| |
Main
Date: 17 Dec 2005 10:02:12
From:
Subject: Debate over, but unclaimed money remains on the table
|
Mr. Shermans asseverations:
1. Mr. McNaa has failed to convince that he could not have access to
a
Chicagoland SBC DSL account.
2. By his own admission, Mr. McNaa is "poor", so obviously he does
not
have $100,000.00 in liquid assets, so his offer is worthless (for this
and other reasons previously discussed).
3. There are ten of thousands (or more) Chicagoland residences with SBC
DSL service. It would take constant surveillance of Mr. McNaa to
prove he was not using one of them, so his contention of showing proof
is ridiculous in practical terms.
Readership, each of these inane "Shermanisms" are completely without
merit. I will address each one separately:
1. Readers, Mr. Sherman has failed to convince (read prove) that I have
use of anyone's Chicagoland DSL account or that I have used any
Chicagoland DSL account for nefarious purposes. I am under no
obligation to defend myself. As the accuser, the burden to prove the
plausibility this contention is Mr. Sheman's. Has not Mr. Sherman
gone on record to state that he is proud to defend the innocent until
proven guilty? Well that would be me, would it not? Defend me Mr.
Sherman. It should come as no revelation that Mr. Sherman is a walking
talking contradiction.
2. Readers, recognize this for what it is ... and unproven assumption
stated by Mr. Sherman as though it were fact. Ask yourself ... were
those quotation ks deliberately placed around "poor" or is this an
example of an idiom that is simply not understood by an idiot? When I
said ... poor Mr. McNaa has a dial-up connection, did anyone here
understand that to mean that I was poverty stricken like the
unperceptive Mr. Sherman? Mr. Sherman is apparently challenged by the
vernacular. As a point of reference regarding my lack of liquid
assets, I own my home (read no mortgage), own my car that I paid
approximately $36,000 cash money for (read no loans ... no car
payments), ride an upright and a recumbent that are worth in excess of
$5000 and $3000 respectively, have a substantial amounts of money in
passbook savings, certificates of deposit, stocks, savings bonds and
precious metal collectible coins more than sufficient to cover the
$100,000 challenge several times over. I have no liens or debts to
contend with. What I don't have is Tom Sherman's acceptance of my
challenge. Now Mr. Sherman will tell you that you only have my word on
all this, but I am prepared to produce substantiating documentation to
prove sufficient liquid assets and will gladly do so if and when Mr.
Sherman accepts my challenge and puts his money where his mouth is.
3. Readers, couldn't I have used this very same argument regarding
those whom I suspect as responsible for the HRS blog and conclude that
Mr. Sherman's demand for direct evidence as the only acceptable proof
was ridiculous in practical terms? Of course I could have. Would Mr.
Sherman have considered that argument acceptable had I used it?
Absolutely not, but as I have said before Mr. Sherman utterly refuses
to play by the same set of rules the he demands his adversary to play
by, but that should be apparent to all by now.
Allow me to reiterate. Mr. McNaa is amenable to having his
challenge drawn up so as to make it legal and binding to satisfy Mr.
Sherman's objection in that regards and to prove liquid assets
sufficient to cover the amount of the challenge. If Mr. Sherman can
prove that Mr. McNaa is the author of the HRS blog, Mr. Sherman will
be $100,000 richer. If Mr. McNaa cannot be proven to be the author
of the HRS blog, then Mr. McNaa will be $100,000 richer. Depending
upon Mr. Sherman's level of confidence or lack thereof, Mr. McNaa is
willing to adjust these stakes up or down accordingly. Will Mr.
Sherman accept? Of course not!!! Why??? Because Mr. Sherman does not
like to lose and Mr. Sherman knows this to be a no win situation for
which he would have to pay dearly. Both his ego and his pocketbook
would suffer a loss. Mr. Sherman knows who the author is and he knows
who the major contributor is. Mr. McNaa could just as easily extend
this offer to Mr. Sherman to prove the innocence of those Mr. McNaa
suspects, but again Mr. Sherman would be in the same no win situation.
If this were not a no win situation, wouldn't Mr. Sherman have excepted
Mr. McNaa's challenge to shut him up and take his money long ago
rather than offer excuses for why the challenge is unacceptable?
JimmyMac
|
|
| |
Date: 19 Dec 2005 18:06:34
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Debate over, but unclaimed money remains on the table
|
Mike Rice wrote:
> ...
> >Need I remind anyone of the company Jesus of Nazareth kept according to
> >the New Testament? While not considering myself comparable to the one
> >the Muslim's consider a Holy Prophet and the Christian's consider The
> >Messiah, could I not also be a positive influence?
>
> No way. I hear you ride one of those goofy bikes....
