttal for the victim other
than an opposing blog or discussion in an open unmoderated from such is
this. What should be kept in mind though is not how you and I perceive
this, but how it is perceived under the law.

Public figures have much more diminished right under the 1st amendment.
Those who by reason of the notoriety of their achievements or the
vigor and success with which they seek the public's attention, or those
who occupy positions of persuasive power and influence, or those who
have assumed roles of especial prominence in the affairs of society and
have assumed special prominence in the resolution of public questions,
or those who have thrust themselves to the forefront of particular
public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues
involved are classified as public figures under the First Amendment.
Nonetheless, determination of public figure status is a question of
law, not fact. It is the trial judge who makes that determination. It
does not appear that the targeted individuals fall into the category of
"public figures" as defined, including myself. It should also be noted
that private individuals need only show that a defamatory falsehood was
made negligently (with reckless disregard as to its truth) and not that
it was made with actual malice. If someone believes that a defamation
has occurred through publication of a known falsehood, the victim can
initiate a civil action of libel against the offending party and
collect both compensatory and punitive damages. The bottom line is
that libel and libelous statements are beyond First Amendment
protection. The blog participants are on shaky grounds, but 1st
amendment rights are a complicated issue and topic of jurisprudence and
1st amendment interpretation is best left to the Constitutional law
professional and the court system. I offer this as food for thought.

Jim McNamara

Jim McNamara wrote:
I now have to retract what I said to Indiana Mike about not being
attacked in the HRS blog. Gee, do you think it was something I said?
From the picture one would think that I should take stock of myself, if
it were me that is. I'm 6 feet tall and the last time I weigh a shade
under 170 pounds. I don't take Prozac and never have. The only thing
that they got right is that I did suffer a recent bout with acute
bacterial prostatitis, but that's behind me now. I find it most
telling that I have become the latest target candidate right after Tom
Sherman's blunder when he provided the suspects first initials to the
last initials that I had provided. Now, Tom might not agree, but it is
not unreasonable to assume that I would only have been added to the
inane, defamatory HRS blog if those initials were applicable to one or
more of the suspects. I can hear Tom now ... coincidence ...
circumstantial ... where's the proof? My response is that there have
been way too many coincidences and the circumstantial evidence
continues to mount. This might come as a surprise to you, but
anticipated this predictable response and I am overjoyed that I have
been included. Why? Well, because my inclusion lends credence to my
contention regarding who is responsible and stands in evidence that
what I have had to say has hit home and stuck a nerve. Thanks for
tipping your hand guys. You're not the brightest crayons in the box
are you? You know, the way I look at it, the more target candidates
they include, the more time they will have to devote to (read waste on)
an initiative that no one cares abut cares about. I'll give them their
due though. These toddlers are a clever lot. If they hadn't cracked
their mommy's password, we wouldn't be subjected to their infantile
drivel. Be patient. Perhaps one day they will grow up. Don't hold
your breath though.

The following is a purely hypothetical thought experiment story. Any
resemblance to actual events, or any person, living or dead is purely
coincidental.

Let us say our protagonist lives in a major metropolitan area adjacent
to a large freshwater lake that has a small, but active community of
riders interests in maximizing unfaired recumbent bicycle performance.
Our protagonist has had a falling out with three (3) members of that
community. Of these three members, one is seen as the founding "mentor"
of the group, one is one of the fastest racers, and one has recently
moved away to a distant capital city near the ocean. All three (3) ride
"cutting edge" design carbon fiber composite splitter plate lowracers
made in a country in another continent across a major ocean. The person
that moved to the capital city also owns a steel framed highracer that
is the "house brand" of a well known specialist recumbent bicycle
dealer located in an area known for its dairy industry.

Due to our protagonist having feuded with these three (3) members, he
wishes to publicly discredit them. However, his public feuds on several
Internet forums have, in general, not accomplished this goal. He
recalls in the past an anonymous person generated some ill will among a
portion of the Internet community by posting using an assumed name that
included the name of the carbon fiber composite splitter plate lowracer
that his three (3) enemies ride.

