| |
Main
Date: 26 Dec 2005 14:33:39
From:
Subject: 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 custoy
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
|
|
| |
Date: 28 Dec 2005 08:09:24
From:
Subject: Re: Debate Concluded
|
Johnny Sunset wrote:
> jimmymac_4@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> [snipped - without being read]
Whatever.
> Since everyone else seems to be ignoring this discussion, except for
> requests for it to end, there is not longer any point in continuing it.
Some time back, I indicated that Tom and I were at an impasse and
suggested that this debate should be concluded, but note the
significant difference. Whereas I suggested that I was willing to
agree to disagree and end this to spare the readership, Tom suggested
that the debate should be concluded because there is no longer any
point in continuing (AGREED since we were at an impasses as indicated)
and because of a shrinking audience. It is reasonable to assume that I
was correct when I stated that these debates were at least in part
about Tom's cerebral insecurity and his ego.
> Mr. McNaa may of course post what he wants since this is an
> un-moderated forum, but I (and I expect everyone else also) will ignore
> it.
Actually, I suspect that, not everyone, but the majority has been
ignoring the both of us. Well it looks like Tom and I are finally done
and I'm OK with that and I suspect that the readership is too.
JimmyMac
|
| |
Date: 27 Dec 2005 22:01:06
From:
Subject: Re: Debate Concluded
|
Jim C 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?
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 ,
>From one Jim to another ... you were very diplomatic. No offense
taken. I would have been willing to comply with your private email
suggestion. Unlike Tom, I have no overwhelming compulsion to have my
ego on public display, but there is nothing to be gained by continuing
this either publicly or privately. It has become quite the waste of
time. For a change Tom has come to a logical conclusion. Neither of
us will convince the other. An impasse has been reached. I requested
that Tom to accept an agree to disagree truce so that we could just let
it go and move on, but what I thought was a reasonable solution was
rejected. At this juncture, it is not unreasonable to assume that the
readership has understandably grown weary of this debate. All that was
in need of being said has likely already been said several times over.
Someone has to put an end to this. It may as well be me. This debate
is concluded.
JimmyMac
|
| |
Date: 27 Dec 2005 21:48:11
From:
Subject: Re: Debate Concluded
|
Jim C 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?
I know, I know, I don't have to read it and I am only really scanning
looking for humor.
Hi Jim C,
I posted this about an hour and a half ago, but it never appeared, so I
will give this another try.
>From one Jim to another ... you were very diplomatic. No offense
taken. I would have been willing to comply with your private email
suggestion. Unlike Tom, I have no overwhelming compulsion to have my
ego on public display, but there is nothing to be gained by continuing
this either publicly or privately. It has become quite the waste of
time. For a change Tom has come to a logical conclusion. Neither of
us will convince the other. An impasse has been reached. I requested
that Tom to accept an agree to diasgree truce so that we could just let
it go and move on, but what I thought was a reasonable solution was
rejected. At this juncture, it is not unreasonable to assume that the
readership has understandably grown weary of this debate. All that was
in need of being said has likely already been said several times over.
Somone has to put an end to this. It may as well be me. This debate
is concluded.
JimmyMac
|
| |
Date: 27 Dec 2005 21:12:28
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Debate Concluded
|
jimmymac_4@yahoo.com wrote:
[snipped - without being read]
Since everyone else seems to be ignoring this discussion, except for
requests for it to end, there is not longer any point in continuing it.
Mr. McNaa may of course post what he wants since this is an
un-moderated forum, but I (and I expect everyone else also) will ignore
it.
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
| |
Date: 27 Dec 2005 21:11:45
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Debate Concluded - For Real this time
|
jimmymac_4@yahoo.com wrote:
[snipped - without being read]
Since everyone else seems to be ignoring this discussion, except for
requests for it to end, there is not longer any point in continuing it.
Mr. McNaa may of course post what he wants since this is an
un-moderated forum, but I (and I expect everyone else also) will ignore
it.