For the record, I do blame Ed Gin for all the money I have spent on
lowracers! Mr. Gin, being An Aerogant (sic) Recumbent Pusher tempted me
with rides on his Ross Festina and Earth Cycles Sunset. I suggest
avoiding Mr. Gin at all costs if you wish to avoid lowracer addiction!
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
| |
Date: 19 Dec 2005 17:45:44
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Debate over, but unclaimed money remains on the table
|
jimmymac_4@yahoo.com wrote:
> McNaa should not call himself "poor" and imply he could not
> afford a SBC DSL connection if that is not the case. It does reflect
> poorly on his credibility.
>
> --> Readers, is this not an example of an idiom that is simply not
> understood by an idiot? When I said ... poor Mr. McNaa has a
> dial-up connection, was anyone except for Mr. Sherman so unperceptive
> as to understand that to mean that Mr. McNaa was poverty-stricken
> and could not afford and SBC DSL connection? Mr. Sherman is counting
> on the reader not to have read Mr. McNaa's explanation of why he
> neither has nor wants an SBC DLS connection. Mr. Sherman's
> intentional deception reflects poorly on his credibility.
Considering the economic barriers to high-bandwidth Internet
connections (and the current battle over government versus private
Wi-Fi networks) are subjects of considerable discussion in the media,
the logical conclusion when someone describes himself as poor and the
mentions he has dial-up Internet access is that it is a matter driven
by personal finances. Mr. McNaa needs a better argument, or should
admit that his statement was misleading.
The fact remains in the HYPOTHETICAL case that Mr. McNaa wanted an
SBC DSL connection; it would not take extraordinary measures to obtain
such services.
> Mr. McNaa is creating so many straw men that one suspects he made
> his fortune in scarecrow production.
>
> --> Mr. Sherman is far better at standup than he is at logic.
Nonsense. I excel at both. ;)
> Mr. McNaa's $100,000 challenge is made in bad faith on a false
> premise, and therefore is not worth the electrons used to display it.
>
> --> Mr. McNaa's $100,000 challenge was not made in good faith, then
> there is no risk in accepting the challenge. The offer still stands.
Why in the world would I bet money over an argument I never made? I
never said Mr. McNaa WAS the AUTHOR of the HRS blog; merely that it
was HYPOTHETICALLY POSSIBLE that Mr. McNaa COULD be the author of
the HRS blog. The two cases are distinctly different, as anyone with
normal intelligence can understand. If Mr. McNaa claims that I said
he WAS the author of the HRS blog, then he has a comprehension problem
or is being dishonest.
Actually, I do not believe Mr. McNaa is the HRS blog author, since
he lacks the sense of humor the real author(s) display. Oh, to be such
a dour person!
> > 3. Readers, couldn't I have used this very same argument regarding
> > those whom I suspect as responsible for the HRS blog and conclude that
> > Mr. Sherman's demand for direct evidence as the only acceptable proof
> > was ridiculous in practical terms? Of course I could have. Would Mr.
> > Sherman have considered that argument acceptable had I used it?
> > Absolutely not, but as I have said before Mr. Sherman utterly refuses
> > to play by the same set of rules the he demands his adversary to play
> > by, but that should be apparent to all by now.
>
> The burden of proof lies upon the accuser, unless the accuser is THE
> GREAT MR. McNAA, IN WHICH CASE THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN
> INNOCENT.
>
> Nice double standard, Mr. McNaa.
>
> --> Readers, I refer you to #3 above. I told you that Tom's reason for
> not having to provide evidence, though valid for him would not be valid
> for me (read would b e contested). Remember what I said about Mr.
> Sherman not playing by the same set of rules. Mr. Sherman introduced
> the double standard here and this was not first time. This is an all
> too familiar bad habit of Mr. Sherman's that he needs to work on.
>
> > Allow me to reiterate. Mr. McNaa is amenable to having his
> > challenge drawn up so as to make it legal and binding to satisfy Mr.
> > Sherman's objection in that regards and to prove liquid assets
> > sufficient to cover the amount of the challenge. If Mr. Sherman can
> > prove that Mr. McNaa is the author of the HRS blog, Mr. Sherman will
> > be $100,000 richer. If Mr. McNaa cannot be proven to be the author
> > of the HRS blog, then Mr. McNaa will be $100,000 richer. Depending
> > upon Mr. Sherman's level of confidence or lack thereof, Mr. McNaa is
> > willing to adjust these stakes up or down accordingly. Will Mr.
> > Sherman accept? Of course not!!! Why???
>
> (As stated above) Mr. McNaa's challenge is based upon a false straw
> man premise. Presenting the challenge in this manner reveals much that
> is unpleasant about Mr. McNaa's debating tactics and character. No
> wonder certain former acquaintances no longer wish to associate with
> him.
