#11
|
|||
|
|||
Debate Concluded
Tom Sherman wrote:
Here is the link for lazy Mr. McNamara: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent/msg/aebe1a0.... I had no trouble finding it. Are you dense? I even told you that you responded to the wrong thread, and then you post a link to the wrong thread that you responded to? Here is a link to the thread that you are having so much difficulty finding: On second thought, I had no problem locating the wrong thread that you responded to, before you provided the link and gratuitous insult. I will do you one better. I'll not provide a link and provide a gratuitous insult ... dunderhead. JimmyMac |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Debate Concluded
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Debate Concluded
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Debate Concluded
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Debate Concluded
While I intend no disrespect to either of you nor am I choosing sides in
this debate, but wouldn't it make sense to take this to personal email? I know, I know, I don't have to read it and I am only really scanning looking for humor. In response to a comment from Mr. Dolan in another thread I will try to sign my future posts as follows: Jim C |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Debate Concluded
Jim wrote: While I intend no disrespect to either of you nor am I choosing sides in this debate, but wouldn't it make sense to take this to personal email?... Nope. Without being public, this flame war would lose its purpose, since I do not expect to convince Mr. McNamara of anything, and Mr. McNamara's statements SEEM to imply the same thing. Sorry. -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Debate Concluded
Tom Sherman wrote:
Keep on digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole. Will Mr. McNamara provide DEFINITIVE PROOF OF HIS ALLEGATIONS? The answer is apparently no. We must assume at this point that Mr. McNamara has no proof, and merely wanted to denigrate Ed Gin out of spite. -- Digging a deeper and deeper hole??? ... opinion/allegation presented as fact. -- Circumstantial evidence was produced. Though acceptable under the law, circumstantial evidence is not acceptable to Mr. Sherman. Mr. Sherman expects Mr. McNamara to produce what is defined as direct-evidence (not required be law) to satisfy Mr. Sherman who is incapable of being satisfied. What incentive does McNamara have to do the unnecessary for the ungrateful Mr. Sherman and expend his time and money in the process? In the first post in this thread, Mr. McNamara stated... It was impractical for me to fulfill the unrealistic evidence requirements that meet Tom Sherman's criteria for definitive proof, and I was not the least bit inclined to try. -- Because Mr. McNamara refuses to play by his rules, Mr. Sherman's rules incorrectly draws the conclusion, which does not logically follow the premise that Mr. McNamara's purpose was to denigrate Ed Gin. Once again Mr. Sherman attempts to persuade the readership that Ed Gin was Mr. McNamara's sole focus when the HRS blog authors were Mr. McNamara's focus as stated numerous time in response to this often repeated falsehood presented as fact. In the first post in this thread, Mr. McNamara stated... What Tom Sherman consistently failed to recognize is that I am opposed to the HRS blog irrespective of authorship. Ed Gin would be completely immaterial to my opposition if he were not part and parcel of the HRS blog. -- Mr. Sherman puts a spin on things in a failed attempt to make them appear other than what they actually are. Mr. Sherman's repetitious dishonesty speaks poorly of the man's character or lack thereof. JimmyMac |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Debate Concluded
Tom,
Does it matter which one I respond to the first or the second identical post ... operator error ... AGAIN??? ;^) ... Just disrespecting you as few are likely reading this. Get over it. Mr. McNamara shows no remorse over disrespecting ALL readers of alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent. -- Mr. Sherman shows his total lack of comprehension of what I said .... Just disrespecting you as few are likely reading this. Mr. Sherman is the only one complaining, so you would think that he would correctly assume that this was solely for his benefit. -- I don't recall having misspelled the man's name although a typo is possible. Here is the link: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent/msg/ecdf2bf.... -- Now watch how easy and painless this is, Tommy boy. I stand corrected (you could not even make a minor concession like this because of the insecurity of your fragile ego). I must have had a slow release on the "r" key that got repeated. Notice that I will not rave and rant about how loudly Mr. Sherman trumpeted victory, etc., etc. like the insecure Mr. Sherman did. What I will point out though is that the deceitful Mr. Sherman deliberately took advantage of the misspelling/typo to tell a half-truth (to mislead the readership) that he did not reply to Garry Brown