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
| |
Date: 27 Dec 2005 20:40:01
From:
Subject: Re: 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. McNaa 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. McNaa. If Mr. McNaa 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. McNaa 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. McNaa.
-- > 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. McNaa 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. McNaa 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. McNaa 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. McNaa 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. McNaa 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. McNaa 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. McNaa's previous arguments were nothing but unfounded
allegations, based on Mr. McNaa'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. McNaa was
the HRS blog author. Mr. McNaa 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. McNaa 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. McNaa'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. McNaa LIED when he said I responded to TWO (2) posts instead of
> the ONE (1) post I responded to. Or maybe Mr. McNaa 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. McNaa 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. McNaa 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. McNaa 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. McNaa 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. McNaa, since
> he accuses others of lying over a mistake, but he (Mr. McNaa)
> 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. McNaa 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. McNaa 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. McNaa
finally leaves the discussion, will not Mr. Sherman's statement that I
have lied be a LIE?
JimmyMac
|
| |
Date: 27 Dec 2005 20:38:28
From:
Subject: Re: Debate Concluded
|
Tom Sherman wrote:
Keep on digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole.
Will Mr. McNaa provide DEFINITIVE PROOF OF HIS ALLEGATIONS?
The answer is apparently no. We must assume at this point that Mr.
McNaa 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. McNaa 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 McNaa 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. McNaa
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. McNaa refuses to play by his rules, Mr. Sherman's
rules incorrectly draws the conclusion, which does not logically follow
the premise that Mr. McNaa's purpose was to denigrate Ed Gin. Once
again Mr. Sherman attempts to persuade the readership that Ed Gin was
Mr. McNaa's sole focus when the HRS blog authors were Mr. McNaa's
focus as stated numerous time in response to this often repeated
falsehood presented as fact. In the first post in this thread, Mr.
McNaa 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
|
| |
Date: 27 Dec 2005 17:32:05
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: 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. McNaa of anything, and Mr.
McNaa's statements SEEM to imply the same thing.
Sorry.
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
| |
Date: 26 Dec 2005 22:39:43
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Debate Concluded
|
jimmymac_4@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Tom Sherman wrote:
>
> Here is the link for lazy Mr. McNaa:
> <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.
Keep on digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole.
Will Mr. McNaa provide DEFINITIVE PROOF OF HIS ALLEGATIONS?
The answer is apparently no. We must assume at this point that Mr.
McNaa has no proof, and merely wanted to denigrate Ed Gin out of
spite.
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
| | |
Date: 27 Dec 2005 18:44:09
From: Jim
Subject: Re: 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
|
| |
Date: 26 Dec 2005 22:36:34
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Debate Concluded
|
jimmymac_4@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > A while ago Mr. McNaa 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. McNaa is still disrespecting other Usenet users with his
> > non-standard quoting format.
>
> > ;^)
>
> Mr. McNaa finds it humorous to disrespect other Usenet users. This
> does not speak well for Mr. McNaa's character.
>
>
> ;^) ... Just disrespecting you as few are likely reading this. Get
> over it.
Mr. McNaa shows no remorse over disrespecting ALL readers of
alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent.
> > > > 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. McNaa'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. McNaa was. If fact, Mr. McNaa was so eager to claim a
> minor victory that he (Mr. McNaa) 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.
Here is the link:
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent/msg/ecdf2bfe0ccb447b?dmode=source >.
> Regardless, you're still a liar. I claimed no victory insecure one.
Here is a lie at least in spirit by Mr. McNaa. If Mr. McNaa is
not claiming a victory, why is he bringing up not remembering one of
thousands of posts and calling it a lie?
> 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. McNaa 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. McNaa.
Furthermore, Mr. McNaa LIED when he said I responded to TWO (2)
posts when I only responded to ONE (1) post.
Mr. McNaa 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. McNaa was too disrespectful of the
alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent readership to proofread his post.
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.
> Since Mr. McNaa 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.
Mr. McNaa 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.
> > > Opinion stated as fact.
>
> > > --> Hatred of Ed Gin was your statement that was stated as fact and
> > > merely repeated here.