>
> --> Nonsense followed by a gratuitous insult. Mr. McNaa first
> expressed a willingness to comply with Mr. Sherman's legality
> requirement. Then Mr. McNaa expressed a willingness to comply with
> Mr. Sherman's liquid assets requirement. Mr. Sherman had to find some
> way to weasel out of this (verb intentionally chosen to reflect the
> demeanor of my adversary). Mr. Sherman's failure to accept Mr.
> McNaa's challenge speaks volumes about his lack of character.
It says I am not stupid enough to place a bet over an issue a never
contested. See above.
To reiterate, since Mr. McNaa seems to have trouble comprehending
this; I NEVER CLAIMED Mr. McNAA WAS THE HRS BLOG AUTHOR, MERELY THAT
IT WAS HYPOTHETICALLY POSSIBLE FOR Mr. McNAA TO BE THE HRS BLOG
AUTHOR. Any mentally competent 1st grader can tell the difference
between the two statements.
Time to retire the straw man!
> Mr.
> Sherman asserts that my challenge somehow says something about Mr.
> McNamra's "character" and from this Mr. Sherman concludes, "No wonder
> blah, blah, blah...". Mr. Sherman should stick to what you know best
> ... the field of engineering, because logic is certainly is not his
> area of expertise....
Mr. McNaa bringing straw men into the argument is logical?
> Since Mr. Sherman raised the issue, I defy him to
> name names of these former acquaintances that no longer wish to
> associate with Mr. McNaa. One is Ed Gin and I'll not associate him
> so he doesn't even have the option of associating with me.
I will not reveal what has been told privately to me in a public forum.
To do so is a major breach of social etiquette (the reason I have
problems with a certain "Killer B").
> The numbers
> of those that will not associate with Ed Gin far outnumber the number
> of those who will not associate with me and Ed Gin has lost more
> friends in the past few years than I and all my friends combined will
> ever lose in a lifetime. The statistics speak for themselves. Besides
> those that will not associate with me are those with whom I am proud
> not to be associated. In the case of Ed Gin, I am ashamed to having
> ever been associated with him.
If I had the time and health to get in better riding shape, I would
show up to rides that involve Ed Gin on a regular (or semi-regular)
basis. Unless I am presented with definitive evidence that Ed Gin is
knowingly causing significant harm on an unwarranted basis (which has
not been the case) I will not change my position.
> Mr. McNaa has failed to challenge my real position, that it is
> THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE that he could be the author of the HRS blog.
> Please note that proving someone else to be the HRS blog author would
> not invalidate my argument, as it is base on THEORETICAL POSSIBLITY,
> not actual authorship (as Mr. McNaa's straw man falsely proclaims).
>
> --> I have previously demonstrated that this "straw man" challenge is
> just merely an exercise in mental masturbation and linguistic
> gymnastics, and nothing more.
This is Mr. McNaa's position/opinion. In no way does it justify Mr.
McNaa claiming the falsehood (straw man) that I said he was the HRS
blog author.
> I refer you to the following previous
> post ... Hypothetically speaking, Mr. Sherman could be a child
> molester. Whereas there is no proof to support the contention that Mr.
> Sherman is a child molester, there is also no proof to support the
> contention that he is not a child molester. Consequently, in the
> absence of such proof, it cannot be said with any degree of certainty
> that Mr. Sherman is not a child molester. In the interim, until Mr.
> Sherman can produce definitive proof that he is a not child molester,
> the possibility that Mr. Sherman is a child molester must be
> maintained. Does anyone see just how ridiculous Mr. Sherman's emulated
> hypothetical "logic" can become? Do I have any reason to believe that
> Mr. Sherman is a child molester? NO. I do not. I merely endeavored
> to demonstrate just how easy it is to employ Mr. Sherman's style of
> tedious, hypothetical reasoning to one's advantage regardless of how
> reasonable or fair it is to do so.
What does ease of employment or unlikelihood of actual possibility have
to do with logic?
Since repetition seems to be required in this discussion, Mr. McNaa
has failed to prove my contention that Mr. McNaa could
HYPOTHETICALLY be the HRS blog author non-logical.
> Please note the one very essential difference here. I did not
> challenge Mr. Sherman to disprove that he was not a child-molester and
> was gracious enough to indicate that I had no reason to assume that he
> was. He did not extend the same courtesy when he portrayed me to be a
> child-murdered.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
When did I portray Mr. McNaa being murdered as a child? If that was
the case, is he posting to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent from the
netherworld?
> What does this say of the man. I emphatically stated
> that I was merely demonstrating how Mr. Sherman employs his twisted
> logic in a debate. Remember what I said about this not being about
> right and wrong, but about winning. Now, back to Mr. Sherman's
> hypothesis. Readers ask yourself this question. If someone were to be
> proven to be the HRS blog author, at that juncture what relevance would
> Mr. Sherman's theoretical hypothesis have?
