Debate Concluded

Readership,

What Tom Sherman consistently failed to recognize is that I am opposed
to the HRS blog irrespective of authorship. Tom Sherman asserts that
my motive for opposing the HRS blog is hatred of Ed Gin. I assert that
Tom Sherman's motive in defending the HRS blog is his allegiance to Ed
Gin. Tom Sherman asserts that hatred obscures my objectivity. I
assert that friendship obscures Tom Sherman's objectivity. Ed Gin
would be completely immaterial to my opposition if he were not part an
parcel of the HRS blog.

The HRS bog utterly fails in its objective ... defamation. The HRS bog
succeeds in exposing the sordid and depraved character of its authors.
The authors will forever be linked with the HRS blog. Tom Sherman will
forever be acknowledged as the self-appointed defender of the
indefensible ... the HRS blog and its authors (Seth Jayson, Alan Arial
and Ed Gin).

Rife with illogical fallacies, Tom Sherman's tedious, oblique debating
style was riddled with circumlocution and subterfuge. One word sums it
up ... TERGIVERSATION! For Tom Sherman, this debate was never about
right and wrong. This debate was about cerebral insecurity, ego,
winning and declaring victory. A stalemate was unacceptable.
Concession was mandatory. Tom Sherman and I held firm to opposing
positions. Tom Sherman felt that he was right. I feel that I was
right. We reached an impasse. I was willing to agree to disagree in
order to spare the readership. Tom Sherman was not.

For his failure to recognize that the targets of the HRS blog are not
"public figures" (as defined by law), and for his failure to recognize
that direct-evidence is not required as the only acceptable form of
proof (as defined by law), and for his inability to distinguish between
parody and defamation, there is nothing more of any significance that
Tom Sherman can contribute to this debate regardless of what he says to
the contrary.

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. The debate could have
continued indefinitely unless common sense intervened. Tom Sherman and
I are both tenacious and determined, but I recognize that one of us has
to be the least stubborn, exercise sound judgment and adjourn the
debate. Tom Sherman may try to bait me into a responding, so I will
have to exercise some degree of self-control. I will encourage him no
longer, although I reserve the right for an occasional pithy rejoinder
if deemed appropriate. Tom Sherman will undoubtedly put his customary
perverse spin on what I've said, deliberately misconstruing my intent,
but that's to be expected. Tis the nature of the beast.

Enough said ... JimmyMac

wrote:
Readership,

A while ago Mr. McNamara said he was done with this discussion. Now he
is starting new threads on it. Ego problem?

What Tom Sherman consistently failed to recognize is that I am opposed
to the HRS blog irrespective of authorship.

No, I simply did not (and do not) care about Mr. McNamara's opinions.

The topic of discussion is presenting ACCUSATIONS without DEFINTIVE
PROOF.

Will Mr. McNamara provide DEFINITIVE PROOF OF HIS ALLEGATIONS?

Tom Sherman asserts that
my motive for opposing the HRS blog is hatred of Ed Gin. I assert that
Tom Sherman's motive in defending the HRS blog is his allegiance to Ed
Gin. Tom Sherman asserts that hatred obscures my objectivity. I
assert that friendship obscures Tom Sherman's objectivity. Ed Gin
would be completely immaterial to my opposition if he were not part an
parcel of the HRS blog.

Opinion stated as fact.

Will Mr. McNamara provide DEFINITIVE PROOF OF HIS ALLEGATIONS?

The HRS bog utterly fails in its objective ... defamation. The HRS bog
succeeds in exposing the sordid and depraved character of its authors.
The authors will forever be linked with the HRS blog. Tom Sherman will
forever be acknowledged as the self-appointed defender of the
indefensible ... the HRS blog and its authors (Seth Jayson, Alan Arial
and Ed Gin).

Who is Alan Arial (sic)? I know of no one with this name.

Opinion stated as fact.

Will Mr. McNamara provide DEFINITIVE PROOF OF HIS ALLEGATIONS?

Rife with illogical fallacies, Tom Sherman's tedious, oblique debating
style was riddled with circumlocution and subterfuge. One word sums it
up ... TERGIVERSATION! For Tom Sherman, this debate was never about
right and wrong. This debate was about cerebral insecurity, ego,
winning and declaring victory. A stalemate was unacceptable.
Concession was mandatory. Tom Sherman and I held firm to opposing
positions. Tom Sherman felt that he was right. I feel that I was
right. We reached an impasse. I was willing to agree to disagree in
order to spare the readership. Tom Sherman was not.

Opinion stated as fact.

The topic of discussion is presenting ACCUSATIONS without DEFINTIVE
PROOF.

Will Mr. McNamara provide DEFINITIVE PROOF OF HIS ALLEGATIONS?

For his failure to recognize that the targets of the HRS blog are not
"public figures" (as defined by law), and for his failure to recognize
that direct-evidence is not required as the only acceptable form of
proof (as defined by law), and for his inability to distinguish between
parody and defamation, there is nothing more of any significance that
Tom Sherman can contribute to this debate regardless of what he says to
the contrary.