>
> If Mr. McNaa 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.
Will Mr. McNaa provide DEFINITIVE PROOF OF HIS ALLEGATIONS?
> > So this is all in good fun for Mr. McNaa, like an AA-KK flame war,
> > and Mr. McNaa is not being serious in all his allegations against Ed
> > Gin? Brilliant!
>
> > --> Opinion stated as fact.
>
> No, it is called sarcasm. Unless Mr. McNaa wished to admit that his
> accusations against Ed Gin are false.
>
> --> Now that's sarcasm.
Will Mr. McNaa 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.
>
> > > --> 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. McNaa 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.
Will Mr. McNaa provide DEFINITIVE PROOF OF HIS ALLEGATIONS?
Without proof, Mr. McNaa looses his argument that Ed Gin is involved
in authoring the HRS blog.
WHERE IS THE DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE?
> > > > 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. McNaa to grasp
> about this concept? Note I did not bring legality explicitly into the
> discussion; that was an unfounded assumption of Mr. McNaa'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.
Mr. McNaa's previous arguments were nothing but unfounded
allegations, based on Mr. McNaa's INTERPRETATION of Ed Gin's
character and behavior.
Will Mr. McNaa 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 custoy
> > > > 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.
I was only stating it was HYPOTHETICALLY POSSIBLE that Mr. McNaa was
the HRS blog author. Mr. McNaa was claiming that Ed Gin WAS involved
in authoring the HRS blog. These are two entirely different things with
different standards of proof.
> > "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.
Mr. McNaa 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.
> > "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. McNaa'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. McNaa LIED when he said I responded to TWO (2) posts instead of
> the ONE (1) post I responded to. Or maybe Mr. McNaa 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. McNaa 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/f02ad6e3f0969f0f?dmode=source >.
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. McNaa is a LIE.
Mr. McNaa also LIED when he said I responded to a post by Garry
(sic) Brown, since the post in question was by Gary (sic) Brown.
> *
> 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. McNaa, since
> he accuses others of lying over a mistake, but he (Mr. McNaa)
> 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. McNaa 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. McNaa is NOT TO BUSY to continue this discussion many
> posts after he said he would cease. That does not reflect well on Mr.
> McNaa'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 priily 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.
Mr. McNaa said he was leaving this discussion. Apparently that was a
DECEITFUL LIE.
Will Mr. McNaa provide DEFINITIVE PROOF OF HIS ALLEGATIONS?
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
| |
Date: 26 Dec 2005 22:36:29
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Debate Concluded
|
jimmymac_4@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > A while ago Mr. McNaa 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. McNaa is still disrespecting other Usenet users with his
> > non-standard quoting format.
>
> > ;^)
>
> Mr. McNaa finds it humorous to disrespect other Usenet users. This
> does not speak well for Mr. McNaa's character.
>
>
> ;^) ... Just disrespecting you as few are likely reading this. Get
> over it.
Mr. McNaa shows no remorse over disrespecting ALL readers of
alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent.
> > > > 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. McNaa'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. McNaa was. If fact, Mr. McNaa was so eager to claim a
> minor victory that he (Mr. McNaa) 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.
Here is the link:
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent/msg/ecdf2bfe0ccb447b?dmode=source >.
> Regardless, you're still a liar. I claimed no victory insecure one.
Here is a lie at least in spirit by Mr. McNaa. If Mr. McNaa is
not claiming a victory, why is he bringing up not remembering one of
thousands of posts and calling it a lie?
> 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. McNaa 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. McNaa.
Furthermore, Mr. McNaa LIED when he said I responded to TWO (2)
posts when I only responded to ONE (1) post.
Mr. McNaa 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. McNaa was too disrespectful of the
alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent readership to proofread his post.
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.
> Since Mr. McNaa 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.
Mr. McNaa 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.
> > > Opinion stated as fact.
>
> > > --> Hatred of Ed Gin was your statement that was stated as fact and
> > > merely repeated here.
>
> If Mr. McNaa 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.