My hypothesis would still be logically consistent with the available
facts.
> What reason would I have to
> argue with him over a moot point and who among the readership would be
> the least bit interest in all this other than the one who's ego was at
> stake. I think someone has revealed something here about his basic
> insecurities.
Have I ever engaged in Usenet discussion before to great length? Online
debating is FUN! ;)
The question is why Mr. McNaa is pursuing this discussion, since
until he took it up; he had "no dog in the fight". The highly probable
answer, considering past history and behavior, is that Mr. McNaa
took the opportunity to vent at Ed Gin. I merely pointed out that this
was unwarranted based on the available evidence, at which point I
became the object of Mr. McNaa's personal attacks. What does this
say about Mr. McNaa?
> I have no intention to challenge Mr. Sherman's
> theoretical hypothesis.
...because it can not be challenged on a logical basis! ;)
> I challenged the validity of his reasoning
> process and I'll not entertain his theoretical nonsense any further.
> If he wants to continue play childish games, he'll have to find
> someone else for his entertainment.
Aw, Mr. McNaa no longer wants to play. :(
> > Because Mr. Sherman does not
> > like to lose and Mr. Sherman knows this to be a no win situation for
> > which he would have to pay dearly. Both his ego and his pocketbook
> > would suffer a loss. Mr. Sherman knows who the author is and he knows
> > who the major contributor is.
>
> The above is a lie, but is not surprising considering the source.
>
> --> Be more specific. Are saying you enjoy losing or you refuse to
> admit that it is a no win situation, or you don't know whose
> responsible?
No one has communicated to me that he/she/they/it are the author(s) of
the HRS blog. I have my suspicions, but unlike Mr. McNaa I will
avoid the possibility of naming the wrong person(s) in a public forum.
However, I am still suspicious of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee. ;)
> No one has admitted authorship to me. In fact, I have had no
> communication with those Mr. McNaa accuses of authoring the HRS blog
> since the time the blog came into existence (due to various constraints
> totally unrelated to anything being discussed here, and for the sake of
> openness, I expect that I will have contact with some or all of the
> parties Mr. McNaa accuses in the near future).
>
> --> Constraints? Sounds kinky! At the New Year's Eve party at Porky
> Gin's on Deming, you will of course come into contact with some or all
> of the parties I suspect as well as a few more that you have reason to
> suspect. I remind the readers about the old adage of judging someone
> by the company they keep. Need I comment any further about how this
> reflects upon Mr. Sherman?
Need I remind anyone of the company Jesus of Nazareth kept according to
the New Testament? While not considering myself comparable to the one
the Muslim's consider a Holy Prophet and the Christian's consider The
Messiah, could I not also be a positive influence?
I have learned to forgive others for their imperfections, and to note
their positive characteristics. It is too bad that Mr. McNaa
apparently has not been able to do the same. :(
> Time to retire the straw man, Mr. McNaa. He is rotting and his
> stench is settling on you.
>
> --> You first.
This is logically impossible, since I have not created any straw men
for this discussion.
> > Mr. McNaa could just as easily extend
> > this offer to Mr. Sherman to prove the innocence of those Mr. McNaa
> > suspects, but again Mr. Sherman would be in the same no win situation.
>
> Yes, it is a no win situation, which is why in all MORAL legal systems
> guilt has to be proved, not innocence. And why should Mr. McNaa
> extend this offer when he can not prove his own innocence (a near
> impossibility, it should be noted, even in the case that Mr. McNaa
> has no connection at all to the HRS blog).
>
> --> To provide you with the opportunity to prove that your right and
> take my money. Why else?
THE STRAW MAN REAPPEARS! I never claimed THAT Mr. McNaa WAS the HRS
blog author. (Sorry for the repetition, but Mr. McNaa seems to be
having trouble understanding what my argument was.)
> Mr. McNaa commenting on debating tactics is the pot calling the
> kettle black.
>
> --> Mr. Sherman commenting on debating tactics is the kettle calling
> the
> pot black.
>
> > If this were not a no win situation, wouldn't Mr. Sherman have excepted
> > Mr. McNaa's challenge to shut him up and take his money long ago
> > rather than offer excuses for why the challenge is unacceptable?
>
> Mr. McNaa presents something unreasonable as reasonable, which is
> similar to presenting a falsehood.
>
> --> And, Mr. Sherman desperately struggles to transform what is
> reasonable into something that is appears to be unreasonable and he
> talks of post and kettles? Nice little twist there Tom, but correct me
> if I'm wrong. Something is either true or it is false. How is
> something similar to a falsehood? You do like to play with concepts
> and with words. Keep at it and one day you might even get good at it.
>
> That straw man of Mr. McNaa's is getting very tired and smelly.
>
> --> Whatever.
Whatever, indeed.