Opinion stated as fact.

The topic of discussion is presenting ACCUSATIONS without DEFINTIVE
PROOF.

Will Mr. McNamara provide DEFINITIVE PROOF OF HIS ALLEGATIONS?

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. The debate could have
continued indefinitely unless common sense intervened. Tom Sherman and
I are both tenacious and determined, but I recognize that one of us has
to be the least stubborn, exercise sound judgment and adjourn the
debate. Tom Sherman may try to bait me into a responding, so I will
have to exercise some degree of self-control. I will encourage him no
longer, although I reserve the right for an occasional pithy rejoinder
if deemed appropriate. Tom Sherman will undoubtedly put his customary
perverse spin on what I've said, deliberately misconstruing my intent,
but that's to be expected. Tis the nature of the beast.

Opinion stated as fact.

The topic of discussion is presenting ACCUSATIONS without DEFINTIVE
PROOF.

Will Mr. McNamara provide DEFINITIVE PROOF OF HIS ALLEGATIONS?

WHERE IS Mr. McNamara's DEFINITIVE PROOF OF HIS ALLEGATIONS?

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

Tom,.

A while ago Mr. McNamara said he was done with this discussion. Now he
is starting new threads on it. Ego problem?

-- No ... just ending and old one, but I just hate short good-byes.

What Tom Sherman consistently failed to recognize is that I am opposed
to the HRS blog irrespective of authorship.

No, I simply did not (and do not) care about Mr. McNamara's opinions.

-- Told you he didn't recognize that I am opposed to the HRS blog
irrespective of authorship.

Tom Sherman asserts that
my motive for opposing the HRS blog is hatred of Ed Gin. I assert that
Tom Sherman's motive in defending the HRS blog is his allegiance to Ed
Gin. Tom Sherman asserts that hatred obscures my objectivity. I
assert that friendship obscures Tom Sherman's objectivity. Ed Gin
would be completely immaterial to my opposition if he were not part an
parcel of the HRS blog.

Opinion stated as fact.

-- Hatred of Ed Gin was motive for opposing the HRS blog that you
stated as fact.

Will Mr. McNamara provide DEFINITIVE PROOF OF HIS ALLEGATIONS?

The HRS bog utterly fails in its objective ... defamation. The HRS bog
succeeds in exposing the sordid and depraved character of its authors.
The authors will forever be linked with the HRS blog. Tom Sherman will
forever be acknowledged as the self-appointed defender of the
indefensible ... the HRS blog and its authors (Seth Jayson, Alan Arial
and Ed Gin).

Who is Alan Arial (sic)? I know of no one with this name.

-- He's an acquaintance of yours, so correct the spelling (sic) one.

Opinion stated as fact.

-- Hatred of Ed Gin was your statement that was stated as fact and
merely repeated here.

Rife with illogical fallacies, Tom Sherman's tedious, oblique debating
style was riddled with circumlocution and subterfuge. One word sums it
up ... TERGIVERSATION! For Tom Sherman, this debate was never about
right and wrong. This debate was about cerebral insecurity, ego,
winning and declaring victory. A stalemate was unacceptable.
Concession was mandatory. Tom Sherman and I held firm to opposing
positions. Tom Sherman felt that he was right. I feel that I was
right. We reached an impasse. I was willing to agree to disagree in
order to spare the readership. Tom Sherman was not.

Opinion stated as fact.

-- Opinion stated as fact. Nothing stated above was contrary to fact.
When did you agree to disagree and call it quits?

For his failure to recognize that the targets of the HRS blog are not
"public figures" (as defined by law), and for his failure to recognize
that direct-evidence is not required as the only acceptable form of
proof (as defined by law), and for his inability to distinguish between
parody and defamation, there is nothing more of any significance that
Tom Sherman can contribute to this debate regardless of what he says to
the contrary.

Opinion stated as fact.

-- Opinion stated as fact. So, it is your opinion that the law is
ONLY opinion? As I said, you've nothing more to contribute.

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. The debate could have
continued indefinitely unless common sense intervened. Tom Sherman and
I are both tenacious and determined, but I recognize that one of us has
to be the least stubborn, exercise sound judgment and adjourn the
debate. Tom Sherman may try to bait me into a responding, so I will
have to exercise some degree of self-control. I will encourage him no
longer, although I reserve the right for an occasional pithy rejoinder
if deemed appropriate. Tom Sherman will undoubtedly put his customary
perverse spin on what I've said, deliberately misconstruing my intent,
but that's to be expected. Tis the nature of the beast.

Opinion stated as fact.

-- Opinion stated as fact. There is not a single opinion in that
entire paragraph. You did exactly what I expected of you by
misconstruing my intent an putting a spin on things. I knew you
couldn't resist. I just wish that I had resisted responding and
pointing out the obvious, but I did reserve that right.