Our protagonist creates an anonymous Internet "blog" that denigrates a
prominent manufacturer of steel and titanium alloy highracer recumbents
that competes with the highracer made by the specialist dealer. (In
fact this manufacturer dropped the specialist dealer when said dealer
introduced his "house brand" highracer line.) The "blog" also
denigrates riders sponsored by the prominent highracer manufacturer and
an online recumbent magazine and its editors who have accepted
advertising from and favorably reviewed the highracers made by the
prominent manufacturer.

Our protagonist rightly assumes that many will blame his three (3)
enemies for authoring the blog, despite the lack of proof. Indeed, no
one comes to the defense of the three (3) carbon fiber composite
splitter plate lowracer riders except an often annoying pedant (best
known for his obsession with an obscure, out of production, user
friendly lowracer with an ISO 305-mm/406-mm wheelset, mid-drive
jackshaft, and industrial hemp seat pad cover) who copiously posts to
an un-moderated public recumbent forum. The annoying pedant, despite
being accused of being illogical and delusional by a principal with the
prominent highracer manufacturer, correctly points out the lack of
proof in the accusations.

To further his case, our protagonist starts attacking himself on his
anonymous blog, while continuing baseless attacks on the three (3)
carbon fiber composite splitter plate lowracer riders. Our protagonist
has the advantage of being able to use the same ISP as the two (2)
victims that still live in the major city by the large freshwater lake,
furthering his wholly circumstantial evidence case against them.

How will our story end? Will the truth be revealed?

Please remember, this is only a story, and has no connection to real
people or events.

Your humble author,

Johnny Sunset [Most Fun Bike in the Known Universe]

"Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" wrote in message
oups.com...
[...]
The following is a purely hypothetical thought experiment story. Any
resemblance to actual events, or any person, living or dead is purely
coincidental.

Let us say our protagonist lives in a major metropolitan area adjacent
to a large freshwater lake that has a small, but active community of
riders interests in maximizing unfaired recumbent bicycle performance.
Our protagonist has had a falling out with three (3) members of that
community. Of these three members, one is seen as the founding "mentor"
of the group, one is one of the fastest racers, and one has recently
moved away to a distant capital city near the ocean. All three (3) ride
"cutting edge" design carbon fiber composite splitter plate lowracers
made in a country in another continent across a major ocean. The person
that moved to the capital city also owns a steel framed highracer that
is the "house brand" of a well known specialist recumbent bicycle
dealer located in an area known for its dairy industry.

Due to our protagonist having feuded with these three (3) members, he
wishes to publicly discredit them. However, his public feuds on several
Internet forums have, in general, not accomplished this goal. He
recalls in the past an anonymous person generated some ill will among a
portion of the Internet community by posting using an assumed name that
included the name of the carbon fiber composite splitter plate lowracer
that his three (3) enemies ride.

Our protagonist creates an anonymous Internet "blog" that denigrates a
prominent manufacturer of steel and titanium alloy highracer recumbents
that competes with the highracer made by the specialist dealer. (In
fact this manufacturer dropped the specialist dealer when said dealer
introduced his "house brand" highracer line.) The "blog" also
denigrates riders sponsored by the prominent highracer manufacturer and
an online recumbent magazine and its editors who have accepted
advertising from and favorably reviewed the highracers made by the
prominent manufacturer.

Our protagonist rightly assumes that many will blame his three (3)
enemies for authoring the blog, despite the lack of proof. Indeed, no
one comes to the defense of the three (3) carbon fiber composite
splitter plate lowracer riders except an often annoying pedant (best
known for his obsession with an obscure, out of production, user
friendly lowracer with an ISO 305-mm/406-mm wheelset, mid-drive
jackshaft, and industrial hemp seat pad cover) who copiously posts to
an un-moderated public recumbent forum. The annoying pedant, despite
being accused of being illogical and delusional by a principal with the
prominent highracer manufacturer, correctly points out the lack of
proof in the accusations.

To further his case, our protagonist starts attacking himself on his
anonymous blog, while continuing baseless attacks on the three (3)
carbon fiber composite splitter plate lowracer riders. Our protagonist
has the advantage of being able to use the same ISP as the two (2)
victims that still live in the major city by the large freshwater lake,
furthering his wholly circumstantial evidence case against them.

How will our story end? Will the truth be revealed?

Please remember, this is only a story, and has no connection to real
people or events.