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
| | |
Date: 20 Dec 2005 01:59:33
From: Mike Rice
Subject: Re: Debate over, but unclaimed money remains on the table
|
On 19 Dec 2005 17:45:44 -0800, "Johnny Sunset"
<sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote:
>>
>> --> Mr. Sherman is far better at standup than he is at logic.
>
>Nonsense. I excel at both. ;)
I thought you pulled off a great set the night they forced you to
follw Jerry Seinfeld at improv!
>
>> Please note the one very essential difference here. I did not
>> challenge Mr. Sherman to disprove that he was not a child-molester and
>> was gracious enough to indicate that I had no reason to assume that he
>> was. He did not extend the same courtesy when he portrayed me to be a
>> child-murdered.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>When did I portray Mr. McNaa being murdered as a child? If that was
>the case, is he posting to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent from the
>netherworld?
I knew things were getting spooky in here!
>
>Have I ever engaged in Usenet discussion before to great length? Online
>debating is FUN! ;)
Evidently!
>
>
>Aw, Mr. McNaa no longer wants to play. :(
Now that he's left his conversation with you ;-) he's breaking the
wall, appealing to the (mostly non-existant) readership. Kinda
strange.
>
>No one has communicated to me that he/she/they/it are the author(s) of
>the HRS blog. I have my suspicions, but unlike Mr. McNaa I will
>avoid the possibility of naming the wrong person(s) in a public forum.
>
>However, I am still suspicious of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee. ;)
I did hear that they wer not as impressed as I with that
aforementioned Improv set.
>
>Need I remind anyone of the company Jesus of Nazareth kept according to
>the New Testament? While not considering myself comparable to the one
>the Muslim's consider a Holy Prophet and the Christian's consider The
>Messiah, could I not also be a positive influence?
No way. I hear you ride one of those goofy bikes.
>
>I have learned to forgive others for their imperfections, and to note
>their positive characteristics. It is too bad that Mr. McNaa
>apparently has not been able to do the same. :(
>
>> Time to retire the straw man, Mr. McNaa. He is rotting and his
>> stench is settling on you.
>>
>> --> You first.
>
>This is logically impossible, since I have not created any straw men
>for this discussion.
Somebody's getting short-strawed here.
Indiana Mike
>>
>> That straw man of Mr. McNaa's is getting very tired and smelly.
>>
>> --> Whatever.
>
>Whatever, indeed.
|
| |
Date: 18 Dec 2005 22:34:19
From:
Subject: Re: Debate over, but unclaimed money remains on the table
|
McNaa should not call himself "poor" and imply he could not
afford a SBC DSL connection if that is not the case. It does reflect
poorly on his credibility.
-- > Readers, is this not an example of an idiom that is simply not
understood by an idiot? When I said ... poor Mr. McNaa has a
dial-up connection, was anyone except for Mr. Sherman so unperceptive
as to understand that to mean that Mr. McNaa was poverty-stricken
and could not afford and SBC DSL connection? Mr. Sherman is counting
on the reader not to have read Mr. McNaa's explanation of why he
neither has nor wants an SBC DLS connection. Mr. Sherman's
intentional deception reflects poorly on his credibility.
Mr. McNaa is creating so many straw men that one suspects he made
his fortune in scarecrow production.
-- > Mr. Sherman is far better at standup than he is at logic.
Mr. McNaa's $100,000 challenge is made in bad faith on a false
premise, and therefore is not worth the electrons used to display it.
-- > Mr. McNaa's $100,000 challenge was not made in good faith, then
there is no risk in accepting the challenge. The offer still stands.
> 3. Readers, couldn't I have used this very same argument regarding
> those whom I suspect as responsible for the HRS blog and conclude that
> Mr. Sherman's demand for direct evidence as the only acceptable proof
> was ridiculous in practical terms? Of course I could have. Would Mr.
> Sherman have considered that argument acceptable had I used it?
> Absolutely not, but as I have said before Mr. Sherman utterly refuses
> to play by the same set of rules the he demands his adversary to play
> by, but that should be apparent to all by now.
The burden of proof lies upon the accuser, unless the accuser is THE
GREAT MR. McNAA, IN WHICH CASE THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN
INNOCENT.
Nice double standard, Mr. McNaa.
-- > Readers, I refer you to #3 above. I told you that Tom's reason for
not having to provide evidence, though valid for him would not be valid
for me (read would b e contested). Remember what I said about Mr.
Sherman not playing by the same set of rules. Mr. Sherman introduced
the double standard here and this was not first time. This is an all
too familiar bad habit of Mr. Sherman's that he needs to work on.
> Allow me to reiterate. Mr. McNaa is amenable to having his
> challenge drawn up so as to make it legal and binding to satisfy Mr.
> Sherman's objection in that regards and to prove liquid assets
> sufficient to cover the amount of the challenge. If Mr. Sherman can
> prove that Mr. McNaa is the author of the HRS blog, Mr. Sherman will
> be $100,000 richer. If Mr. McNaa cannot be proven to be the author
> of the HRS blog, then Mr. McNaa will be $100,000 richer. Depending
> upon Mr. Sherman's level of confidence or lack thereof, Mr. McNaa is
> willing to adjust these stakes up or down accordingly. Will Mr.
> Sherman accept? Of course not!!! Why???
(As stated above) Mr. McNaa's challenge is based upon a false straw
man premise. Presenting the challenge in this manner reveals much that
is unpleasant about Mr. McNaa's debating tactics and character. No
wonder certain former acquaintances no longer wish to associate with
him.
-- > Nonsense followed by a gratuitous insult. Mr. McNaa first
expressed a willingness to comply with Mr. Sherman's legality
requirement. Then Mr. McNaa expressed a willingness to comply with
Mr. Sherman's liquid assets requirement. Mr. Sherman had to find some
way to weasel out of this (verb intentionally chosen to reflect the
demeanor of my adversary). Mr. Sherman's failure to accept Mr.
McNaa's challenge speaks volumes about his lack of character. Mr.
Sherman asserts that my challenge somehow says something about Mr.
McNamra's "character" and from this Mr. Sherman concludes, "No wonder
blah, blah, blah...". Mr. Sherman should stick to what you know best
... the field of engineering, because logic is certainly is not his
area of expertise. Since Mr. Sherman raised the issue, I defy him to
name names of these former acquaintances that no longer wish to
associate with Mr. McNaa. One is Ed Gin and I'll not associate him
so he doesn't even have the option of associating with me. The numbers
of those that will not associate with Ed Gin far outnumber the number
of those who will not associate with me and Ed Gin has lost more
friends in the past few years than I and all my friends combined will
ever lose in a lifetime. The statistics speak for themselves. Besides
those that will not associate with me are those with whom I am proud
not to be associated. In the case of Ed Gin, I am ashamed to having
ever been associated with him.
Mr. McNaa has failed to challenge my real position, that it is
THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE that he could be the author of the HRS blog.
Please note that proving someone else to be the HRS blog author would
not invalidate my argument, as it is base on THEORETICAL POSSIBLITY,
not actual authorship (as Mr. McNaa's straw man falsely proclaims).
-- > I have previously demonstrated that this "straw man" challenge is
just merely an exercise in mental masturbation and linguistic
gymnastics, and nothing more. I refer you to the following previous
post ... Hypothetically speaking, Mr. Sherman could be a child
molester. Whereas there is no proof to support the contention that Mr.
Sherman is a child molester, there is also no proof to support the
contention that he is not a child molester. Consequently, in the
absence of such proof, it cannot be said with any degree of certainty
that Mr. Sherman is not a child molester. In the interim, until Mr.
Sherman can produce definitive proof that he is a not child molester,
the possibility that Mr. Sherman is a child molester must be
maintained. Does anyone see just how ridiculous Mr. Sherman's emulated
hypothetical "logic" can become? Do I have any reason to believe that
Mr. Sherman is a child molester? NO. I do not. I merely endeavored
to demonstrate just how easy it is to employ Mr. Sherman's style of
tedious, hypothetical reasoning to one's advantage regardless of how
reasonable or fair it is to do so.
Please note the one very essential difference here. I did not
challenge Mr. Sherman to disprove that he was not a child-molester and
was gracious enough to indicate that I had no reason to assume that he
was. He did not extend the same courtesy when he portrayed me to be a
child-murdered. What does this say of the man. I emphatically stated
that I was merely demonstrating how Mr. Sherman employs his twisted
logic in a debate. Remember what I said about this not being about
right and wrong, but about winning. Now, back to Mr. Sherman's
hypothesis. Readers ask yourself this question. If someone were to be
proven to be the HRS blog author, at that juncture what relevance would
Mr. Sherman's theoretical hypothesis have? What reason would I have to
argue with him over a moot point and who among the readership would be
the least bit interest in all this other than the one who's ego was at
stake. I think someone has revealed something here about his basic
insecurities. I have no intention to challenge Mr. Sherman's
theoretical hypothesis. I challenged the validity of his reasoning
process and I'll not entertain his theoretical nonsense any further.
If he wants to continue play childish games, he'll have to find
someone else for his entertainment.
> Because Mr. Sherman does not
> like to lose and Mr. Sherman knows this to be a no win situation for
> which he would have to pay dearly. Both his ego and his pocketbook
> would suffer a loss. Mr. Sherman knows who the author is and he knows
> who the major contributor is.
The above is a lie, but is not surprising considering the source.
-- > Be more specific. Are saying you enjoy losing or you refuse to
admit that it is a no win situation, or you don't know whose
responsible?
No one has admitted authorship to me. In fact, I have had no
communication with those Mr. McNaa accuses of authoring the HRS blog
since the time the blog came into existence (due to various constraints
totally unrelated to anything being discussed here, and for the sake of
openness, I expect that I will have contact with some or all of the
parties Mr. McNaa accuses in the near future).
-- > Constraints? Sounds kinky! At the New Year's Eve party at Porky
Gin's on Deming, you will of course come into contact with some or all
of the parties I suspect as well as a few more that you have reason to
suspect. I remind the readers about the old adage of judging someone
by the company they keep. Need I comment any further about how this
reflects upon Mr. Sherman?
Time to retire the straw man, Mr. McNaa. He is rotting and his
stench is settling on you.
-- > You first.
> Mr. McNaa could just as easily extend
> this offer to Mr. Sherman to prove the innocence of those Mr. McNaa
> suspects, but again Mr. Sherman would be in the same no win situation.
Yes, it is a no win situation, which is why in all MORAL legal systems
guilt has to be proved, not innocence. And why should Mr. McNaa
extend this offer when he can not prove his own innocence (a near
impossibility, it should be noted, even in the case that Mr. McNaa
has no connection at all to the HRS blog).
-- > To provide you with the opportunity to prove that your right and
take my money. Why else?
Mr. McNaa commenting on debating tactics is the pot calling the
kettle black.
-- > Mr. Sherman commenting on debating tactics is the kettle calling
the
pot black.
> If this were not a no win situation, wouldn't Mr. Sherman have excepted
> Mr. McNaa's challenge to shut him up and take his money long ago
> rather than offer excuses for why the challenge is unacceptable?
Mr. McNaa presents something unreasonable as reasonable, which is
similar to presenting a falsehood.
-- > And, Mr. Sherman desperately struggles to transform what is
reasonable into something that is appears to be unreasonable and he
talks of post and kettles? Nice little twist there Tom, but correct me
if I'm wrong. Something is either true or it is false. How is
something similar to a falsehood? You do like to play with concepts
and with words. Keep at it and one day you might even get good at it.
That straw man of Mr. McNaa's is getting very tired and smelly.
-- > Whatever.
JimmyMac
|
| |
Date: 17 Dec 2005 14:42:24
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Debate over, but unclaimed money remains on the table
|
Jim McNaa <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Mr. Shermans asseverations:
>
> 1. Mr. McNaa has failed to convince that he could not have access to
> a
> Chicagoland SBC DSL account.
>
> 2. By his own admission, Mr. McNaa is "poor", so obviously he does
> not
> have $100,000.00 in liquid assets, so his offer is worthless (for this
> and other reasons previously discussed).
>
> 3. There are ten of thousands (or more) Chicagoland residences with SBC
> DSL service. It would take constant surveillance of Mr. McNaa to
> prove he was not using one of them, so his contention of showing proof
> is ridiculous in practical terms.
>
> Readership, each of these inane "Shermanisms" are completely without
> merit. I will address each one separately:
>
> 1. Readers, Mr. Sherman has failed to convince (read prove) that I have
> use of anyone's Chicagoland DSL account or that I have used any
> Chicagoland DSL account for nefarious purposes. I am under no
> obligation to defend myself. As the accuser, the burden to prove the
> plausibility this contention is Mr. Sheman's. Has not Mr. Sherman
> gone on record to state that he is proud to defend the innocent until
> proven guilty? Well that would be me, would it not? Defend me Mr.
> Sherman. It should come as no revelation that Mr. Sherman is a walking
> talking contradiction.
As anyone with a brain could see, I was NOT CLAIMING that Mr. McNaa
has a Chicagoland SBC DSL account, merely that obtaining access to such
an account would be within normal means are therefore it was
THEOTETICALLY POSSIBLE that Mr. McNaa could have access to such an
account. Mr. McNaa presents a "straw man" above by falsely claiming
something that is not true.
> 2. Readers, recognize this for what it is ... and unproven assumption
> stated by Mr. Sherman as though it were fact. Ask yourself ... were
> those quotation ks deliberately placed around "poor" or is this an
> example of an idiom that is simply not understood by an idiot? When I
> said ... poor Mr. McNaa has a dial-up connection, did anyone here
> understand that to mean that I was poverty stricken like the
> unperceptive Mr. Sherman? Mr. Sherman is apparently challenged by the
> vernacular. As a point of reference regarding my lack of liquid
> assets, I own my home (read no mortgage), own my car that I paid
> approximately $36,000 cash money for (read no loans ... no car
> payments), ride an upright and a recumbent that are worth in excess of
> $5000 and $3000 respectively, have a substantial amounts of money in
> passbook savings, certificates of deposit, stocks, savings bonds and
> precious metal collectible coins more than sufficient to cover the
> $100,000 challenge several times over. I have no liens or debts to
> contend with. What I don't have is Tom Sherman's acceptance of my
> challenge. Now Mr. Sherman will tell you that you only have my word on
> all this, but I am prepared to produce substantiating documentation to
> prove sufficient liquid assets and will gladly do so if and when Mr.
> Sherman accepts my challenge and puts his money where his mouth is.
Mr. McNaa should not call himself "poor" and imply he could not
afford a SBC DSL connection if that is not the case. It does reflect
poorly on his credibility.
Mr. McNaa produces a second straw man by claiming that I said he was
the HRS blog author when I said no such thing, as even an idiot could
understand. To restate the obvious, I stated that it was THEORETICALLY
POSSIBLE that Mr. McNaa was the HRS blog author. Mr. McNaa's
arguments to the contrary have not been convincing (as the resources
required to create the HRS blog are hardly exceptional).
Mr. McNaa is creating so many straw men that one suspects he made
his fortune in scarecrow production.
Mr. McNaa's $100,000 challenge is made in bad faith on a false
premise, and therefore is not worth the electrons used to display it.
I am seriously UNIMPRESSED. [yawn]
> 3. Readers, couldn't I have used this very same argument regarding
> those whom I suspect as responsible for the HRS blog and conclude that
> Mr. Sherman's demand for direct evidence as the only acceptable proof
> was ridiculous in practical terms? Of course I could have. Would Mr.
> Sherman have considered that argument acceptable had I used it?
> Absolutely not, but as I have said before Mr. Sherman utterly refuses
> to play by the same set of rules the he demands his adversary to play
> by, but that should be apparent to all by now.
The burden of proof lies upon the accuser, unless the accuser is THE
GREAT MR. McNAA, IN WHICH CASE THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN
INNOCENT.
Nice double standard, Mr. McNaa.
> Allow me to reiterate. Mr. McNaa is amenable to having his
> challenge drawn up so as to make it legal and binding to satisfy Mr.
> Sherman's objection in that regards and to prove liquid assets
> sufficient to cover the amount of the challenge. If Mr. Sherman can
> prove that Mr. McNaa is the author of the HRS blog, Mr. Sherman will
> be $100,000 richer. If Mr. McNaa cannot be proven to be the author
> of the HRS blog, then Mr. McNaa will be $100,000 richer. Depending
> upon Mr. Sherman's level of confidence or lack thereof, Mr. McNaa is
> willing to adjust these stakes up or down accordingly. Will Mr.
> Sherman accept? Of course not!!! Why???
(As stated above) Mr. McNaa's challenge is based upon a false straw
man premise. Presenting the challenge in this manner reveals much that
is unpleasant about Mr. McNaa's debating tactics and character. No
wonder certain former acquaintances no longer wish to associate with
him.
Mr. McNaa has failed to challenge my real position, that it is
THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE that he could be the author of the HRS blog.
Please note that proving someone else to be the HRS blog author would
not invalidate my argument, as it is base on THEORETICAL POSSIBLITY,
not actual authorship (as Mr. McNaa's straw man falsely proclaims).
> Because Mr. Sherman does not
> like to lose and Mr. Sherman knows this to be a no win situation for
> which he would have to pay dearly. Both his ego and his pocketbook
> would suffer a loss. Mr. Sherman knows who the author is and he knows
> who the major contributor is.
The above is a lie, but is not surprising considering the source.
No one has admitted authorship to me. In fact, I have had no
communication with those Mr. McNaa accuses of authoring the HRS blog
since the time the blog came into existence (due to various constraints
totally unrelated to anything being discussed here, and for the sake of
openness, I expect that I will have contact with some or all of the
parties Mr. McNaa accuses in the near future).
Time to retire the straw man, Mr. McNaa. He is rotting and his
stench is settling on you.
> Mr. McNaa could just as easily extend
> this offer to Mr. Sherman to prove the innocence of those Mr. McNaa
> suspects, but again Mr. Sherman would be in the same no win situation.
Yes, it is a no win situation, which is why in all MORAL legal systems
guilt has to be proved, not innocence. And why should Mr. McNaa
extend this offer when he can not prove his own innocence (a near
impossibility, it should be noted, even in the case that Mr. McNaa
has no connection at all to the HRS blog).
Mr. McNaa commenting on debating tactics is the pot calling the
kettle black.
> If this were not a no win situation, wouldn't Mr. Sherman have excepted
> Mr. McNaa's challenge to shut him up and take his money long ago
> rather than offer excuses for why the challenge is unacceptable?
Mr. McNaa presents something unreasonable as reasonable, which is
similar to presenting a falsehood.
That straw man of Mr. McNaa's is getting very tired and smelly.
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
|