I noticed in our other thread where twice I made you out to be a liar
and provided all the proof you needed in that debate in Ed Gin's own
words, you finally shut up. Why don't you do the same here and I will
join you in silence. Agreed? You probably won't and I will have to
choose whether to respond or ignore you. The latter would seem to be
the better alternative.

JimmyMac

wrote:
Tom,.

A while ago Mr. McNamara said he was done with this discussion. Now he
is starting new threads on it. Ego problem?

-- No ... just ending and old one, but I just hate short good-byes.

I see Mr. McNamara is still disrespecting other Usenet users with his
non-standard quoting format.

What Tom Sherman consistently failed to recognize is that I am opposed
to the HRS blog irrespective of authorship.

No, I simply did not (and do not) care about Mr. McNamara's opinions.

-- Told you he didn't recognize that I am opposed to the HRS blog
irrespective of authorship.

[yawn]

Tom Sherman asserts that
my motive for opposing the HRS blog is hatred of Ed Gin. I assert that
Tom Sherman's motive in defending the HRS blog is his allegiance to Ed
Gin. Tom Sherman asserts that hatred obscures my objectivity. I
assert that friendship obscures Tom Sherman's objectivity. Ed Gin
would be completely immaterial to my opposition if he were not part an
parcel of the HRS blog.

Opinion stated as fact.

-- Hatred of Ed Gin was motive for opposing the HRS blog that you
stated as fact.

Huh?

Will Mr. McNamara provide DEFINITIVE PROOF OF HIS ALLEGATIONS?

The HRS bog utterly fails in its objective ... defamation. The HRS bog
succeeds in exposing the sordid and depraved character of its authors.
The authors will forever be linked with the HRS blog. Tom Sherman will
forever be acknowledged as the self-appointed defender of the
indefensible ... the HRS blog and its authors (Seth Jayson, Alan Arial
and Ed Gin).

Who is Alan Arial (sic)? I know of no one with this name.

-- He's an acquaintance of yours, so correct the spelling (sic) one.

I know an Alan Ariail (sic) [1] but no Alan Arial (sic). Is Alan Arial
(sic) related to Garry (sic) Brown?

Opinion stated as fact.

-- Hatred of Ed Gin was your statement that was stated as fact and
merely repeated here.

So this is all in good fun for Mr. McNamara, like an AA-KK flame war,
and Mr. McNamara is not being serious in all his allegations against Ed
Gin? Brilliant!

Rife with illogical fallacies, Tom Sherman's tedious, oblique debating
style was riddled with circumlocution and subterfuge. One word sums it
up ... TERGIVERSATION! For Tom Sherman, this debate was never about
right and wrong. This debate was about cerebral insecurity, ego,
winning and declaring victory. A stalemate was unacceptable.
Concession was mandatory. Tom Sherman and I held firm to opposing
positions. Tom Sherman felt that he was right. I feel that I was
right. We reached an impasse. I was willing to agree to disagree in
order to spare the readership. Tom Sherman was not.

Opinion stated as fact.

-- Opinion stated as fact. Nothing stated above was contrary to fact.
When did you agree to disagree and call it quits?

I have not called it quits, but Mr. McNamara appears to since he seems
to be posting comments about me INSTEAD OF PROVING HIS ALLEGATIONS OF
HRS BLOG AUTHORSHIP.

For his failure to recognize that the targets of the HRS blog are not
"public figures" (as defined by law), and for his failure to recognize
that direct-evidence is not required as the only acceptable form of
proof (as defined by law), and for his inability to distinguish between
parody and defamation, there is nothing more of any significance that
Tom Sherman can contribute to this debate regardless of what he says to
the contrary.

Opinion stated as fact.

-- Opinion stated as fact. So, it is your opinion that the law is
ONLY opinion? As I said, you've nothing more to contribute.

The only persons to seriously contend that law and morality are the
same are fascists and those who believe in rule by divine right.

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. The debate could have
continued indefinitely unless common sense intervened. Tom Sherman and
I are both tenacious and determined, but I recognize that one of us has
to be the least stubborn, exercise sound judgment and adjourn the
debate. Tom Sherman may try to bait me into a responding, so I will
have to exercise some degree of self-control. I will encourage him no
longer, although I reserve the right for an occasional pithy rejoinder
if deemed appropriate. Tom Sherman will undoubtedly put his customary
perverse spin on what I've said, deliberately misconstruing my intent,
but that's to be expected. Tis the nature of the beast.

Opinion stated as fact.

-- Opinion stated as fact. There is not a single opinion in that
entire paragraph. You did exactly what I expected of you by
misconstruing my intent an putting a spin on things. I knew you
couldn't resist. I just wish that I had resisted responding and
pointing out the obvious, but I did reserve that right.

"Impractical" is opinion, not fact.

"Unrealistic" is opinion, not fact.

"Common sense" is opinion, not fact.