because he replied to Gary (one "r") Brown. What does this say of Mr. Sherman's character? Regardless, you're still a liar. I claimed no victory insecure one. Here is a lie at least in spirit by Mr. McNamara. If Mr. McNamara is not claiming a victory, why is he bringing up not remembering one of thousands of posts and calling it a lie? -- What the hell is a lie "in spirit"? It either is or it isn't a lied and deceptive qualification ("in spirit") doesn't change that. I see your employing one of your favorite LOGICAL FALLACIES (Non Sequitur) stating, as a conclusion about something that does not strictly follow from the premise. Nowhere can the insecure Mr. Sherman cite a reference where I claimed victory in this regards ... NOWHERE! What he can do is ILLOGICALLY state that in effect I must be claiming victory for having bought to his attention a post that he forgot when I brought it to has attention. I didn't consider Mr. Sherman's forgetfulness to be a lie. I considered his deceitful denial of having responded to a post because of a misspelling to be a purposeful intention to deceive. Here is what I said about VICTORY... -- Mr. Sherman attributes of me that I consider his inability to recall one (1) of ten-thousand plus (10,000+) posts a "victory" whereas I consider it to be neither a victory on my part nor a shortcoming his, but Mr. Sherman made such a fuss about it that it does raise an interesting question regarding his basic insecurity. Tom is it so difficult for you to recognize even the most minute aspect in your makeup that would attest to you being like the rest of us that you must seek sanctuary in denial of a human shortcoming. -- Readers, you have what I said not what Mr. Sherman would have you believe that I think or said. I rightly called Mr. Sherman a liar not for having forgotten a post, but rather for having denied responding to a post, even after he had posted the very link containing the response that he allegedly did not make. What we have here is an example of a lie compounding a lie. This is becoming a bad habit with Mr. Sherman. Go back and read the original post. You most certainly did respond to Gary Brown and misspelling his name to cover your ass makes you out to be a deceitful liar. Mr. McNamara was the one who misspelled "Gary" as "Garry" and was too obtuse to notice when I indirectly pointed it out. I expected better of the GREAT Mr. McNamara. -- Is this about misspelling or deliberately taking advantage of the misspelling/typo to mislead the readership into believing that you had not responded to the post in question? GREAT is high praise coming from someone with such an over-inflated ego. Gee ... thanks. I never expected a compliment from my adversary. Furthermore, Mr. McNamara LIED when he said I responded to TWO (2) posts when I only responded to ONE (1) post. -- Correction. You insisted that there was only ONE post from Gary Brown and there were TWO that you never read those posts and never responded to either. I stated that I didn't recall that you responded to the second, but that you responded to the first. I don't want to burden this thread by cutting and pasting everything from another thread here. It is all archived. Why must you persist with your lies? Mr. McNamara has yet to show where I responded to a "Garry (sic) Brown" and owes me and apology for accusing me of lying, when what really happened was Mr. McNamara was too disrespectful of the alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent readership to proofread his post. -- Assumption. I did proofread. It is a commonly accepted notion that someone else should proofreader what one writes because the person making a mistake will often not catch it when proof reading his or her own work. Mr. Sherman fails to comprehend this elementary concept. -- Mr. Sherman constantly harps about how logical he is and how no one can possibly point out an error in his logic although I am growing tired of doing just that. Readers, does it logically follow that because I made a typo and failed to take note of it in the proofreading process, that I am disrespectful of the readership? This is one of Mr. Sherman's favorite LOGICAL FALLACIES (Non Sequitur) stating a conclusion about something that does not strictly follow from the premise. You know what is even more illogical. That Mr. Sherman expects an apology for a typo. Readers, ask yourself, is Mr. Sherman's deceitful denial, based on a mere technicality (read misspelling/typo) not a purposeful intention to deceive? Is not a purposeful intention to deceive a lie? Garry (sic) Brown is not the same as Gary (sic) Brown. One (1) is not the same as two (2). Is this clear, or do I need to repeat once again. -- Oh, I understand your deceitfulness perfectly well, but have repeated that so you understand that I understand. Mr. Sherman did not respond to Garry (sic) Brown. Mr. Sherman responded to Gary (sic) Brown. Mr. Sherman's deceitful denial, based on a mere technicality (read misspelling/typo) is purposeful intention to deceive. Is not a purposeful intention to deceive a lie? Mr. McNamara needs to check