Your humble author,

Johnny Sunset [Most Fun Bike in the Known Universe]

The moral of the above fable is never, never go to any blog, not even if it
is by God or the Devil Himself. Instead, come to the welcoming arms of good
old ARBR where you can get in your two cents worth without being censored or
otherwise meddled with. Who could ask for anything more?

However, ARBR can be taken down and easily destroyed by criminal behavior,
so we ask that you restrict your criminal behavior to a blog where no one,
but no one will ever read you.

Glad I was able to wipe all the cobwebs away so that you can now see clearly
your way to salvation.

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Edward Dolan wrote:
...
Glad I was able to wipe all the cobwebs away so that you can now see clearly
your way to salvation....

I must purchase a Polish made, carbon fiber composite splitter plate
lowracer?

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
"the bacteria people tuned in-as to bioengineering at the correct
wave
Point" - G. Daniels

Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic wrote:

The following is a purely hypothetical thought experiment story. Any
resemblance to actual events, or any person, living or dead is purely
coincidental.

- In reality the following is just so much bull ****, but let's have
at it. This all sounds fairly familiar to the protagonist. Much of
the author's hypothetical scenario so approximates reality that, in
spite of his disclaimer, the author's tale is far beyond the
coincidental although a few twist that stray from reality were
certainly to expected by the protagonist an the author did not
disappoint. It is apparent to the protagonist that the author is privy
to and intimately familiar with background information than he was ever
willing to openly admit when playing the role of his alter-ego ...
annoying pedant, but the protagonist appreciates that the author has
candidly eluded to much of what the protagonist has contended from the
onset an the protagonist is grateful to the author in this respect.

Let us say our protagonist lives in a major metropolitan area adjacent
to a large freshwater lake that has a small, but active community of
riders interests in maximizing unfaired recumbent bicycle performance.
Our protagonist has had a falling out with three (3) members of that
community.

- Actually, the author could just as easily have said that one of the
members had a falling out with the protagonist. Since the protagonist
is not known to have ever been unacquainted with two of the three
members, it is illogical to assume and consequently should not have
been said that the protagonist had a falling out with either of them,
but the protagonist realizes that this is the author's hypothetical
tale.

Of these three members, one is seen as the founding "mentor"
of the group, one is one of the fastest racers, and one has recently
moved away to a distant capital city near the ocean. All three (3) ride
"cutting edge" design carbon fiber composite splitter plate lowracers
made in a country in another continent across a major ocean. The person
that moved to the capital city also owns a steel framed highracer that
is the "house brand" of a well known specialist recumbent bicycle
dealer located in an area known for its dairy industry.

Due to our protagonist having feuded with these three (3) members,
he wishes to publicly discredit them. However, his public feuds on
several
Internet forums have, in general, not accomplished this goal.

- Actually, the protagonist is said to have had a feud with only one
member and would not have even had a feud with a second member had the
second member not voluntarily thrust himself into the feud to assist
the flailing first member referred to as the mentor. The protagonist
has not been known to have had a feud with the third member as alleged,
although it could be assumed that the protagonist has sufficient reason
after induction into the denigrating blog by member number three. As
though it were fact, and in spite of his "in general"
qualification, the author has knowingly introduced an unsubstantiated
opinion regarding the protagonist's intentions and relative success
in achieving his objective, but as the author will undoubtedly point
out, his unqualified opinion still falls within the protective umbrella
of his disclaimer.

He recalls in the past an anonymous person generated some ill will
among a
portion of the Internet community by posting using an assumed name that
included the name of the carbon fiber composite splitter plate lowracer
that his three (3) enemies ride.

- From what the protagonist related previously, it would follow that
only one member is deserving of the label enemy, but again the
protagonist realizes that this is the author's hypothetical tale.

Our protagonist creates an anonymous Internet "blog" that denigrates a
prominent manufacturer of steel and titanium alloy highracer recumbents
that competes with the highracer made by the specialist dealer. (In
fact this manufacturer dropped the specialist dealer when said dealer
introduced his "house brand" highracer line.) The "blog" also
denigrates riders sponsored by the prominent highracer manufacturer and
an online recumbent magazine and its editors who have accepted
advertising from and favorably reviewed the highracers made by the
prominent manufacturer.