Will Mr. McNaa provide DEFINITIVE PROOF OF HIS ALLEGATIONS?
> > So this is all in good fun for Mr. McNaa, like an AA-KK flame war,
> > and Mr. McNaa is not being serious in all his allegations against Ed
> > Gin? Brilliant!
>
> > --> Opinion stated as fact.
>
> No, it is called sarcasm. Unless Mr. McNaa wished to admit that his
> accusations against Ed Gin are false.
>
> --> Now that's sarcasm.
Will Mr. McNaa 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.
>
> > > --> 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. McNaa 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.
Will Mr. McNaa provide DEFINITIVE PROOF OF HIS ALLEGATIONS?
Without proof, Mr. McNaa looses his argument that Ed Gin is involved
in authoring the HRS blog.
WHERE IS THE DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE?
> > > > 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. McNaa to grasp
> about this concept? Note I did not bring legality explicitly into the
> discussion; that was an unfounded assumption of Mr. McNaa'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.
Mr. McNaa's previous arguments were nothing but unfounded
allegations, based on Mr. McNaa's INTERPRETATION of Ed Gin's
character and behavior.
Will Mr. McNaa 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 custoy
> > > > 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.
I was only stating it was HYPOTHETICALLY POSSIBLE that Mr. McNaa was
the HRS blog author. Mr. McNaa was claiming that Ed Gin WAS involved
in authoring the HRS blog. These are two entirely different things with
different standards of proof.
> > "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.
Mr. McNaa 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.
> > "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. McNaa'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. McNaa LIED when he said I responded to TWO (2) posts instead of
> the ONE (1) post I responded to. Or maybe Mr. McNaa 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. McNaa 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/f02ad6e3f0969f0f?dmode=source >.
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. McNaa is a LIE.
Mr. McNaa also LIED when he said I responded to a post by Garry
(sic) Brown, since the post in question was by Gary (sic) Brown.
> *
> 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. McNaa, since
> he accuses others of lying over a mistake, but he (Mr. McNaa)
> 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. McNaa 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. McNaa is NOT TO BUSY to continue this discussion many
> posts after he said he would cease. That does not reflect well on Mr.
> McNaa'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 priily 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.
Mr. McNaa said he was leaving this discussion. Apparently that was a
DECEITFUL LIE.
Will Mr. McNaa provide DEFINITIVE PROOF OF HIS ALLEGATIONS?
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
| |
Date: 26 Dec 2005 22:10:25
From:
Subject: Re: Debate Concluded
|
> Tom Sherman wrote:
Here is the link for lazy Mr. McNaa:
<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
|
| |
Date: 26 Dec 2005 21:48:05
From:
Subject: Re: Debate Concluded
|
> > A while ago Mr. McNaa 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. McNaa is still disrespecting other Usenet users with his
> non-standard quoting format.
> ;^)
Mr. McNaa finds it humorous to disrespect other Usenet users. This
does not speak well for Mr. McNaa'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. McNaa'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. McNaa was. If fact, Mr. McNaa was so eager to claim a
minor victory that he (Mr. McNaa) 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. McNaa 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. McNaa 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. McNaa, like an AA-KK flame war,
> and Mr. McNaa is not being serious in all his allegations against Ed
> Gin? Brilliant!
> --> Opinion stated as fact.
No, it is called sarcasm. Unless Mr. McNaa 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. McNaa 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. McNaa to grasp
about this concept? Note I did not bring legality explicitly into the
discussion; that was an unfounded assumption of Mr. McNaa'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 custoy
> > > 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. McNaa'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. McNaa LIED when he said I responded to TWO (2) posts instead of
the ONE (1) post I responded to. Or maybe Mr. McNaa 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. McNaa, since
he accuses others of lying over a mistake, but he (Mr. McNaa)
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. McNaa 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. McNaa is NOT TO BUSY to continue this discussion many
posts after he said he would cease. That does not reflect well on Mr.
McNaa'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 priily 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
|
| |
Date: 26 Dec 2005 19:37:28
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Debate Concluded
|
Johnny Sunset wrote:
> ...