"Sound judgment: is opinion, not fact.

"Perverse" is opinion, not fact.

"Spin" is opinion, not fact.

"To be expected" is opinion, not fact.

I noticed in our other thread where twice I made you out to be a liar
and provided all the proof you needed in that debate in Ed Gin's own
words, you finally shut up.

For some reason Google Groups failed to post my first response. Check
again.

Why don't you do the same here and I will
join you in silence. Agreed? You probably won't and I will have to
choose whether to respond or ignore you. The latter would seem to be
the better alternative.

[yawn]

Will Mr. McNamara provide DEFINITIVE PROOF OF HIS ALLEGATIONS?

[1] See
http://www.wisil.recumbents.com/wisil/ariail/alan_ariail.htm.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

Tom,

A while ago Mr. McNamara said he was done with this discussion. Now he
is starting new threads on it. Ego problem?

-- No ... just ending and old one, but I just hate short good-byes.

I see Mr. McNamara is still disrespecting other Usenet users with his
non-standard quoting format.


;^)


What Tom Sherman consistently failed to recognize is that I am opposed
to the HRS blog irrespective of authorship.

No, I simply did not (and do not) care about Mr. McNamara's opinions.

-- Told you he didn't recognize that I am opposed to the HRS blog
irrespective of authorship.

[yawn]


;^)


Tom Sherman asserts that
my motive for opposing the HRS blog is hatred of Ed Gin. I assert that
Tom Sherman's motive in defending the HRS blog is his allegiance to Ed
Gin. Tom Sherman asserts that hatred obscures my objectivity. I
assert that friendship obscures Tom Sherman's objectivity. Ed Gin
would be completely immaterial to my opposition if he were not part an
parcel of the HRS blog.

Opinion stated as fact.

-- Hatred of Ed Gin was motive for opposing the HRS blog that you
stated as fact.

Huh?


-- Confused by your own statement? Can't help you there.


The HRS bog utterly fails in its objective ... defamation. The HRS bog
succeeds in exposing the sordid and depraved character of its authors.
The authors will forever be linked with the HRS blog. Tom Sherman will
forever be acknowledged as the self-appointed defender of the
indefensible ... the HRS blog and its authors (Seth Jayson, Alan Arial
and Ed Gin).

Who is Alan Arial (sic)? I know of no one with this name.

-- He's an acquaintance of yours, so correct the spelling (sic) one.

I know an Alan Ariail (sic) [1] but no Alan Arial (sic). Is Alan Arial
(sic) related to Garry (sic) Brown?



-- I knew you could correct my spelling, now why can't you spell Gary
correctly (sic) one?



Opinion stated as fact.

-- Hatred of Ed Gin was your statement that was stated as fact and
merely repeated here.


So this is all in good fun for Mr. McNamara, like an AA-KK flame war,
and Mr. McNamara is not being serious in all his allegations against Ed
Gin? Brilliant!


-- Opinion stated as fact.


Rife with illogical fallacies, Tom Sherman's tedious, oblique debating
style was riddled with circumlocution and subterfuge. One word sums it
up ... TERGIVERSATION! For Tom Sherman, this debate was never about
right and wrong. This debate was about cerebral insecurity, ego,
winning and declaring victory. A stalemate was unacceptable.
Concession was mandatory. Tom Sherman and I held firm to opposing
positions. Tom Sherman felt that he was right. I feel that I was
right. We reached an impasse. I was willing to agree to disagree in
order to spare the readership. Tom Sherman was not.

Opinion stated as fact.

-- Opinion stated as fact. Nothing stated above was contrary to fact.
When did you agree to disagree and call it quits?

I have not called it quits, but Mr. McNamara appears to since he seems
to be posting comments about me INSTEAD OF PROVING HIS ALLEGATIONS OF
HRS BLOG AUTHORSHIP.


;^)


For his failure to recognize that the targets of the HRS blog are not
"public figures" (as defined by law), and for his failure to recognize
that direct-evidence is not required as the only acceptable form of
proof (as defined by law), and for his inability to distinguish between
parody and defamation, there is nothing more of any significance that
Tom Sherman can contribute to this debate regardless of what he says to
the contrary.

Opinion stated as fact.

-- Opinion stated as fact. So, it is your opinion that the law is
ONLY opinion? As I said, you've nothing more to contribute.

The only persons to seriously contend that law and morality are the
same are fascists and those who believe in rule by divine right.


-- LOGICAL FALLACY (Red herring). This means exactly what you think it
means: introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the
question at hand.


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. The debate could have
continued indefinitely unless common sense intervened. Tom Sherman and
I are both tenacious and determined, but I recognize that one of us has
to be the least stubborn, exercise sound judgment and adjourn the
debate. Tom Sherman may try to bait me into a responding, so I will
have to exercise some degree of self-control. I will encourage him no
longer, although I reserve the right for an occasional pithy rejoinder
if deemed appropriate. Tom Sherman will undoubtedly put his customary
perverse spin on what I've said, deliberately misconstruing my intent,
but that's to be expected. Tis the nature of the beast.