- In a desperate effort to exonerate the protagonist's alleged
"enemies", the author decided to depart from reality to concoct a
new twist that portrays the protagonist as the author of the blog,
which he has vociferously denounced. The author wrongly assumes that
the readership will buy into his thinly disguised ruse.

Our protagonist rightly assumes that many will blame his three (3)
enemies for authoring the blog, despite the lack of proof. Indeed, no
one comes to the defense of the three (3) carbon fiber composite
splitter plate lowracer riders except an often annoying pedant (best
known for his obsession with an obscure, out of production, user
friendly lowracer with an ISO 305-mm/406-mm wheelset, mid-drive
jackshaft, and industrial hemp seat pad cover) who copiously posts to
an un-moderated public recumbent forum. The annoying pedant, despite
being accused of being illogical and delusional by a principal with the
prominent highracer manufacturer, correctly points out the lack of
proof in the accusations.

- It is said that the protagonist recognizes a return to some
semblance of reality in this hypothetical tale with the exception of
the delusion that the author is not illogical. The protagonist realize
that the author is incapable of admitting to anything perceived as a
flaw and the protagonist is content to allow the author to bask in his
realm of self-deception.

To further his case, our protagonist starts attacking himself on his
anonymous blog, while continuing baseless attacks on the three (3)
carbon fiber composite splitter plate lowracer riders. Our protagonist
has the advantage of being able to use the same ISP as the two (2)
victims that still live in the major city by the large freshwater lake,
furthering his wholly circumstantial evidence case against them.

- To further his absurd hypothetical yarn, the author presents yet
another preposterous twist accusing the protagonist of attacking
himself and employing the same ISP which can easily verified as false
since the protagonist has a dynamic ISP addresses selected from a pool
of IP addresses that is different than the static IP addresses that he
allegedly shares with his three adversaries ... 4 counting the author.


How will our story end? Will the truth be revealed?

- The protagonist assume that the story will not end with anyone other
than the annoying pedant (read "so called humble author") rising to
the defense of the three (3) carbon fiber composite splitter plate
lowracer riders that most now know to be the blog alliance. The
protagonist believes that the truth has already been revealed and is
confident that the readership will not be deterred by this rendition of
a hypothetical tale that departs from reality.

Please remember, this is only a story, and has no connection to real
people or events.

à Please remember that the author has his tongue so firmly planted in
his cheek that it hurts.

Your humble author,

- Remember too that humility is not a virtue that the author possesses
and it should be apparent that like his associates the author has way
to much time on his hands.

Johnny Sunset [Most Fun Bike in the Known Universe]
Tommy Sherman [Annoying pedant and author of the absurd]

Jim McNamara [Protagonist]

wrote:
Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic wrote:

The following is a purely hypothetical thought experiment story. Any
resemblance to actual events, or any person, living or dead is purely
coincidental.

- In reality the following is just so much bull ****, but let's have
at it. This all sounds fairly familiar to the protagonist. Much of
the author's hypothetical scenario so approximates reality that, in
spite of his disclaimer, the author's tale is far beyond the
coincidental although a few twist that stray from reality were
certainly to expected by the protagonist an the author did not
disappoint. It is apparent to the protagonist that the author is privy
to and intimately familiar with background information than he was ever
willing to openly admit when playing the role of his alter-ego ...
annoying pedant, but the protagonist appreciates that the author has
candidly eluded to much of what the protagonist has contended from the
onset an the protagonist is grateful to the author in this respect.

Let us say our protagonist lives in a major metropolitan area adjacent
to a large freshwater lake that has a small, but active community of
riders interests in maximizing unfaired recumbent bicycle performance.
Our protagonist has had a falling out with three (3) members of that
community.

- Actually, the author could just as easily have said that one of the
members had a falling out with the protagonist. Since the protagonist
is not known to have ever been unacquainted with two of the three
members, it is illogical to assume and consequently should not have
been said that the protagonist had a falling out with either of them,
but the protagonist realizes that this is the author's hypothetical
tale.

Of these three members, one is seen as the founding "mentor"
of the group, one is one of the fastest racers, and one has recently
moved away to a distant capital city near the ocean. All three (3) ride
"cutting edge" design carbon fiber composite splitter plate lowracers
made in a country in another continent across a major ocean. The person
that moved to the capital city also owns a steel framed highracer that
is the "house brand" of a well known specialist recumbent bicycle
dealer located in an area known for its dairy industry.