> However, Mr. McNaa is NOT TO BUSY...
Should be "TOO" for "TO".
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
| |
Date: 26 Dec 2005 19:36:06
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Debate Concluded
|
jimmymac_4@yahoo.com 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. McNaa:
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent/msg/aebe1a006c2f17b9?dmode=source&hl=en >.
Will Mr. McNaa provide DEFINITIVE PROOF OF HIS ALLEGATIONS?
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
| |
Date: 26 Dec 2005 19:33:52
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Debate Concluded
|
jimmyma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Tom,
>
> > A while ago Mr. McNaa 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. McNaa is still disrespecting other Usenet users with his
> non-standard quoting format.
>
>
> ;^)
Mr. McNaa finds it humorous to disrespect other Usenet users. This
does not speak well for Mr. McNaa'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. McNaa'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. McNaa was. If fact, Mr. McNaa was so eager to claim a
minor victory that he (Mr. McNaa) 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. McNaa 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. McNaa does not hate Ed Gin, then his posts do not reveal his
true feelings.
> So this is all in good fun for Mr. McNaa, like an AA-KK flame war,
> and Mr. McNaa is not being serious in all his allegations against Ed
> Gin? Brilliant!
>
>
> --> Opinion stated as fact.
No, it is called sarcasm. Unless Mr. McNaa 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. McNaa 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. McNaa to grasp
about this concept? Note I did not bring legality explicitly into the
discussion; that was an unfounded assumption of Mr. McNaa'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 custoy
> > > 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. McNaa's standard, not remembering a SINGLE post out of
thousands years ago is a LIE.
Mr. McNaa LIED when he said I responded to TWO (2) posts instead of
the ONE (1) post I responded to. Or maybe Mr. McNaa 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. McNaa, since
he accuses others of lying over a mistake, but he (Mr. McNaa)
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. McNaa 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. McNaa is NOT TO BUSY to continue this discussion many
posts after he said he would cease. That does not reflect well on Mr.
McNaa's credibility.
Will Mr. McNaa provide DEFINITIVE PROOF OF HIS ALLEGATIONS?
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
| |
Date: 26 Dec 2005 19:18:49
From:
Subject: Re: Debate Concluded
|
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
|
| |
Date: 26 Dec 2005 19:07:38
From:
Subject: Re: Debate Concluded
|
Tom,
> A while ago Mr. McNaa 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. McNaa 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. McNaa'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. McNaa, like an AA-KK flame war,
and Mr. McNaa 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. McNaa 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 custoy
> > 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. McNaa 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
|
| |
Date: 26 Dec 2005 18:36:57
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Debate Concluded
|
jimmymac_4@yahoo.com wrote:
> Tom,.
>
> A while ago Mr. McNaa 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. McNaa 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. McNaa'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. McNaa 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. McNaa, like an AA-KK flame war,
and Mr. McNaa 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. McNaa 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 custoy
> > 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. McNaa provide DEFINITIVE PROOF OF HIS ALLEGATIONS?
[1] See <
http://www.wisil.recumbents.com/wisil/ariail/alan_ariail.htm >.
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
| |
Date: 26 Dec 2005 18:04:04
From:
Subject: Re: Debate Concluded
|
Tom,.
A while ago Mr. McNaa 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. McNaa'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. McNaa 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 custoy
> 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
|
| |
Date: 26 Dec 2005 16:44:35
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Debate Concluded
|
jimmymac_4@yahoo.com wrote:
> Readership,
A while ago Mr. McNaa 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. McNaa's opinions.
The topic of discussion is presenting ACCUSATIONS without DEFINTIVE
PROOF.
Will Mr. McNaa 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. McNaa 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. McNaa 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. McNaa 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. McNaa 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 custoy
> 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. McNaa provide DEFINITIVE PROOF OF HIS ALLEGATIONS?
WHERE IS Mr. McNaa's DEFINITIVE PROOF OF HIS ALLEGATIONS?
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
|