the Google Groups archive to see he was the one who first misspelled Gary (sic) as Garry (sic), instead of LYING that he did not. -- I said that I didn't recall misspelling Gary's name and responded to this above. What does any of this diversionary nonsense from another post have to do with my initial post in this thread??? ... NOTHING. -- Usual diversionary red herring B.S. This says nothing with regard to what I originally said ... Tom Sherman asserts that my motive for opposing the HRS blog is hatred of Ed Gin. Ed Gin would be completely immaterial to my opposition if he were not part an parcel of the HRS blog. Will Mr. McNamara provide DEFINITIVE PROOF OF HIS ALLEGATIONS? -- When Mr. Sherman cannot respond to an issue he recycles something that I have responded to over and over. He does not accept my answer, so I will not repeat my answer. I have said before that we are an impasse going round and round, but Mr. Sherman does not find an impasse acceptable and is unwilling to let this go, agree to disagree and move on. Egomaniacs are like that. Every time the question is again posed, I will simply delete it having addressed it many times and having indicated that I will no longer address it many times as well. Without proof, Mr. McNamara looses his argument that Ed Gin is involved in authoring the HRS blog. -- Opinion stated as fact. I have stated more times than I can remember that I suspect another as author (SJ) and Ed Gin as a major contributor. How many times do you have to hear something before it sinks in? Until you learn the difference between circumstantial evidence and direct-evidence and their acceptability as proof under the law and until you learn the difference between a private and a public person and until you learn the difference between parody and defamation you don't even have a basis for argument. Mr. McNamara's previous arguments were nothing but unfounded allegations, based on Mr. McNamara's INTERPRETATION of Ed Gin's character and behavior. -- Mr. Sherman continues to harp on his all to often repeated assertion (read opinion stated as fact) that this is all about Ed Gin, whereas I have repeatedly said that it is not. As concerns Ed Gin and his character, his behavior speaks for itself. "Impractical" is opinion, not fact. -- FACT, even use by you in another thread. Define practical in this in only factual terms - no opinions allowed. You haven't got a dictionary? When pressed for proof that it was possible for me to be the author of the HRS blog, you said that it was IMPRACTICAL and didn't seem to have a problem with the use of the word then, so why do you now? Here is where playing by a different set of rules comes into play AGAIN. I was only stating it was HYPOTHETICALLY POSSIBLE that Mr. McNamara was the HRS blog author. Mr. McNamara was claiming that Ed Gin WAS involved in authoring the HRS blog. These are two entirely different things with different standards of proof. -- And your diversionary (red herring) reply has what to do with "impractical" being opinion, not fact. Although I loosely referred to 3 individuals as authors, I have also said that I do not believe that Ed Gin is the author (blog owner if you will). I suspect SJ as the author and AA probably plays a minor roll. Ed Gin I suspect to be a major contributor, but not the author (blog owner). Now that I have said that again, maybe it will have sunk in, though I'm not counting on it. Mr. Sherman likes to repeat over and over again that which I have allegedly addressed. -- Don't recall ... don't care ... not going to bother pouring over old threds. Mr. McNamara claims he will not bother to go over old "threds" (sic), yet he will find a thread from another newsgroup that is over two (2) years old and expects someone else to remember it. This is called HYPOCRISY. -- I assume that you understood that to mean "our old threads". I was for me a quick query to find that thread via Google. I have no intention of constantly going back through our old threads to revisit what has already been discussed. If you don't understand the difference, then I overestimated your intelligence. Yes, by Mr. McNamara's standard, not remembering a SINGLE post out of thousands years ago is a LIE. -- A LIE stated as fact. Where did I say that? I indicated that your statement that you had not read the post and had not responded to one was lies and they are. Why are you repeating this over and over, even here in the same thread? Do you have short-term memory loss? I refer you to what I said above in this regard rather than repeat my response. One of us has to spare the readers. -- You like logical fallacy and fish don't you (read red herring). This is an interesting interpretation of what was actually said. It is all archived if someone wants to review the thread. Mr. McNamara LIED when he said I responded to TWO (2) posts instead of the ONE (1) post I responded to. Or maybe Mr. McNamara does not know the difference between ONE (1) and TWO (2). -- I specifically stated that I did not recall you responding to the second post. It is all archived if someone wants to review the