Due to our protagonist having feuded with these three (3) members,
he wishes to publicly discredit them. However, his public feuds on
several
Internet forums have, in general, not accomplished this goal.

- Actually, the protagonist is said to have had a feud with only one
member and would not have even had a feud with a second member had the
second member not voluntarily thrust himself into the feud to assist
the flailing first member referred to as the mentor. The protagonist
has not been known to have had a feud with the third member as alleged,
although it could be assumed that the protagonist has sufficient reason
after induction into the denigrating blog by member number three. As
though it were fact, and in spite of his "in general"
qualification, the author has knowingly introduced an unsubstantiated
opinion regarding the protagonist's intentions and relative success
in achieving his objective, but as the author will undoubtedly point
out, his unqualified opinion still falls within the protective umbrella
of his disclaimer.

He recalls in the past an anonymous person generated some ill will
among a
portion of the Internet community by posting using an assumed name that
included the name of the carbon fiber composite splitter plate lowracer
that his three (3) enemies ride.

- From what the protagonist related previously, it would follow that
only one member is deserving of the label enemy, but again the
protagonist realizes that this is the author's hypothetical tale.

Our protagonist creates an anonymous Internet "blog" that denigrates a
prominent manufacturer of steel and titanium alloy highracer recumbents
that competes with the highracer made by the specialist dealer. (In
fact this manufacturer dropped the specialist dealer when said dealer
introduced his "house brand" highracer line.) The "blog" also
denigrates riders sponsored by the prominent highracer manufacturer and
an online recumbent magazine and its editors who have accepted
advertising from and favorably reviewed the highracers made by the
prominent manufacturer.

- In a desperate effort to exonerate the protagonist's alleged
"enemies", the author decided to depart from reality to concoct a
new twist that portrays the protagonist as the author of the blog,
which he has vociferously denounced. The author wrongly assumes that
the readership will buy into his thinly disguised ruse.

Our protagonist rightly assumes that many will blame his three (3)
enemies for authoring the blog, despite the lack of proof. Indeed, no
one comes to the defense of the three (3) carbon fiber composite
splitter plate lowracer riders except an often annoying pedant (best
known for his obsession with an obscure, out of production, user
friendly lowracer with an ISO 305-mm/406-mm wheelset, mid-drive
jackshaft, and industrial hemp seat pad cover) who copiously posts to
an un-moderated public recumbent forum. The annoying pedant, despite
being accused of being illogical and delusional by a principal with the
prominent highracer manufacturer, correctly points out the lack of
proof in the accusations.

- It is said that the protagonist recognizes a return to some
semblance of reality in this hypothetical tale with the exception of
the delusion that the author is not illogical. The protagonist realize
that the author is incapable of admitting to anything perceived as a
flaw and the protagonist is content to allow the author to bask in his
realm of self-deception.

To further his case, our protagonist starts attacking himself on his
anonymous blog, while continuing baseless attacks on the three (3)
carbon fiber composite splitter plate lowracer riders. Our protagonist
has the advantage of being able to use the same ISP as the two (2)
victims that still live in the major city by the large freshwater lake,
furthering his wholly circumstantial evidence case against them.

- To further his absurd hypothetical yarn, the author presents yet
another preposterous twist accusing the protagonist of attacking
himself and employing the same ISP which can easily verified as false
since the protagonist has a dynamic ISP addresses selected from a pool
of IP addresses that is different than the static IP addresses that he
allegedly shares with his three adversaries ... 4 counting the author.


How will our story end? Will the truth be revealed?

- The protagonist assume that the story will not end with anyone other
than the annoying pedant (read "so called humble author") rising to
the defense of the three (3) carbon fiber composite splitter plate
lowracer riders that most now know to be the blog alliance. The
protagonist believes that the truth has already been revealed and is
confident that the readership will not be deterred by this rendition of
a hypothetical tale that departs from reality.

Please remember, this is only a story, and has no connection to real
people or events.

à Please remember that the author has his tongue so firmly planted in
his cheek that it hurts.

Your humble author,

- Remember too that humility is not a virtue that the author possesses
and it should be apparent that like his associates the author has way
to much time on his hands.