Opinion stated as fact.

-- Opinion stated as fact. There is not a single opinion in that
entire paragraph. You did exactly what I expected of you by
misconstruing my intent an putting a spin on things. I knew you
couldn't resist. I just wish that I had resisted responding and
pointing out the obvious, but I did reserve that right.

"Impractical" is opinion, not fact.

-- FACT, even use by you in another thread.

"Unrealistic" is opinion, not fact.

-- FACT, even use by you in another thread.

"Common sense" is opinion, not fact.

-- FACT???

"Sound judgment: is opinion, not fact.

-- FACT???

"Perverse" is opinion, not fact.

-- Perverse is an adjective.

"Spin" is opinion, not fact.

-- Spin is a verb.

"To be expected" is opinion, not fact.

-- Your responses establish this to be a FACT.

-- Every single word was taken out of context and was opinion stated
as FACT.


I noticed in our other thread where twice I made you out to be a liar
and provided all the proof you needed in that debate in Ed Gin's own
words, you finally shut up.

For some reason Google Groups failed to post my first response. Check
again.


-- Operator error? What make you think I'd be interested? I don't
think I want to continue with this crap in that thread. I'm done
there. You lied twice, no matter what spin you put on things and Ed's
own word said it all regarding no reason to look further for proof.
Nothing you added to thread matters in the least. You wasted your
time.


Why don't you do the same here and I will
join you in silence. Agreed? You probably won't and I will have to
choose whether to respond or ignore you. The latter would seem to be
the better alternative.

[yawn]

Will Mr. McNamara provide DEFINITIVE PROOF OF HIS ALLEGATIONS?


-- Will Mr. Sherman stop yawning and just go to bed.


[1] See
http://www.wisil.recumbents.com/wisil/ariail/alan_ariail.htm.


-- Sorry ... too busy to bother.


JimmyMac

Tom wrtoe:

For some reason Google Groups failed to post my first response. Check
again.

You check again. Don't you have a clue as to which thread I was
referring? There's still nothing. I am left to assume more operator
error or yet another lie. Either way, it doesn't matter. I just don't
have time for you right now.

JimmyMac

wrote:
Tom,

A while ago Mr. McNamara said he was done with this discussion. Now he
is starting new threads on it. Ego problem?

-- No ... just ending and old one, but I just hate short good-byes.

I see Mr. McNamara is still disrespecting other Usenet users with his
non-standard quoting format.


;^)

Mr. McNamara finds it humorous to disrespect other Usenet users. This
does not speak well for Mr. McNamara's character.

What Tom Sherman consistently failed to recognize is that I am opposed
to the HRS blog irrespective of authorship.

No, I simply did not (and do not) care about Mr. McNamara's opinions.

-- Told you he didn't recognize that I am opposed to the HRS blog
irrespective of authorship.

[yawn]


;^)


Tom Sherman asserts that
my motive for opposing the HRS blog is hatred of Ed Gin. I assert that
Tom Sherman's motive in defending the HRS blog is his allegiance to Ed
Gin. Tom Sherman asserts that hatred obscures my objectivity. I
assert that friendship obscures Tom Sherman's objectivity. Ed Gin
would be completely immaterial to my opposition if he were not part an
parcel of the HRS blog.

Opinion stated as fact.

-- Hatred of Ed Gin was motive for opposing the HRS blog that you
stated as fact.

Huh?


-- Confused by your own statement? Can't help you there.


The HRS bog utterly fails in its objective ... defamation. The HRS bog
succeeds in exposing the sordid and depraved character of its authors.
The authors will forever be linked with the HRS blog. Tom Sherman will
forever be acknowledged as the self-appointed defender of the
indefensible ... the HRS blog and its authors (Seth Jayson, Alan Arial
and Ed Gin).

Who is Alan Arial (sic)? I know of no one with this name.

-- He's an acquaintance of yours, so correct the spelling (sic) one.

I know an Alan Ariail (sic) [1] but no Alan Arial (sic). Is Alan Arial
(sic) related to Garry (sic) Brown?



-- I knew you could correct my spelling, now why can't you spell Gary
correctly (sic) one?

I was not the first person to misspell Gary (sic) Brown as Garry (sic)
Brown; Mr. McNamara was. If fact, Mr. McNamara was so eager to claim a
minor victory that he (Mr. McNamara) accused me of being a liar when I
correctly pointed out that I had not responded to any posts by Garry
(sic) Brown.

Since Mr. McNamara seems to have a hard time understanding this, I will
repeat. Garry (sic) is not the same as Gary (sic).

Opinion stated as fact.

-- Hatred of Ed Gin was your statement that was stated as fact and
merely repeated here.

If Mr. McNamara does not hate Ed Gin, then his posts do not reveal his
true feelings.

So this is all in good fun for Mr. McNamara, like an AA-KK flame war,
and Mr. McNamara is not being serious in all his allegations against Ed
Gin? Brilliant!


-- Opinion stated as fact.

No, it is called sarcasm. Unless Mr. McNamara wished to admit that his
accusations against Ed Gin are false.

Rife with illogical fallacies, Tom Sherman's tedious, oblique debating
style was riddled with circumlocution and subterfuge. One word sums it
up ... TERGIVERSATION! For Tom Sherman, this debate was never about
right and wrong. This debate was about cerebral insecurity, ego,
winning and declaring victory. A stalemate was unacceptable.
Concession was mandatory. Tom Sherman and I held firm to opposing
positions. Tom Sherman felt that he was right. I feel that I was
right. We reached an impasse. I was willing to agree to disagree in
order to spare the readership. Tom Sherman was not.

Opinion stated as fact.

-- Opinion stated as fact. Nothing stated above was contrary to fact.
When did you agree to disagree and call it quits?

I have not called it quits, but Mr. McNamara appears to since he seems
to be posting comments about me INSTEAD OF PROVING HIS ALLEGATIONS OF
HRS BLOG AUTHORSHIP.


;^)

Lose an argument, post an emoticon.

For his failure to recognize that the targets of the HRS blog are not
"public figures" (as defined by law), and for his failure to recognize
that direct-evidence is not required as the only acceptable form of
proof (as defined by law), and for his inability to distinguish between
parody and defamation, there is nothing more of any significance that
Tom Sherman can contribute to this debate regardless of what he says to
the contrary.

Opinion stated as fact.

-- Opinion stated as fact. So, it is your opinion that the law is
ONLY opinion? As I said, you've nothing more to contribute.

Law does not equal morality. What is so hard for Mr. McNamara to grasp
about this concept? Note I did not bring legality explicitly into the
discussion; that was an unfounded assumption of Mr. McNamara's part.

The only persons to seriously contend that law and morality are the
same are fascists and those who believe in rule by divine right.


-- LOGICAL FALLACY (Red herring). This means exactly what you think it
means: introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the
question at hand.

Let us return to the discussion at hand. WHERE IS THE DEFINITIVE PROOF
OF THE HRS BLOG AUTHORSHIP?

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. The debate could have
continued indefinitely unless common sense intervened. Tom Sherman and
I are both tenacious and determined, but I recognize that one of us has
to be the least stubborn, exercise sound judgment and adjourn the
debate. Tom Sherman may try to bait me into a responding, so I will
have to exercise some degree of self-control. I will encourage him no
longer, although I reserve the right for an occasional pithy rejoinder
if deemed appropriate. Tom Sherman will undoubtedly put his customary
perverse spin on what I've said, deliberately misconstruing my intent,
but that's to be expected. Tis the nature of the beast.

Opinion stated as fact.

-- Opinion stated as fact. There is not a single opinion in that
entire paragraph. You did exactly what I expected of you by
misconstruing my intent an putting a spin on things. I knew you
couldn't resist. I just wish that I had resisted responding and
pointing out the obvious, but I did reserve that right.

"Impractical" is opinion, not fact.

-- FACT, even use by you in another thread.

Define practical in this in only factual terms - no opinions allowed.

"Unrealistic" is opinion, not fact.

-- FACT, even use by you in another thread.

Did I say if it was fact or opinion?

"Common sense" is opinion, not fact.

-- FACT???

"Sound judgment: is opinion, not fact.

-- FACT???

"Perverse" is opinion, not fact.

-- Perverse is an adjective.

"Spin" is opinion, not fact.

-- Spin is a verb.

"To be expected" is opinion, not fact.

-- Your responses establish this to be a FACT.

-- Every single word was taken out of context and was opinion stated
as FACT.


I noticed in our other thread where twice I made you out to be a liar
and provided all the proof you needed in that debate in Ed Gin's own
words, you finally shut up.

For some reason Google Groups failed to post my first response. Check
again.


-- Operator error? What make you think I'd be interested? I don't
think I want to continue with this crap in that thread. I'm done
there. You lied twice, no matter what spin you put on things and Ed's
own word said it all regarding no reason to look further for proof.
Nothing you added to thread matters in the least. You wasted your
time.

Yes, by Mr. McNamara's standard, not remembering a SINGLE post out of
thousands years ago is a LIE.

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).

And why would I deliberately lie if I could be so easily proven?

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!

Why don't you do the same here and I will
join you in silence. Agreed? You probably won't and I will have to
choose whether to respond or ignore you. The latter would seem to be
the better alternative.

[yawn]

Will Mr. McNamara provide DEFINITIVE PROOF OF HIS ALLEGATIONS?


-- Will Mr. Sherman stop yawning and just go to bed.


[1] See
http://www.wisil.recumbents.com/wisil/ariail/alan_ariail.htm.


-- Sorry ... too busy to bother.

However, Mr. McNamara is NOT TO BUSY to continue this discussion many
posts after he said he would cease. That does not reflect well on Mr.
McNamara's credibility.

Will Mr. McNamara provide DEFINITIVE PROOF OF HIS ALLEGATIONS?

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

wrote:
Tom wrtoe:

For some reason Google Groups failed to post my first response. Check
again.

You check again. Don't you have a clue as to which thread I was
referring? There's still nothing. I am left to assume more operator
error or yet another lie. Either way, it doesn't matter. I just don't
have time for you right now.

Here is the link for lazy Mr. McNamara:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent/msg/aebe1a006c2f17b9?dmode=source&hl=en.

Will Mr. McNamara provide DEFINITIVE PROOF OF HIS ALLEGATIONS?

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

Johnny Sunset wrote:
...
However, Mr. McNamara is NOT TO BUSY...

Should be "TOO" for "TO".

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

A while ago Mr. McNamara said he was done with this discussion. Now he
is starting new threads on it. Ego problem?

-- No ... just ending and old one, but I just hate short good-byes.

I see Mr. McNamara is still disrespecting other Usenet users with his
non-standard quoting format.

;^)

Mr. McNamara finds it humorous to disrespect other Usenet users. This
does not speak well for Mr. McNamara's character.


;^) ... Just disrespecting you as few are likely reading this. Get
over it.


What Tom Sherman consistently failed to recognize is that I am opposed
to the HRS blog irrespective of authorship.

No, I simply did not (and do not) care about Mr. McNamara's opinions.

-- Told you he didn't recognize that I am opposed to the HRS blog
irrespective of authorship.

[yawn]

;^)

Tom Sherman asserts that
my motive for opposing the HRS blog is hatred of Ed Gin. I assert that
Tom Sherman's motive in defending the HRS blog is his allegiance to Ed
Gin. Tom Sherman asserts that hatred obscures my objectivity. I
assert that friendship obscures Tom Sherman's objectivity. Ed Gin
would be completely immaterial to my opposition if he were not part an
parcel of the HRS blog.

Opinion stated as fact.

-- Hatred of Ed Gin was motive for opposing the HRS blog that you
stated as fact.

Huh?

-- Confused by your own statement? Can't help you there.

The HRS bog utterly fails in its objective ... defamation. The HRS bog
succeeds in exposing the sordid and depraved character of its authors.
The authors will forever be linked with the HRS blog. Tom Sherman will
forever be acknowledged as the self-appointed defender of the
indefensible ... the HRS blog and its authors (Seth Jayson, Alan Arial
and Ed Gin).

Who is Alan Arial (sic)? I know of no one with this name.

-- He's an acquaintance of yours, so correct the spelling (sic) one.

I know an Alan Ariail (sic) [1] but no Alan Arial (sic). Is Alan Arial
(sic) related to Garry (sic) Brown?

-- I knew you could correct my spelling, now why can't you spell Gary
correctly (sic) one?

I was not the first person to misspell Gary (sic) Brown as Garry (sic)
Brown; Mr. McNamara was. If fact, Mr. McNamara was so eager to claim a
minor victory that he (Mr. McNamara) accused me of being a liar when I
correctly pointed out that I had not responded to any posts by Garry
(sic) Brown.

-- I don't recall having misspelled the man's name although a typo is
possible. Regardless, you're still a liar. I claimed no victory
insecure one. 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.

Since Mr. McNamara seems to have a hard time understanding this, I will
repeat. Garry (sic) is not the same as Gary (sic).

-- Oh, I understand your deceitfulness perfectly well.

Opinion stated as fact.

-- Hatred of Ed Gin was your statement that was stated as fact and
merely repeated here.

If Mr. McNamara does not hate Ed Gin, then his posts do not reveal his
true feelings.

-- 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.

So this is all in good fun for Mr. McNamara, like an AA-KK flame war,
and Mr. McNamara is not being serious in all his allegations against Ed
Gin? Brilliant!

-- Opinion stated as fact.

No, it is called sarcasm. Unless Mr. McNamara wished to admit that his
accusations against Ed Gin are false.

-- Now that's sarcasm.

Rife with illogical fallacies, Tom Sherman's tedious, oblique debating
style was riddled with circumlocution and subterfuge. One word sums it
up ... TERGIVERSATION! For Tom Sherman, this debate was never about
right and wrong. This debate was about cerebral insecurity, ego,
winning and declaring victory. A stalemate was unacceptable.
Concession was mandatory. Tom Sherman and I held firm to opposing
positions. Tom Sherman felt that he was right. I feel that I was
right. We reached an impasse. I was willing to agree to disagree in
order to spare the readership. Tom Sherman was not.

Opinion stated as fact.

-- Opinion stated as fact. Nothing stated above was contrary to fact.
When did you agree to disagree and call it quits?

I have not called it quits, but Mr. McNamara appears to since he seems
to be posting comments about me INSTEAD OF PROVING HIS ALLEGATIONS OF
HRS BLOG AUTHORSHIP.

;^)

Lose an argument, post an emoticon.

-- Opinion stated as fact. Reach an impasse, claim victory.

For his failure to recognize that the targets of the HRS blog are not
"public figures" (as defined by law), and for his failure to recognize
that direct-evidence is not required as the only acceptable form of
proof (as defined by law), and for his inability to distinguish between
parody and defamation, there is nothing more of any significance that
Tom Sherman can contribute to this debate regardless of what he says to
the contrary.

Opinion stated as fact.

-- Opinion stated as fact. So, it is your opinion that the law is
ONLY opinion? As I said, you've nothing more to contribute.

Law does not equal morality. What is so hard for Mr. McNamara to grasp
about this concept? Note I did not bring legality explicitly into the
discussion; that was an unfounded assumption of Mr. McNamara's part.

-- ILLOGICAL FALLACY (Red Herring AGAIN) introducing irrelevant facts
or arguments to distract from the question at hand. Why is it so
difficult for Mr. Sherman to understand this? Mr. Sherman is confused
and has put words in my mouth. I never claimed that he introduced
legality in to the discussion. I did because legality had relevancy.

The only persons to seriously contend that law and morality are the
same are fascists and those who believe in rule by divine right.

-- LOGICAL FALLACY (Red herring). This means exactly what you think it
means: introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the
question at hand.

Let us return to the discussion at hand. WHERE IS THE DEFINITIVE PROOF
OF THE HRS BLOG AUTHORSHIP?

-- Nope. I'll not waste time responding to this again having done so
countless times. I refer you to what I said previously in this regard.

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. The debate could have
continued indefinitely unless common sense intervened. Tom Sherman and
I are both tenacious and determined, but I recognize that one of us has
to be the least stubborn, exercise sound judgment and adjourn the
debate. Tom Sherman may try to bait me into a responding, so I will
have to exercise some degree of self-control. I will encourage him no
longer, although I reserve the right for an occasional pithy rejoinder
if deemed appropriate. Tom Sherman will undoubtedly put his customary
perverse spin on what I've said, deliberately misconstruing my intent,
but that's to be expected. Tis the nature of the beast.

Opinion stated as fact.

-- Opinion stated as fact. There is not a single opinion in that
entire paragraph. You did exactly what I expected of you by
misconstruing my intent an putting a spin on things. I knew you
couldn't resist. I just wish that I had resisted responding and
pointing out the obvious, but I did reserve that right.

"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.
"Unrealistic" is opinion, not fact.

-- FACT, even used by you in another thread.

Did I say if it was fact or opinion?

-- Don't recall ... don't care ... not going to bother pouring over
old threds.

"Common sense" is opinion, not fact.

-- FACT???

"Sound judgment: is opinion, not fact.

-- FACT???

"Perverse" is opinion, not fact.

-- Perverse is an adjective.

"Spin" is opinion, not fact.

-- Spin is a verb.

"To be expected" is opinion, not fact.

-- Your responses establish this to be a FACT.

-- Every single word was taken out of context and was opinion stated
as FACT.

I noticed in our other thread where twice I made you out to be a liar
and provided all the proof you needed in that debate in Ed Gin's own
words, you finally shut up.

For some reason Google Groups failed to post my first response. Check
again.

-- Operator error? What make you think I'd be interested? I don't
think I want to continue with this crap in that thread. I'm done
there. You lied twice, no matter what spin you put on things and Ed's
own word said it all regarding no reason to look further for proof.
Nothing you added to thread matters in the least. You wasted your
time.

Yes, by Mr. McNamara's standard, not remembering a SINGLE post out of
thousands years ago is a LIE.

* 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?
*
And why would I deliberately lie if I could be so easily proven?

-- Good question. I await your answer.

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!

-- What is HYPOCRACY (sic) ... hypocrisy??? I'll not address what is
already archived in for anyone that is interested.

Why don't you do the same here and I will
join you in silence. Agreed? You probably won't and I will have to
choose whether to respond or ignore you. The latter would seem to be
the better alternative.

[yawn]

Will Mr. McNamara provide DEFINITIVE PROOF OF HIS ALLEGATIONS?

-- Will Mr. Sherman stop yawning and just go to bed.

[1] See
http://www.wisil.recumbents.com/wisil/ariail/alan_ariail.htm.

-- Sorry ... too busy to bother.

However, Mr. McNamara is NOT TO BUSY to continue this discussion many
posts after he said he would cease. That does not reflect well on Mr.
McNamara's credibility.

[YAWN] ... whatever

You responded to the wrong post and I'll not bother to reply to the one
that you did respond to. I am unwilling to waste any more time than
I've already wasted here addressing a reply that was primarily a
demonstration of your affinity for LOGICAL FALLACY (Non Sequitur) ...
stating, as a conclusion, something that does not strictly follow from
the premises.

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.

JimmyMac