thread. Must you compound a lie with another lie? Mr. McNamara wrote: "It is also inappropriate and foolish to deny that you read the posts that you responded to, especially when the archives stand in testimony." Archived at http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent/msg/f02ad6e.... -- You relish the opportunity to avail yourself of technicalities particularly misspellings/typos. I already indicated that should have been singular or at least written more clearly. I stand by what I basically said, that is that it was inappropriate and foolish to deny that you read the posts when you responded to one of them. In other words, you responded to one of the two posts, both of which you denied having even read. Note the plural "posts", i.e. MORE THAN ONE (1). Since I only responded to ONE (1) post by Gary (sic) not Garry (sic) Brown, the claim that I responded to more than one post by Mr. McNamara is a LIE. -- At least you finally admit to responding to the post containing the Ed Gin's vile email that you first denied having read then denied responding to. It does not logically follow that a typo constitutes a LIE. A typo does not a LIE make. As long as we are on the topic of deceitfulness, why did you selectively quote the statement with my typo? Why did you not quote what I said in this regard and provide a link? Why are you so deceitful and dishonest? These are your own words ... "But Mr. McNamara says he does not recall me responding to the posting of the second letter". What more do you want? Throughout all or our discussion, you continue to demonstrate just how unfairly you play. What does this say of your character or lack thereof? Mr. McNamara also LIED when he said I responded to a post by Garry (sic) Brown, since the post in question was by Gary (sic) Brown. -- This is but a half-truth. A typo does not a LIE make. This is now your 7th reference in this post alone about this. Are you that hung up on misspellings and typos that you have to monotonously harp on this? The deceitful Mr. Sherman deliberately took advantage of a misspelling/typo to tell a half-truth to mislead the readership into believing that he had not responded to the post in question and to call me a LIAR. Mr. Sherman did not respond to Garry (sic) Brown. Mr. Sherman responded to Gary (sic) Brown. Mr. Sherman's deceitful denial, based on a mere technicality (read misspelling/typo) is a purposeful intention to deceive. Is not a purposeful intention to deceive a lie? What insight does this provide into Mr. Sherman's character? And why would I deliberately lie if I could be so easily proven? -- Good question. I await your answer. -- I'm still waiting. The whole above discussion does not reflect well on Mr. McNamara, since he accuses others of lying over a mistake, but he (Mr. McNamara) refuses to apply the same standard to himself. The word for this is HYPOCRACY! -- Do you never tire or repetition? It is a LIE to state that I accused you of lying over a mistake. I did no such thing. You know what I accused you of lying about and I addressed that above. For what it is worth, when I made a typo (Garry or posts) didn't you accuse me of being a LIAR over a mistake and is not this what you have just condemned me for and is this not refusal to apply the same standard to yourself and is this not HYPOCRISY? Why do you not play by the same set of rules? Those that do not play by the rules are known as a cheat. Deceit, dishonesty, untruthfulness are not virtues. Work on it. You want me to cease? Tell you what. Reply to this post with nothing but a single three letter word .... YES and I will go silently and expect you to do the same. If you are unwilling to do so, do not hold me accountable for continuing. I will continue as I see fit regardless of how you feel it reflects on me. Badgering will accomplish nothing. Eventually when I tire of this, I'll be history regardless. -- I knew you just couldn't' bring yourself to do it. Mr. McNamara said he was leaving this discussion. Apparently that was a DECEITFUL LIE. -- Either Mr. Sherman has a reading comprehension problem or Mr. Sherman has LIED AGAIN. Mr. McNamara clarified in several post that he would not be badgered into leaving by Mr. Sherman and will leave eventually, but will leave only on his own terms and when he desired to leave not when Mr. Sherman desires him leave. When Mr. McNamara finally leaves the discussion, will not Mr. Sherman's statement that I have lied be a LIE? JimmyMac |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Debate Concluded - For Real this time
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Debate Concluded
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
re-treaded spoke tension debate | jim beam | Techniques | 1 | June 29th 05 08:03 PM |
Is the drug debate as boring as the helmet debate? | Kurgan Gringioni | Racing | 9 | February 11th 05 04:08 PM |
The Great Helmet Debate | Danny Colyer | UK | 26 | May 11th 04 04:30 PM |
Martlew Bill debate | burt | UK | 4 | April 24th 04 05:33 PM |
What Helmet Debate? | Carl Fogel | Techniques | 4 | October 11th 03 02:06 PM |