Johnny Sunset [Most Fun Bike in the Known Universe]
Tommy Sherman [Annoying pedant and author of the absurd]

Jim McNamara [Protagonist]

Gee, I would say this story struck a nerve. Why, I do not know, since
it is of course just a story.

Johnny Sunset [Most Fun Bike in the Known Universe]

Tom,

Sorry to disappoint, but your "story" did not strike a nerve, Actually
I found it fairly clever and even entertaining up to a point. Much of
what was said was quite telling with regard to what you really know
about all this. If we had compared notes like I suggested, they would
have compared rather well as it seems. Even with the hypothetical
disclaimer however, I am reasonalby certain that you know that I am not
the author of the HRS blog and you should not have taken the liberty to
portray me (the protagonist) in that role. That portion of your story
was a major departure from reality. Since I am now an HRS blog
inductee, a victim of parody and a "private" individual why have you
not denounced the "nameless" authors or do you seriously believe I am
the author fo the HRS blog and Baccchetta and your associates are all
my hapless victims.

Jim

Jim McNamara wrote:
Tom,

Sorry to disappoint, but your "story" did not strike a nerve, Actually
I found it fairly clever and even entertaining up to a point. Much of
what was said was quite telling with regard to what you really know
about all this....

There are no coincidental similarities between Johnny Sunset's [Most
Fun Bike in the Known Universe] story and real life that require
private information to see (but some information, like the posts on the
Monkey Island board is no longer be accessible to the public) [1].

If we had compared notes like I suggested, they would
have compared rather well as it seems....

I can think of several people that dislike highracers, Bacchetta and
BROL that have never owned a carbon fiber composite splitter plate
lowracer.

Even with the hypothetical
disclaimer however, I am reasonalby certain that you know that I am not
the author of the HRS blog and you should not have taken the liberty to
portray me (the protagonist) in that role....

I KNOW nothing of the sort. I may have OPINIONS and BELIEFS on the
matter, but I do not KNOW that Mr. McNamara is not the author of the
HRS blog. I though my position on this had been clearly stated enough
times for everyone to understand I am dealing with facts here, not
opinion based on circumstantial evidence. Although, the phrase "doth
protest too loudly" may have passed the minds of some in this
circumstance.

It is interesting to note that someone who is willing to accuse without
evidence is upset at the mere appearance of the shoe being on the other
foot. There is a valuable lesson here, I believe to those who are
willing to learn.

That portion of your story
was a major departure from reality. Since I am now an HRS blog
inductee, a victim of parody and a "private" individual why have you
not denounced the "nameless" authors or do you seriously believe I am
the author fo the HRS blog and Baccchetta and your associates are all
my hapless victims.

The existence of the HRS blog does raise certain questions. What could
have people associated with Bacchetta and BROL have done to provoke
such a response? Do we assume that they are guilty of some grievous
offense? Or alternatively, do we assume that the HRS blog author(s)
is/are mentally ill and truly delusional, and believe in offenses from
Bacchetta and BROL that did not really occur? Or a third possibility,
the HRS blog author is using reverse psychology to gain support for
Bacchetta and BROL [2]. Or could the HRS blog be a tool in a personal
vendetta. The last possibility hardly stretches credibility, does it
not?

Of course, it is absurdly unlikely, but not impossible, that the HRS
blog is the work of a group of monkeys randomly pounding on computer
keyboards.

I will state one thing again that I said at the very beginning of the
discussion - there is in all likelihood more going on here than meet
the eye (of the uninvolved alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent reader).

[1] Or to myself, except for what I remember.
[2] Someone (not myself) has made this allegation.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

"Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" wrote in message
ups.com...
[...]

Gee, I would say this story struck a nerve. Why, I do not know, since
it is of course just a story.

Johnny Sunset [Most Fun Bike in the Known Universe]

Gee, I don't know Tom. I was hoping you would answer Jim's rejoinder to your
fable point by point in infinite detail. Instead, nothing but a tag end one
liner. Hells Bells, I do that sort of thing all the time because I am the
laziest man in the world and take great pride in it. But I know you are an
industrious little beaver and would never take any short cuts like I do.

Please, you have a reputation to uphold here and there are some standards
after all. Surely one long winded post deserves another ... and so forth ad
infinitum. I mean, what else do we have to do here now that your good buddy
Ed Gin has killed this newsgroup.

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota