In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

bicycle-forum.net
Promoting biking discussion.

Main

Date: 15 Dec 2005 06:15:44
From:
Subject: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

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. It should
be obvious that Mr. Sherman and I are both tenacious and determined,
but I recognize that one of us had to be the least stubborn, exercise
sound judgment and adjourn this debate lest it persist ad infinitum.
Confident that Mr. Sherman would not be that person, I assumed the role
in this capacity. I am well aware that when Mr. Sherman outlasts (read
wears down) an opponent, he promptly declares himself the victor. Mr.
Sherman will undoubtedly again delude himself and assert that he was
triumphant over his adversary. Do not be misled by his charade.
Pretense and posturing should not be confused with victory.

What follows are my closing arguments and my parting thoughts. Please
note that in this debate, there have been two fundamental components
that are, without qualification, crucial for Mr. Sherman's mantra and
doctrine to be valid and prevail. With the failure of either, Mr.
Sherman's position in this debate crumbles into the ashes of obscurity.
Let's subject each of these two key elements to critical analysis.

-------------
Public Figure
-------------

Mr. Sherman defines a public figure from a moral perspective, which is
absurd. Morality has nothing to do with how a public figure is defined
where it matters ... in the courtroom. How do constitutional law
professionals and the Supreme Court define "public figures"? Public
figures are defined as those who by reason of the notoriety of their
achievements or the vigor and success with which they seek the public's
attention, or those who occupy positions of persuasive power and
influence, or those who have assumed roles of especial prominence in
the affairs of society and in the resolution of public questions, or
those who have thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public
controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues
involved, are classified as public figures under the First Amendment.

Those specifically targeted by the HRS bog do not fall into the
category of "public figures" as defined. It should be duly noted that
private individuals need only show that a defamatory falsehood was made
negligently (with reckless disregard as to its truth). Demonstration
of malice is not required. If someone believes that a defamation has
occurred through publication of a known falsehood, the victim can
initiate a civil action of libel against the offending party and
collect both compensatory and punitive damages. The bottom line is
that libel and libelous statements are beyond First Amendment
protection. Please note that nowhere do constitutional law
professionals or the Supreme Court include morality in the definition
of a public figure. The bottom line is that MR. SHERMAN IS WRONG! By
continually referring to those victimized by the HRS blog as "public
figures", Mr. Sherman exposes himself for what and who he is. MR.
SHERMAN IS ILLOGICAL!

-----------------------
Circumstantial Evidence
-----------------------

Mr. Sherman insists upon (read demands) what is known as direct
evidence. He subscribes to the misconception that circumstantial
evidence is insufficient in and of itself to establish adequate proof.
Mr. Sherman demands "proof" in a form, which he knows to be costly and
exceedingly difficult to obtain without transgressing the law and/or
without securing an attorney and a court order. He demands a higher
standard than required simply because, for Mr. Sherman, this debate was
not about right and wrong but about winning. As concerns
circumstantial evidence, Mr. Sherman would have you believe that one
cannot be considered guilty solely on the basis of circumstantial
evidence. Mr. Sherman is in error. That's right. MR. SHERMAN IS
WRONG! His insistence in this regard proves that MR. SHERMAN IS
ILLOGICAL!

Most criminal convictions are based on circumstantial evidence because
most criminals are careful not to generate any direct evidence during
the commission of a crime. Courts often rely on circumstantial
evidence to determine the facts of a case. The laws regarding
circumstantial evidence are complex and can vary by case, but this much
can be said. It is a popularly held belief (particularly by Mr.
Sherman) that direct evidence is more important than circumstantial
evidence; however, the two are equal in weight in the eyes of the law.
Some legal experts contend that circumstantial evidence can carry more
weight in a case than direct evidence. Criminal prosecutors often rely
heavily on circumstantial evidence to prove their case. Civil cases
are often based solely, or priily, on circumstantial evidence,
particularly in cases involving liability.

---------------------
Some Parting Thoughts
---------------------

Now that the debate has concluded, I can focus on tasks that are more
pleasurable, more rewarding and less wasteful of my time. In closing,
I would like to share a few words with Tom and the readership.

Tom, argumentation is, for you, little more than an exercise in mental
masturbation and linguistic gymnastics. Several times I referred to
you as "Teflon Tom" for a specific reason that I am convinced did not
escape your attention. You approach a debate as though it were a
sporting event, but not a contact sport like one played out on the
gridiron, but more like the non-contact sport of dodge ball where the
object of the game is evasion. In a debate you craft the rules of
engagement on the fly to suit your whims and fancy. You demand that
your adversary conform to your set of rules from which you exempt
yourself. Debate for you is more about form than function. You
attempt to frustrate your opponent by nitpicking writing proficiency,
and identifying grammatical errors, typos and misspellings of your
adversary as if you were not remiss in this regard. You deliberately
misconstrue that which your adversary intended when you are unable or
unwilling to counter or when you endeavor to divert the attention of
your opponent or the readership. I prefer engaging an adversary who
enters into the field of battle with the understanding that we play
fairly (by the same rules) knowing full well that you win some and you
lose some. You regard any concession as a sign of weakness rather than
one of recognition. Consequently, you are unwilling to concede
anything, twisting and distorting, rationalizing at every turn,
deluding yourself into believing that you have made your point even
when you've failed.

Tom, until I encountered you, I was unaware that anyone could stack
bullshit so high. Regardless of what you have said or will say in your
own feeble defense, as self-appointed spokesperson, your efforts for
vindication for the JAG alliance condemn you as a collaborator. Thanks
for making it clear to the ARBR readership just where you stand and
with whom. I no longer have the ambition, the forbearance, the
dedication or the time required to endure you, your specious reasoning
or your incoherent rhetoric.

Tom, nothing is nearly so dangerous as sincere ignorance coupled with
conscientious stupidity. You resemble those reks. You are an
obtuse, sanctimonious ARBR contaminant ... a pretentious windbag and a
master of subterfuge. You are arrogant, obstinate, pompous narcissist.
You are a myopic, incorrigible dunderhead. You are self-righteous and
filled with your own self-importance. You are an appalling waste of
raw material that would be of most benefit if recycled into the food
chain. I regret that I wasted so much time on someone so unworthy. At
this time, I would like to delegate the task of unscrewing the
inscrutable over to your archrival and nemesis ... Ed Dolan. Tom, here
is word of advice. The next time you are itching for a public fight,
it would prudent for you to select your adversary more judiciously.
Doing so will ensure a greater possibility of success and minimize the
probability of further embarrassment. Sorry to just, as you say, "cut
and run", but I take great joy in knowing just how much that infuriates
you.

Jim McNaa

Date: 26 Dec 2005 19:00:43
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

jimmymac_4@yahoo.com wrote:
> OK, so Mr. McNaa might not want me as an associate, but based on his
> past postings that attempt to discredit Ed Gin, he wants others to shun
> Ed Gin (unless everything Mr. McNaa posts about Ed Gin is a "load of
> bull" and the whole conflict between Jim McNaa and Ed Gin is just an
> Internet joke).
>
> --> The conclusion drawn does not logically follow form the premise.
> I've nothing at stake here. I've made up my mind and other are
> entitled to to the same.

We have all noted that Mr. McNaa made up his mind a long time ago.

> > I wouldn't have any of Ed
> > Gin's hand-me-downs, least of all someone who defends the man. If I am
> > frustrated at all, it is with your inability to comprehend rudimentary
> > concepts. In other words no matter how many times I repeat something
> > very simple, you seem unable to understand. Let me break it down for
> > you by the numbers:
>
> > 1. There is no popularity contest between Ed and me except in your
> > imagination. Have you got that now?
>
> Mr. McNaa's derogatory posts towards Ed Gin (if sincere) indicate a
> desire to discredit Ed Gin (and therefore deprive Ed Gin of "reputable"
> friends).
>
> --> Another conclusion drawn that does not logically follow from the
> premise. For someone who claims to know a lot about logic, you have
> lots yet to learn. I don't make insincere posts. I've post facts. It
> is not the posting that discredits, but rather the facts that are
> posted.

Mr. McNaa has been posting unproven ALLEGATIONS, not DEFINITIVELY
PROVEN FACTS.

> > 2. I have no compulsion to lure anyone away from Ed Gin. Have you got
> > that now?
>
> See above.
>
> --> You do that Mr. NON SEQUITOR!

While Mr. McNaa may or may not want to associate with any or Ed
Gin's current friends, his (Mr. McNaa) constant attacks on Ed Gin's
character indicate an effort on Mr. McNaa's part to deprive Ed Gin
of friends.

> > 3. I am proud not to be associated with Ed Gin. Have you got that now?
>
> Well, DUH!
>
> --> Bravo ... enlightenment, at last!
>
> > 4. I am proud not to be associated with some who are associated with Ed
> > Gin and that includes you. Have you got that now?
>
> The feeling is mutual.
>
> --> So then you are also proud not to be associated with some who are
> associated with Ed Gin and that includes yourself??? Interesting.
>
> See my other message about how we can avoid each
> other since we share relatively close geographical vicinity.
>
> --> Still waiting for the height, weight, eye and hair color.
>
> Mr. McNaa should consider moving to Worthington, Minnesota, so he
> could hang out with Ed Dolan - I am sure they would become best friends
> in no time.
>
> --> Mr. Sherman should consider becoming Ed Gin's "other woman".

[yawn]

What is it with the hatred of homosexuality (as indicated in the above
comment)?

Intelligent heterosexuals reach the condition of "straight but not
narrow" when they obtain enlightenment.

> > NOTE: Strange as this may seem. Ed Gin and I do have some friends in
> > common, but I also have some friends who will have nothing to do with
> > Ed Gin.
>
> --> I expected no comment since this doesn't quite fit Mr. Sherman's
> hypothesis.

What is there to comment on? Obviously Mr. McNaa is hoping those in
the first category with migrate to the second.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

Date: 27 Dec 2005 07:41:10
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

"Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1135652443.704620.67160@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> jimmymac_4@yahoo.com wrote:
[...]
>> --> Mr. Sherman should consider becoming Ed Gin's "other woman".
>
> [yawn]
>
> What is it with the hatred of homosexuality (as indicated in the above
> comment)?
>
> Intelligent heterosexuals reach the condition of "straight but not
> narrow" when they obtain enlightenment.

I thought I had heard the clarion call to Saint Edward the Great at this
point - and I was right!

Since all sex is revolting and disgusting, it goes with saying that homo sex
is beyond the pale. Mr. Perry Butler of Alexandria (Minnesota) is, like Mr.
Sherman, very tolerant of homos. But where is the disgust factor I want to
know? God, it is just so revolting as to turn the stomach. Excuse me for a
moment while I resort to the smallest room in my house to heave my guts.

We do not want ARBR to becomes a cesspool for homos, so let us resolve not
to discuss such things as ass and penis. Leave that to the Chicagoland
armada which is captained by Ed Gin. I refer to them as Ed Gin and
Associates, but just how they "associate" with one anther is an open
question. Maybe Mr. Sherman could tell us something about them without
revealing his own sexual inclination.

Everyone should be celibate like Saint Edward the Great. If you are engaged
in sex for any reason other than procreation, then you are sinful and are
going to go to Hell (Michigan). To have much toleration for homos makes you
suspect yourself. I urge intolerance upon all.

I realize it is not possible for most here on ARBR to be a Great Saint like
Saint Edward the Great, but you could at least try to be a Lessor Saint. Mr.
Sherman could maybe gain admittance to one of the minor orders if he would
take a few vows. Since he is already poverty stricken, he would just have to
work on obedience and chastity.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 27 Dec 2005 05:57:22
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

"Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1135652443.704620.67160@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> jimmymac_4@yahoo.com wrote:
[...]
I don't make insincere posts. I've post facts. It
>> is not the posting that discredits, but rather the facts that are
>> posted.

Ed Dolan is the main culprit on this newsgroup as far as I can see. He is
never sincere about anything, at least not as far as this newsgroup is
concerned. Furthermore, Ed Dolan has nothing but the greatest contempt for
facts. He flees from them as you would from the plague. After all, he does
not want to be confused by the facts like the rest of you are.

Ed Dolan is only concerned with attitudes and ideology, neither one of which
has anything to do with facts. That is why Mr. Sherman and Ed Dolan get
along so well. They are always arguing about different things and are seldom
even on the same subject together.
[...]

>> Mr. McNaa should consider moving to Worthington, Minnesota, so he
>> could hang out with Ed Dolan - I am sure they would become best friends
>> in no time.

Actually, Mr. McNaa and Ed Dolan have had a slight falling out. He is
still welcome to come to Worthington and we will go for a bike ride around
town. It may be that Ed Dolan could even go for a bike ride with Mr.
Sherman, but it would most likely be a much shorter bike ride. Mr. Sherman
would make a rek about the weather and Ed Dolan would have to disagree
with him on general principles - at which point they would once again be off
to the races.

On due reflection, it might be better for everyone to stay away from
Worthington, Minnesota, and leave the Great Ed Dolan to himself. I have it
on good authority that he is busy contemplating his navel and does not want
to be disturbed by anyone from a newsgroup, not even from one so honorable
as ARBR.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 21 Dec 2005 22:19:09
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

Edward Dolan, the Troll of Worthington, wrote:
> ...
> However, you surely do want to cut and run from Iraq, of that I have no
> doubt whatsoever. That is all liberals like you ever want to do. You don't
> want war and if you somehow find yourself in one, then you want peace! That
> is how liberals were for the Vietnam War and that is how they are now for
> the Iraq War. My disgust with them runneth over!

Note how Dolan brings a contentious off-topic subject (conquest of
Iraq) into the discussion with no provocation.

Saying the US "somehow" found itself involved in Iraq is one of the
most intentionally misleading statements I have seen in a long time. Or
is this parody on a greater scale than the HRS blog? [1]

[1] See <http://highracers.blogspot.com/ >.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
"fdlagjaesgtp4epsadvdsajvadsvadjvdxzjvodjvof
adsgvogjvoasjcaoivor6udfda0tvuojdxvosdotvfl" - Ed Dolan

Date: 22 Dec 2005 01:35:26
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

"Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1135232349.694361.147780@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Edward Dolan, the Troll of Worthington, wrote:
>> ...
>> However, you surely do want to cut and run from Iraq, of that I have no
>> doubt whatsoever. That is all liberals like you ever want to do. You
>> don't
>> want war and if you somehow find yourself in one, then you want peace!
>> That
>> is how liberals were for the Vietnam War and that is how they are now for
>> the Iraq War. My disgust with them runneth over!
>
> Note how Dolan brings a contentious off-topic subject (conquest of
> Iraq) into the discussion with no provocation.

Mr. Sherman gets off topic all the time with his responses to my messages
when he tries to deflect me with his childish sense of humor. However, Mr.
Sherman provokes me all the time by his mere presence on this group. But
when he defends arch criminal vandal trolls like Ed Gin he goes too far.
There are limits to what can be tolerated after all!

Would that we were into conquering the lesser breeds of the world, but
Americans are too pacifist for any such agenda. Mr. Sherman has us confused
with the Germans and the Russians of the past century who truly were into
conquest.

> Saying the US "somehow" found itself involved in Iraq is one of the
> most intentionally misleading statements I have seen in a long time. Or
> is this parody on a greater scale than the HRS blog? [1]

All the Dems voted to give President Bush whatever powers he deemed
necessary to combat the Islamic Terrorists. But now they want to cut and
run. This was the same scenario for the Vietnam War too. President Johnson
was given all the necessary power and then the Dems later decided to cut and
run. They have no staying power. They will get you into a war and then they
will want to cut and run when the going gets the least bit difficult.

It is entirely possible that both the Vietnam War and the Iraq War would not
have been necessary if we had not had weak kneed liberal Dems in charge of
defending this country. Kennedy bungled the Cuban affair and Clinton never
did do much about the Terrorists all the time he was in office. It is always
up to the Repubs to make up for the weakness and cowardice of the Dems.

It may be that an American city will have to go up in a nuclear blast before
liberals like Sherman get their final comeuppance. If and when that happens,
the Dems (liberal variety) will forever be as dead as the Dodo Bird. They
will not adequately defend this nation against its enemies. My contempt for
them is boundless! A wooden stake needs to be driven though their rotten
hearts in order to kill them once and for all.

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Date: 21 Dec 2005 21:04:34
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

Edward Dolan wrote:
> ...Like all liberals, he is a coward when confronted with true evil. He will cut and
> run like they all do.

Then why have I stuck around to argue with Ed Dolan? ;)

He shoots (ok, a cheap shot)!

He scores!

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
"fdlagjaesgtp4epsadvdsajvadsvadjvdxzjvodjvof
adsgvogjvoasjcaoivor6udfda0tvuojdxvosdotvfl" - Ed Dolan

Date: 21 Dec 2005 23:57:20
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

"Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1135227874.109743.198380@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> ...Like all liberals, he is a coward when confronted with true evil. He
>> will cut and
>> run like they all do.
>
> Then why have I stuck around to argue with Ed Dolan? ;)

You will not cut and run as long as I am being critical of you - and that
will most likely continue, especially if you continue to defend your good
buddy Ed Gin, the arch criminal vandal troll who murdered this newsgroup in
cold blood last winter.

However, you surely do want to cut and run from Iraq, of that I have no
doubt whatsoever. That is all liberals like you ever want to do. You don't
want war and if you somehow find yourself in one, then you want peace! That
is how liberals were for the Vietnam War and that is how they are now for
the Iraq War. My disgust with them runneth over!

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Date: 21 Dec 2005 20:18:09
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

magillagorillakk@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > h
> >
> > Hey Kevin,
> >
> > What up with the Photodex site wanting to download a plug-in to view
> > the pictures?
> >
> > I would have to disable my protection to view the pictures, which I am
> > rather hesitant to do.
> >
> > P.S. What happened to your "At the Edge of the Dumpster" blog?
> >
> > --
> > Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
>
> Tom,
>
> Are using Firefox? My new computer is in the shop and I am on a 5 year
> old computer.
> Firefox won't work but internet explorer lets you view the pics. I
> hardly think that this company is a threat to your computer. They make
> excellent photo software and have been very helpfull to me anyway.
> My new computer plays the site slideshows with Firefox. The old one
> needs IE.
> Anyway, I think its safe to loosen up the firewall or whatever you got
> running to view the site.

I have witnessed KK in the company of Monkeys, and everyone got along
fine.

The only ones with a real grudge are the upright pace line members that
wrongfully accused KK of leading them astray on the Harmon 100 a few
years back. I, at a slower pace than KK, missed a couple of turns and
had to backtrack. The food at the rest stops was well above average,
however.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

Date: 21 Dec 2005 20:13:19
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

jimmymac_4@yahoo.com wrote:
> Kevin,
>
> I should have also added that I was referring to Kurt Fischer bating
> you into a response that I would be interested in hearing since you
> were a more recent insider than me and I thought that you might be able
> to shed more light on all this. In naming names, you contradicted Tom
> Sheman's assertion that I am alone in whom I suspect with the exception
> of Ed Dolan or at least I am virtually alone in going on record
> publicly. There are numerous others whom I have talked to that spit
> out the same 3 names, but have not gone public.

The numerous others are to be commended on not posting public
ACCUSATIONS while LACKING DEFINITIVE PROOF.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

Date: 21 Dec 2005 22:50:57
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

"Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1135224798.930984.190490@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> jimmymac_4@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Kevin,
>>
>> I should have also added that I was referring to Kurt Fischer bating
>> you into a response that I would be interested in hearing since you
>> were a more recent insider than me and I thought that you might be able
>> to shed more light on all this. In naming names, you contradicted Tom
>> Sheman's assertion that I am alone in whom I suspect with the exception
>> of Ed Dolan or at least I am virtually alone in going on record
>> publicly. There are numerous others whom I have talked to that spit
>> out the same 3 names, but have not gone public.
>
> The numerous others are to be commended on not posting public
> ACCUSATIONS while LACKING DEFINITIVE PROOF.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

Here is the despicable Mr. Sherman again defending the scoundrel.
Circumstantial evidence is all that is required for this newsgroup. As such,
it is overwhelming and only a complete idiot would claim otherwise.

The criminal vandal troll who destroyed this newsgroup last winter was none
other than Ed Gin. Only Mr. Sherman says he is not sure. That is because he
is a good buddy of said miscreant and for reasons of his own does not want
to offend the scum bucket. He probably fears becoming a target himself. Like
all liberals, he is a coward when confronted with true evil. He will cut and
run like they all do.

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Date: 21 Dec 2005 20:08:39
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

jimmymac_4@yahoo.com wrote:
> KK-magillagorilla,
>
> Party?
>
> Where: 5024 W Deming Pl
> When 1/1/06
> Time: 10:00am
> Host: HEAD Gin
>
> Not invited MG? Crash the party ;^)

Mr. McNaa is, I believe, mistaken as to the location. I would not
want to see Kevin make a trip to Chicago (considering our traffic) for
no good reason.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

Date: 21 Dec 2005 20:05:24
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

Kurt Fischer wrote:
> Johnny Sunset <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > This storage container looks practical, but doesn't it add to the
> > already high center of gravity of the Anthrotech trike:
>
> Tom,
>
> No, I've never had any problems staying upright(pun intended) in turns.
> Though I have to confess I'm taking corners not as fast as Steve Beck.
> ;-)
>
> <http://www.a-v-d.com/MOVIES/windQT.mov>

Very few people make a combination similar to Steve Beck and No. 490.
:)

> On the other hand I'm convinced a delta trike is better suited for
> transporting heavy loads than a tadpole. The luggage placed quite low
> between the rear wheels doesn't influence much the handling of the
> trike.

If I were carrying heavy loads I would consider getting a SUV:
<http://www.organicengines.com/SUV/index.htm >.

> My first trike for riding in winter was a delta: a Radius(later Hoening)
> Trio:
> http://www.liegeradinfo.de/hoe_trio.jpg
>
> I didn't like the 16" front wheel and converted it to 20", big
> improvement. The seat height was even higher than on the Anthrotech,
> about 55 cm(ca 21") versus 43cm(ca 16"), but that caused no problems
> either. Of course you have to take the corners slowly and carefully.
>
> > Here in Chicagoland it is about -15C, and the salt/snow slush has
> > refrozen. A trike or studded tires are required for riding safely.
>
> I especially love riding my Anthrotech in winter because there is enough
> weight on the rear wheel so it won't spin easily uphill or on slippery
> surfaces and the seat is high enough for plowing through deeper snow up
> to 15-20cm (5-7").
>
> I suspect you love your dragonflyer too much for taking it out on the
> salty roads under these conditions?

Considering that my Dragonflyer is in excellent condition and not
readily replaceable, I do not want to subject it to road salt. A
velomobile with a composite body and sealed drivetrain would be much
more appropriate.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

Date: 21 Dec 2005 09:44:50
From:
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

Kevin,

I should have also added that I was referring to Kurt Fischer bating
you into a response that I would be interested in hearing since you
were a more recent insider than me and I thought that you might be able
to shed more light on all this. In naming names, you contradicted Tom
Sheman's assertion that I am alone in whom I suspect with the exception
of Ed Dolan or at least I am virtually alone in going on record
publicly. There are numerous others whom I have talked to that spit
out the same 3 names, but have not gone public.

JimmyMac

Date: 21 Dec 2005 09:07:09
From:
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

Johnny Sunset wrote:
> jimmymac_4@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Tom,
> >
> > Left my Script Sentry, WinPatrol, SpywareBlaster, AVG, ZoneAlarm all in
> > place. I disabled nothing to view the slide show, but uninstalled the
> > plug-in afterwards.
>
> While the required plug-in MAY be harmless, I make it a policy not to
> download executable files unless I know a lot more about them.
>
> There are plenty of websites with "slide shows" that do not require
> plug-ins.

-- > As a former member of a technical support virus response team,
security is high on my list of concerns. I viewed the slideshow with
no secutiy problems. Whereas I don't expect you to trust me, there is
no reason to suspect Kevin of pubicly inviting anyone to view a slide
show that requires a plug-in that MAY be harmful. From Add/Revoe
Programs, the plug-in is easily removed althogh it does leave behind a
couple of empty folders to manually delete ... no biggie.

JimmyMac

Date: 21 Dec 2005 05:12:24
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

Kurt Fischer wrote:
> Johnny Sunset <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Kurt Fischer wrote:
> > > ...
> > > I don't want to sound like Tom S...
> >
> > Kurt,
> >
> > Now I am insulted! ;)
>
> Sorry, Tom, no offense intended, of course. But you're singular and
> unique and I didn't want to look like a poor imitator of you. ;-)
>
>
> > I thought you were planning to do a cartoon of me:
>
> Yes, but IIRC I also wrote it wouldn't be easy. ;-)
> At the moment my brain is full of many new and glorious ideas I'd like
> to draw, but I don't have enough time at hands now. Perhaps when winter
> finally sets in and it's too cold to ride. We have more than 10 inches
> of snow already, but it's not really cold yet, just slightly below
> freezing.
>
> In case you are interested: here's the link to some pictures I shot
> recently on a tour to Salzburg on my Anthrotech trike:
>
> http://www.pixum.de/viewalbum/?id=1961695

Kurt,

This storage container looks practical, but doesn't it add to the
already high center of gravity of the Anthrotech trike:
<http://www.pixum.de/members/cartoonist/?act=a_view&album=1961695&i_pos=10&page=2&ktw=18dc8fced217a7557940bec02b3666e1 >?

Here in Chicagoland it is about -15C, and the salt/snow slush has
refrozen. A trike or studded tires are required for riding safely.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley (Chicagoland)

Date: 21 Dec 2005 15:28:58
From: Kurt Fischer
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

Johnny Sunset <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote:

> This storage container looks practical, but doesn't it add to the
> already high center of gravity of the Anthrotech trike:

Tom,

No, I've never had any problems staying upright(pun intended) in turns.
Though I have to confess I'm taking corners not as fast as Steve Beck.
;-)

<http://www.a-v-d.com/MOVIES/windQT.mov >

On the other hand I'm convinced a delta trike is better suited for
transporting heavy loads than a tadpole. The luggage placed quite low
between the rear wheels doesn't influence much the handling of the
trike.

My first trike for riding in winter was a delta: a Radius(later Hoening)
Trio:
http://www.liegeradinfo.de/hoe_trio.jpg

I didn't like the 16" front wheel and converted it to 20", big
improvement. The seat height was even higher than on the Anthrotech,
about 55 cm(ca 21") versus 43cm(ca 16"), but that caused no problems
either. Of course you have to take the corners slowly and carefully.

> Here in Chicagoland it is about -15C, and the salt/snow slush has
> refrozen. A trike or studded tires are required for riding safely.

I especially love riding my Anthrotech in winter because there is enough
weight on the rear wheel so it won't spin easily uphill or on slippery
surfaces and the seat is high enough for plowing through deeper snow up
to 15-20cm (5-7").

I suspect you love your dragonflyer too much for taking it out on the
salty roads under these conditions?

Regards,
Kurt

Date: 21 Dec 2005 05:03:30
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

jimmymac_4@yahoo.com wrote:
> Tom,
>
> Left my Script Sentry, WinPatrol, SpywareBlaster, AVG, ZoneAlarm all in
> place. I disabled nothing to view the slide show, but uninstalled the
> plug-in afterwards.

While the required plug-in MAY be harmless, I make it a policy not to
download executable files unless I know a lot more about them.

There are plenty of websites with "slide shows" that do not require
plug-ins.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

Date: 21 Dec 2005 00:00:43
From:
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

OK, so Mr. McNaa might not want me as an associate, but based on his
past postings that attempt to discredit Ed Gin, he wants others to shun
Ed Gin (unless everything Mr. McNaa posts about Ed Gin is a "load of
bull" and the whole conflict between Jim McNaa and Ed Gin is just an
Internet joke).

-- > The conclusion drawn does not logically follow form the premise.
I've nothing at stake here. I've made up my mind and other are
entitled to to the same.

> I wouldn't have any of Ed
> Gin's hand-me-downs, least of all someone who defends the man. If I am
> frustrated at all, it is with your inability to comprehend rudimentary
> concepts. In other words no matter how many times I repeat something
> very simple, you seem unable to understand. Let me break it down for
> you by the numbers:

> 1. There is no popularity contest between Ed and me except in your
> imagination. Have you got that now?

Mr. McNaa's derogatory posts towards Ed Gin (if sincere) indicate a
desire to discredit Ed Gin (and therefore deprive Ed Gin of "reputable"
friends).

-- > Another conclusion drawn that does not logically follow from the
premise. For someone who claims to know a lot about logic, you have
lots yet to learn. I don't make insincere posts. I've post facts. It
is not the posting that discredits, but rather the facts that are
posted.

> 2. I have no compulsion to lure anyone away from Ed Gin. Have you got
> that now?

See above.

-- > You do that Mr. NON SEQUITOR!

> 3. I am proud not to be associated with Ed Gin. Have you got that now?

Well, DUH!

-- > Bravo ... enlightenment, at last!

> 4. I am proud not to be associated with some who are associated with Ed
> Gin and that includes you. Have you got that now?

The feeling is mutual.

-- > So then you are also proud not to be associated with some who are
associated with Ed Gin and that includes yourself??? Interesting.

See my other message about how we can avoid each
other since we share relatively close geographical vicinity.

-- > Still waiting for the height, weight, eye and hair color.

Mr. McNaa should consider moving to Worthington, Minnesota, so he
could hang out with Ed Dolan - I am sure they would become best friends
in no time.

-- > Mr. Sherman should consider becoming Ed Gin's "other woman".

> NOTE: Strange as this may seem. Ed Gin and I do have some friends in
> common, but I also have some friends who will have nothing to do with
> Ed Gin.

-- > I expected no comment since this doesn't quite fit Mr. Sherman's
hypothesis.

JimmyMac

Date: 20 Dec 2005 23:34:03
From:
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

MG,

There are good and bad people everywhere. I suspect that MI was no
exception. Although it is satirical, the HRS blog I feel has gone
beyond parody and satire. Is it to be taken seriously? No. Has it
often been in very poor taste? Yes.

JimmyMac

Date: 21 Dec 2005 20:29:28
From: Kurt Fischer
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

<jimmymac_4@yahoo.com > wrote:

> There are good and bad people everywhere. I suspect that MI was no
> exception. Although it is satirical, the HRS blog I feel has gone
> beyond parody and satire.

I have to agree. In my opinion they've gone too far at least in two
aspects:

First by involving private people into their game and making publicly
fun of them. They actually made fun - in a very tasteless manner - of
persons who have nothing to do with the whole affair. That's not
acceptable and not legitimated by any standards of satire or parody you
may choose.

BTW: Tom gave us a clear statement that he also is not willing to excuse
or accept this behavior. This indicates to me, while he may have some
sympathy or understanding for (the intentions of) the authors and their
(often failed) attempts of humor, he's not completely blind to their
mistakes and bad habits.

Secondly they stepped far beyond tolerable satire by spamming several
newsgroups and forums (uk.rec.cycling, de.rec.fahrrad,
Liegeradforum,...) with numerous pointers to their blog. That's commonly
considered extremely bad behavior, especially when faked email addresses
are used. Lately these posts became a real nuisance in the above
mentioned groups and will cost the authors a good deal of sympathy.

Of course we don't know who really sent out all this spamming, that's
why I'd like to hear the statements of the other side too, especially
after Kevin has stepped forward and revealed his
knowledge/opinion/suspicion of the authorship of the blog.

Regards,
Kurt

Date: 21 Dec 2005 23:24:02
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

"Kurt Fischer" <Imogkoanspam@web.de > wrote in message
news:1h7xpnm.y0k6b01e0k1zgN@news.illustrarte.de...
> <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>> There are good and bad people everywhere. I suspect that MI was no
>> exception. Although it is satirical, the HRS blog I feel has gone
>> beyond parody and satire.
>
> I have to agree. In my opinion they've gone too far at least in two
> aspects:
>
> First by involving private people into their game and making publicly
> fun of them. They actually made fun - in a very tasteless manner - of
> persons who have nothing to do with the whole affair. That's not
> acceptable and not legitimated by any standards of satire or parody you
> may choose.
>
> BTW: Tom gave us a clear statement that he also is not willing to excuse
> or accept this behavior. This indicates to me, while he may have some
> sympathy or understanding for (the intentions of) the authors and their
> (often failed) attempts of humor, he's not completely blind to their
> mistakes and bad habits.
>
> Secondly they stepped far beyond tolerable satire by spamming several
> newsgroups and forums (uk.rec.cycling, de.rec.fahrrad,
> Liegeradforum,...) with numerous pointers to their blog. That's commonly
> considered extremely bad behavior, especially when faked email addresses
> are used. Lately these posts became a real nuisance in the above
> mentioned groups and will cost the authors a good deal of sympathy.
>
> Of course we don't know who really sent out all this spamming, that's
> why I'd like to hear the statements of the other side too, especially
> after Kevin has stepped forward and revealed his
> knowledge/opinion/suspicion of the authorship of the blog.
>
> Regards,
> Kurt

Mr. Sherman's defense of these blog scum bags borders on insanity. I think
Jim McNaa is quite right to lump him in with them. I was not prepared to
go that far myself, but his defense of them leads me to believe he has gone
over to the dark side.

I think what has happened is that his childish sense of humor has finally
betrayed him. Children lack taste when it comes to what is funny and what is
not finny. I could excuse Mr. Sherman his asinine sense of humor if he
weren't so adamant in defending them.

Kurt, Ed Gin not only uses faked email addresses, but he forges real names
and addresses too. How would you like it if messages began appearing on
this board looking for all the world as though they came from you, and full
of nothing but obscenities and vile language. I assure you, you would not
like it.

Ed Gin is a forger. He steals your identity. He is a criminal plain and
simple. What the hell else is there to know about him? Mr. Sherman thinks
this is all just good clean fun which does not make him much better than his
good buddy, Ed Gin.

Mr. Sherman is a dunderhead and until it happens to him he will not have a
clue. Yes, he has mildly mentioned that he does not think it is
"appropriate" for the bloggers to attack private individuals in the manner
that they do, but only you and I even noticed that slight disclaimer. What
we do notice is his continuing very strong defense of what they are doing
despite everything Jim McNaa has told us about them.

Why are we cutting Mr. Sherman any slack on any of this? He can either get
on the right side of these issues or he can go to Hell as far as I am
concerned. Who does he think he is anyway?

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Date: 20 Dec 2005 23:26:29
From:
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

MG,

Firefox should work. At least Photodex intalls plugins for it. Can't
say for sure though as I use IE to view the slideshow, although I
almost exclusively use Firefox. Oh yeah. You do have to grant access
from your firewall.

SUCCESS: Created "C:\Program Files\Photodex Presenter"
SUCCESS: Created "C:\WINDOWS\Application Data\Mozilla\Plugins"
SUCCESS: Created "C:\WINDOWS\Application Data\Netscape"
SUCCESS: Created "C:\WINDOWS\Application Data\Netscape\Plugins"
SUCCESS: Created "C:\Program Files\Photodex Presenter\uninst.exe"
SUCCESS: Created "C:\Program Files\Photodex Presenter\pxplay.exe"
SUCCESS: Created "C:\Program Files\Photodex Presenter\pxdown.exe"
SUCCESS: Created "C:\Program Files\Photodex Presenter\pxplay.ocx"
SUCCESS: Created "C:\Program Files\Photodex Presenter\ddt.dnt"
SUCCESS: Created "C:\Program Files\Photodex Presenter\about.px"
SUCCESS: Created "C:\Program Files\Photodex Presenter\accessdenied.px"
SUCCESS: Created "C:\Program Files\Photodex Presenter\buffering.px"
SUCCESS: Created "C:\Program Files\Photodex Presenter\complete.px"
SUCCESS: Created "C:\Program Files\Photodex Presenter\magic.px"
SUCCESS: Created "C:\Program Files\Photodex Presenter\intro.px"
SUCCESS: Created "C:\Program Files\Photodex Presenter\stalling.px"
SUCCESS: Created "C:\Program Files\Photodex
Presenter\streamnotfound.px"
SUCCESS: Created "C:\Program Files\Photodex Presenter\wrongversion.px"
SUCCESS: Created "C:\WINDOWS\Application
Data\Mozilla\Plugins\npPxPlay.dll"
SUCCESS: Created "C:\WINDOWS\Application
Data\Mozilla\Plugins\nsIPxPlay.xpt"
SUCCESS: Created "C:\WINDOWS\Application
Data\Netscape\Plugins\npPxPlay.dll"
SUCCESS: Created "C:\WINDOWS\Application
Data\Netscape\Plugins\nsIPxPlay.xpt"
SUCCESS: Installation completed

JimmyMac

Date: 20 Dec 2005 23:21:01
From:
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

Tom,

Left my Script Sentry, WinPatrol, SpywareBlaster, AVG, ZoneAlarm all in
place. I disabled nothing to view the slide show, but uninstalled the
plug-in afterwards.

JimmyMac

Date: 20 Dec 2005 23:20:48
From:
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

Tom,

Left my Script Sentry, WinPatrol, SpywareBlaster, AVG, ZoneAlarm all in
place. I disabled nothing to view the slide show, but uninstalled the
plug-in afterwards.

JimmyMac

Date: 20 Dec 2005 23:09:01
From:
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

MG,

Well, a couple of those who are targets are unamused and and I don't
think they'll be doing any more rides together. By the way have you
noticed you and me in a compromising position on the HRS blog?

JimmyMac

Date: 20 Dec 2005 23:01:59
From:
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

KK-magillagorilla,

Party?

Where: 5024 W Deming Pl
When 1/1/06
Time: 10:00am
Host: HEAD Gin

Not invited MG? Crash the party ;^)

Date: 20 Dec 2005 22:54:16
From:
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

Kev,

Sorry for the delay in responding. Tom Sherman has kept me busy and I
had some errands to run that kept me tied up the better part of the
day. I'm not sure where the misunderstanding came in, but I know you
have nothing to to with the HRS blog site. You dared name names tha
correspond to what I have been calling the JAG Alliance [Jayson (Seth),
Arial (Alan) and Gin (Ed)]. Tom Sherman wil be on you like stink on
shit. You know ... where's your difinitive proof to substantiate yout
accusations, etc., etc. etc.

I checked out your slide show. I just wish I didn't have to install a
plug-in and I sure was wishing that I had a broadband connection what
with the slide show being 30mb! that took a long time with a dialup
connection.

The conclusion that I came to was that those were different days back
20 months ago and times have changed since then.

JimmyMac

Date: 20 Dec 2005 22:03:34
From:
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

> > h
>
> Hey Kevin,
>
> What up with the Photodex site wanting to download a plug-in to view
> the pictures?
>
> I would have to disable my protection to view the pictures, which I am
> rather hesitant to do.
>
> P.S. What happened to your "At the Edge of the Dumpster" blog?
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

Tom,

Are using Firefox? My new computer is in the shop and I am on a 5 year
old computer.
Firefox won't work but internet explorer lets you view the pics. I
hardly think that this company is a threat to your computer. They make
excellent photo software and have been very helpfull to me anyway.
My new computer plays the site slideshows with Firefox. The old one
needs IE.
Anyway, I think its safe to loosen up the firewall or whatever you got
running to view the site.

MG

Date: 20 Dec 2005 03:35:50
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

magillagorillakk@hotmail.com wrote:
> ...
> There is the internet and then there is real life.
> I know that there is bad behavior on the internet but there are good
> people even from Monkey Island.
> The HRS blog is satire and should be considered as such.
> I own a Bacchetta Aero. Its fast. So what. The NoCom is fast so what!
> Again, real life and the internet are two different things....

Kevin,

It is good to hear that you are NOT actually living in a dumpster in
Milwaukee.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

Date: 20 Dec 2005 03:32:43
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

jimmymac_4@yahoo.com wrote:
> Why would you assume that I have any desire to turn you away from Ed
> Gin to my side? Don't flatter yourself. There is no possibility
> that I would ever be associated with you....

That is a relief! ;)

OK, so Mr. McNaa might not want me as an associate, but based on his
past postings that attempt to discredit Ed Gin, he wants others to shun
Ed Gin (unless everything Mr. McNaa posts about Ed Gin is a "load of
bull" and the whole conflict between Jim McNaa and Ed Gin is just an
Internet joke).

> I wouldn't have any of Ed
> Gin's hand-me-downs, least of all someone who defends the man. If I am
> frustrated at all, it is with your inability to comprehend rudimentary
> concepts. In other words no matter how many times I repeat something
> very simple, you seem unable to understand. Let me break it down for
> you by the numbers:
>
> 1. There is no popularity contest between Ed and me except in your
> imagination. Have you got that now?

Mr. McNaa's derogatory posts towards Ed Gin (if sincere) indicate a
desire to discredit Ed Gin (and therefore deprive Ed Gin of "reputable"
friends).

> 2. I have no compulsion to lure anyone away from Ed Gin. Have you got
> that now?

See above.

> 3. I am proud not to be associated with Ed Gin. Have you got that now?

Well, DUH!

> 4. I am proud not to be associated with some who are associated with Ed
> Gin and that includes you. Have you got that now?

The feeling is mutual. See my other message about how we can avoid each
other since we share relatively close geographical vicinity.

Mr. McNaa should consider moving to Worthington, Minnesota, so he
could hang out with Ed Dolan - I am sure they would become best friends
in no time.

> NOTE: Strange as this may seem. Ed Gin and I do have some friends in
> common, but I also have some friends who will have nothing to do with
> Ed Gin.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

Date: 21 Dec 2005 01:14:23
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

"Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1135078363.832015.41830@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[...]

Jim McNaa wrote:

>> 4. I am proud not to be associated with some who are associated with Ed
>> Gin and that includes you. Have you got that now?
>
> The feeling is mutual. See my other message about how we can avoid each
> other since we share relatively close geographical vicinity.
>
> Mr. McNaa should consider moving to Worthington, Minnesota, so he
> could hang out with Ed Dolan - I am sure they would become best friends
> in no time.

Jim McNaa is welcome to come to Worthington, Minnesota and visit with me
any time as I know him to be a scholar and a gentleman. Ed Gin on the other
hand is likely to get himself murdered if he comes anywhere near me. I have
dusted off the old shot gun just in case.

As for Tom Sherman, his defense of the indefensible means that he is also
not welcome to ever come near me. He can rot in the Fox River Valley for all
eternity and ride his confounded Sunset low racer with all his other low
racer scum buddies. He is nothing but a Monkey Islander himself at heart.

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Date: 20 Dec 2005 03:20:14
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

magillagorillakk@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Well,
> lets just say I was there when all of this shit went down.
> Take it or leave it. Did you view my slideshow? There is the truth.
> Everyone in real life getting along....

Even Ed Gin and Jim McNaa?

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

Date: 20 Dec 2005 03:17:20
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

Kurt Fischer wrote:
> ...
> I don't want to sound like Tom S...

Kurt,

Now I am insulted! ;)

I thought you were planning to do a cartoon of me:
<http://www.arur.de/liegerad-cartoons1.html?&tx_lzgallery_pi1[showUid]=77 >?

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

Date: 20 Dec 2005 14:00:17
From: Kurt Fischer
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

Johnny Sunset <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote:

> Kurt Fischer wrote:
> > ...
> > I don't want to sound like Tom S...
>
> Kurt,
>
> Now I am insulted! ;)

Sorry, Tom, no offense intended, of course. But you're singular and
unique and I didn't want to look like a poor imitator of you. ;-)

> I thought you were planning to do a cartoon of me:

Yes, but IIRC I also wrote it wouldn't be easy. ;-)
At the moment my brain is full of many new and glorious ideas I'd like
to draw, but I don't have enough time at hands now. Perhaps when winter
finally sets in and it's too cold to ride. We have more than 10 inches
of snow already, but it's not really cold yet, just slightly below
freezing.

In case you are interested: here's the link to some pictures I shot
recently on a tour to Salzburg on my Anthrotech trike:

http://www.pixum.de/viewalbum/?id=1961695

Greetings from snowy Bavaria
Kurt

Date: 20 Dec 2005 03:07:04
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

magillagorillakk@hotmail.com wrote:
> One more question.
> When is the party? And am I invited? I always was invited to the old MI
> parties even though I rode a dreaded high bike...
> The bike I am most proud of for '05 is my single speed mountain bike
> rescued from my dumpster.
> I will allow test rides of my dumpster dive bike....

Kevin,

The location of the party was posted "between the lines" so to speak on
this newsgroup.

As for your "dreaded high bike", you must be blessed with better
balance and coordination than I have, since I only felt ginally in
control the one time I briefly road your Aerocycle (but then, I am
below average in these areas). Maybe it is just my fear of heights!
>From experience I can say falling over on a Sunset is better than
falling over on a Rocket which is better than falling over on an
upright. :(

Nothing wrong with highracers (even Bacchetta) or uprights for riders
that find them suitable (but please don't tell anyone I said that). ;)

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

Date: 20 Dec 2005 02:58:48
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

magillagorillakk@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On 11-12-04, in the "Curious -- Why Do You Continue To Stay With ARBR"
> > thread, in reference to flame wars, you wrote ... sometimes it can even
> > be fun to be a part of this absurdity. A little mud-wrestling now and
> > then cleans heart and soul, that's especially important when it's
> > winter and we can't go outside to ride enough.
> >
> > Well, it's winter again (not officially, but...) and surely the threads
> > surrounding the HRS blog are among the more absurd to have surfaced
> > since the Johnny NoCom ones, so I guess you decided to join the
> > cyber-mud wrestling and baited Kevin in the process. Whereas you know
> > that I have a different take on this than you, I would be interesting
> > to hear what Kevin has to say. Yo, Kevin you listenin'?
> >
> > JimmyMac
>
> JM,
>
> I can assure you that I have nothing to do with this BLOG site. But I
> have to admit some of it is dam funny!
> Ed Gin, AA and Seth are its authors.
> Check out my slide show of Monkey Island of spring of '04 and come to
> your own conclusion. This was the zeineth of MI as a group. The biggest
> turnout to see team Bacchetta. Fact.
>
> www.photodex.com
>
> scroll over to online sharing
>
> type in kkaero
>
> Make up your own mind.
> The HRS blog owners are on this slideshow.

Hey Kevin,

What up with the Photodex site wanting to download a plug-in to view
the pictures?

I would have to disable my protection to view the pictures, which I am
rather hesitant to do.

P.S. What happened to your "At the Edge of the Dumpster" blog?

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

Date: 20 Dec 2005 01:44:16
From:
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

Kurt Fischer wrote:
> <magillagorillakk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > I can assure you that I have nothing to do with this BLOG site. But I
> > have to admit some of it is dam funny!
> > Ed Gin, AA and Seth are its authors.
>
> MG,
>
> How can you know? Is this a fact or only a suspicion?
>
> I don't want to sound like Tom S., but if it's a fact: Where are the
> proofs? Please give us at least some circumstantial evidences
> indicating the authorship of the above mentioned persons.
>
> BTW: How would you read the following sentence, which is part of the
> disclaimer on the HRS blog:
>
> "I tell the parody truth and nothing but the foking parody truth about
> highracers. [...]"
>
> In my opinion this stands for: "Don't take me seriously, I'm telling
> nonsense and nothing else."
>
> Don't you think so, too?
>
> Regards,
> Kurt

Well,
lets just say I was there when all of this shit went down.
Take it or leave it. Did you view my slideshow? There is the truth.
Everyone in real life getting along.
HRS is not real. It is satire. Only a moron would take it seriously.
I think that we have an unemployed graphics designer at work here in
between jobs.
But who can tell? Lots of creative writting too.

MG

Date: 20 Dec 2005 14:49:55
From: Kurt Fischer
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

<magillagorillakk@hotmail.com > wrote:

> Kurt Fischer wrote:

> > How can you know? Is this a fact or only a suspicion?

> Well,
> lets just say I was there when all of this shit went down.

Okay, at least I was right in my assumption that you have the right
connections. ;-)

> Take it or leave it. Did you view my slideshow? There is the truth.
> Everyone in real life getting along.

Unfortunately I cannot view the pictures, probably due to my old Mac,
but I never doubted that most of the guys could get along very well,
even after throwing "monkey poo" on each other via the net.

But considering the reactions over at BROL, it seems to me there are
some - if not many - who take this affair very seriously.

> HRS is not real. It is satire. Only a moron would take it seriously.
> I think that we have an unemployed graphics designer at work here in
> between jobs.

Yes, as I already wrote: Good, creative work, but very bad taste. ;-)

> But who can tell? Lots of creative writting too.

Do you think the owners of the HRS blog do the writing personally or did
they "hire" creative writers?

Regards,
Kurt

Date: 20 Dec 2005 00:12:57
From:
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

jimmymac_4@yahoo.com wrote:
> Why would you assume that I have any desire to turn you away from Ed
> Gin to my side? Don't flatter yourself. There is no possibility
> that I would ever be associated with you. I wouldn't have any of Ed
> Gin's hand-me-downs, least of all someone who defends the man. If I am
> frustrated at all, it is with your inability to comprehend rudimentary
> concepts. In other words no matter how many times I repeat something
> very simple, you seem unable to understand. Let me break it down for
> you by the numbers:
>
> 1. There is no popularity contest between Ed and me except in your
> imagination. Have you got that now?
> 2. I have no compulsion to lure anyone away from Ed Gin. Have you got
> that now?
> 3. I am proud not to be associated with Ed Gin. Have you got that now?
> 4. I am proud not to be associated with some who are associated with Ed
> Gin and that includes you. Have you got that now?
>
> NOTE: Strange as this may seem. Ed Gin and I do have some friends in
> common, but I also have some friends who will have nothing to do with
> Ed Gin.
>
> JimmyMac

JimmyMac,

Did you look at my slide show?
There is the internet and then there is real life.
I know that there is bad behavior on the internet but there are good
people even from Monkey Island.
The HRS blog is satire and should be considered as such.
I own a Bacchetta Aero. Its fast. So what. The NoCom is fast so what!
Again, real life and the internet are two different things.
Just an opine....

MG

Date: 20 Dec 2005 03:09:04
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

<magillagorillakk@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1135066377.849703.211670@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> jimmymac_4@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Why would you assume that I have any desire to turn you away from Ed
>> Gin to my side? Don't flatter yourself. There is no possibility
>> that I would ever be associated with you. I wouldn't have any of Ed
>> Gin's hand-me-downs, least of all someone who defends the man. If I am
>> frustrated at all, it is with your inability to comprehend rudimentary
>> concepts. In other words no matter how many times I repeat something
>> very simple, you seem unable to understand. Let me break it down for
>> you by the numbers:
>>
>> 1. There is no popularity contest between Ed and me except in your
>> imagination. Have you got that now?
>> 2. I have no compulsion to lure anyone away from Ed Gin. Have you got
>> that now?
>> 3. I am proud not to be associated with Ed Gin. Have you got that now?
>> 4. I am proud not to be associated with some who are associated with Ed
>> Gin and that includes you. Have you got that now?
>>
>> NOTE: Strange as this may seem. Ed Gin and I do have some friends in
>> common, but I also have some friends who will have nothing to do with
>> Ed Gin.
>>
>> JimmyMac
>
>
> JimmyMac,
>
> Did you look at my slide show?
> There is the internet and then there is real life.
> I know that there is bad behavior on the internet but there are good
> people even from Monkey Island.
> The HRS blog is satire and should be considered as such.
> I own a Bacchetta Aero. Its fast. So what. The NoCom is fast so what!
> Again, real life and the internet are two different things.
> Just an opine....
>
> MG

Maybe so, but have a look at last winter's postings by Ed Gin on this group.
I refer you to last Feb. I think he uses every dirty trick in the book. Does
this not speak volumes about his character?

I am not exactly who I pretend to be on this group either, but I do not go
180 degrees away from true self. I use my real name and I stand behind
everything I have ever said. I think Tom Sherman and most others here are
not bad characters at all. We all of us put on a bit of an act when we post
to ARBR. But Ed Gin falls into a different category. He seems evil and/or
crazy to me.

Yes, real life and the Internet are not the same thing, but they are surely
connected.

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Date: 19 Dec 2005 23:58:38
From:
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

Why would you assume that I have any desire to turn you away from Ed
Gin to my side? Don't flatter yourself. There is no possibility
that I would ever be associated with you. I wouldn't have any of Ed
Gin's hand-me-downs, least of all someone who defends the man. If I am
frustrated at all, it is with your inability to comprehend rudimentary
concepts. In other words no matter how many times I repeat something
very simple, you seem unable to understand. Let me break it down for
you by the numbers:

1. There is no popularity contest between Ed and me except in your
imagination. Have you got that now?
2. I have no compulsion to lure anyone away from Ed Gin. Have you got
that now?
3. I am proud not to be associated with Ed Gin. Have you got that now?
4. I am proud not to be associated with some who are associated with Ed
Gin and that includes you. Have you got that now?

NOTE: Strange as this may seem. Ed Gin and I do have some friends in
common, but I also have some friends who will have nothing to do with
Ed Gin.

JimmyMac

Date: 19 Dec 2005 23:52:00
From:
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

One more question.
When is the party? And am I invited? I always was invited to the old MI
parties even though I rode a dreaded high bike...
The bike I am most proud of for '05 is my single speed mountain bike
rescued from my dumpster.
I will allow test rides of my dumpster dive bike....

MG

Date: 19 Dec 2005 23:32:55
From:
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

> On 11-12-04, in the "Curious -- Why Do You Continue To Stay With ARBR"
> thread, in reference to flame wars, you wrote ... sometimes it can even
> be fun to be a part of this absurdity. A little mud-wrestling now and
> then cleans heart and soul, that's especially important when it's
> winter and we can't go outside to ride enough.
>
> Well, it's winter again (not officially, but...) and surely the threads
> surrounding the HRS blog are among the more absurd to have surfaced
> since the Johnny NoCom ones, so I guess you decided to join the
> cyber-mud wrestling and baited Kevin in the process. Whereas you know
> that I have a different take on this than you, I would be interesting
> to hear what Kevin has to say. Yo, Kevin you listenin'?
>
> JimmyMac

JM,

I can assure you that I have nothing to do with this BLOG site. But I
have to admit some of it is dam funny!
Ed Gin, AA and Seth are its authors.
Check out my slide show of Monkey Island of spring of '04 and come to
your own conclusion. This was the zeineth of MI as a group. The biggest
turnout to see team Bacchetta. Fact.

www.photodex.com

scroll over to online sharing

type in kkaero

Make up your own mind.
The HRS blog owners are on this slideshow.

MG

Date: 20 Dec 2005 10:32:44
From: Kurt Fischer
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

<magillagorillakk@hotmail.com > wrote:

> I can assure you that I have nothing to do with this BLOG site. But I
> have to admit some of it is dam funny!
> Ed Gin, AA and Seth are its authors.

MG,

How can you know? Is this a fact or only a suspicion?

I don't want to sound like Tom S., but if it's a fact: Where are the
proofs? Please give us at least some circumstantial evidences
indicating the authorship of the above mentioned persons.

BTW: How would you read the following sentence, which is part of the
disclaimer on the HRS blog:

"I tell the parody truth and nothing but the foking parody truth about
highracers. [...]"

In my opinion this stands for: "Don't take me seriously, I'm telling
nonsense and nothing else."

Don't you think so, too?

Regards,
Kurt

Date: 20 Dec 2005 04:30:10
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

"Kurt Fischer" <Imogkoanspam@web.de > wrote in message
news:1h7v58f.1sb4rmxqd6122N@news.illustrarte.de...
[...]
> "I tell the parody truth and nothing but the foking parody truth about
> highracers. [...]"
>
> In my opinion this stands for: "Don't take me seriously, I'm telling
> nonsense and nothing else."
>
> Don't you think so, too?
>
> Regards,
> Kurt

Well, here is how I read it:

"I tell the parody truth and nothing but the fucking parody truth about
highracers."

After it sinks in a bit, I re-read it like so:

"Fuck you and fuck you too!"

I think that is how most folks read it who are not desperately searching for
parody. The morons who write this kind of crap are just that - morons!

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Date: 19 Dec 2005 22:18:58
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

Date: 19 Dec 2005 22:12:43
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

jimmymac_4@yahoo.com wrote:
> Tom Sherman struggled to scribble ... Mr. McNaa either has the most
> "final words" in the known universe, or he is going back on his
> statement that he is quitting the
> discussion.
>
> Mr. Sherman doesn't understand that a person is entitled to change
> their mind or to do what they intend to do on their own terms and in
> their own good time. Is this not such a rudimentary concept that its
> misunderstanding is incomprehensible and even laughable? Perhaps if it
> is repeated a few more times it will sink in...
>
> I'lll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory insults
> from someone whose opinion matters not. I will leave this discussion
> when I see fit and will leave on my own terms. Although this is an
> elementary concept, I will repeat this as many times as necessary for
> your poor powers of perception to be overcome.
>
> I'll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory insults
> from someone whose opinion matters not. I will leave this discussion
> when I see fit and will leave on my own terms. Although this is an
> elementary concept, I will repeat this as many times as necessary for
> your poor powers of perception to be overcome.
>
> I'll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory insults
> from someone whose opinion matters not. I will leave this discussion
> when I see fit and will leave on my own terms. Although this is an
> elementary concept, I will repeat this as many times as necessary for
> your poor powers of perception to be overcome.
>
> I'll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory insults
> from someone whose opinion matters not. I will leave this discussion
> when I see fit and will leave on my own terms. Although this is an
> elementary concept, I will repeat this as many times as necessary for
> your poor powers of perception to be overcome.
>
> I'll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory insults
> from someone whose opinion matters not. I will leave this discussion
> when I see fit and will leave on my own terms. Although this is an
> elementary concept, I will repeat this as many times as necessary for
> your poor powers of perception to be overcome.
>
> I'll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory insults
> from someone whose opinion matters not. I will leave this discussion
> when I see fit and will leave on my own terms. Although this is an
> elementary concept, I will repeat this as many times as necessary for
> your poor powers of perception to be overcome.
>
> I'll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory insults
> from someone whose opinion matters not. I will leave this discussion
> when I see fit and will leave on my own terms. Although this is an
> elementary concept, I will repeat this as many times as necessary for
> your poor powers of perception to be overcome.
>
> I'll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory insults
> from someone whose opinion matters not. I will leave this discussion
> when I see fit and will leave on my own terms. Although this is an
> elementary concept, I will repeat this as many times as necessary for
> your poor powers of perception to be overcome.
>
> I'll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory insults
> from someone whose opinion matters not. I will leave this discussion
> when I see fit and will leave on my own terms. Although this is an
> elementary concept, I will repeat this as many times as necessary for
> your poor powers of perception to be overcome.
>
> I'll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory insults
> from someone whose opinion matters not. I will leave this discussion
> when I see fit and will leave on my own terms. Although this is an
> elementary concept, I will repeat this as many times as necessary for
> your poor powers of perception to be overcome.
>
> Is 10 a sufficient number of times?
>
> JimmyMac
>
> P.S. Multiple post are deliberate ... not operator error. This is
> purely for Mr Sherman's' benefit.

Hey JimmyMac,

Getting frustrated because you can not turn me away from Ed Gin and to
your side? ;)

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

Date: 19 Dec 2005 22:11:23
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

jimmyma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Tom Sherman struggled to scribble ... Mr. McNaa either has the most
> "final words" in the known universe, or he is going back on his
> statement that he is quitting the
> discussion.
>
> Mr. Sherman doesn't understand that a person is entitled to change
> their mind or to do what they intend to do on their own terms and in
> their own good time. Is this not such a rudimentary concept that its
> misunderstanding is incomprehensible and even laughable? Perhaps if it
> is repeated a few more times it will sink in...
>
> I'lll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory insults
> from someone whose opinion matters not. I will leave this discussion
> when I see fit and will leave on my own terms. Although this is an
> elementary concept, I will repeat this as many times as necessary for
> your poor powers of perception to be overcome.
>
> I'll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory insults
> from someone whose opinion matters not. I will leave this discussion
> when I see fit and will leave on my own terms. Although this is an
> elementary concept, I will repeat this as many times as necessary for
> your poor powers of perception to be overcome.
>
> I'll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory insults
> from someone whose opinion matters not. I will leave this discussion
> when I see fit and will leave on my own terms. Although this is an
> elementary concept, I will repeat this as many times as necessary for
> your poor powers of perception to be overcome.
>
> I'll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory insults
> from someone whose opinion matters not. I will leave this discussion
> when I see fit and will leave on my own terms. Although this is an
> elementary concept, I will repeat this as many times as necessary for
> your poor powers of perception to be overcome.
>
> I'll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory insults
> from someone whose opinion matters not. I will leave this discussion
> when I see fit and will leave on my own terms. Although this is an
> elementary concept, I will repeat this as many times as necessary for
> your poor powers of perception to be overcome.
>
> I'll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory insults
> from someone whose opinion matters not. I will leave this discussion
> when I see fit and will leave on my own terms. Although this is an
> elementary concept, I will repeat this as many times as necessary for
> your poor powers of perception to be overcome.
>
> I'll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory insults
> from someone whose opinion matters not. I will leave this discussion
> when I see fit and will leave on my own terms. Although this is an
> elementary concept, I will repeat this as many times as necessary for
> your poor powers of perception to be overcome.
>
> I'll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory insults
> from someone whose opinion matters not. I will leave this discussion
> when I see fit and will leave on my own terms. Although this is an
> elementary concept, I will repeat this as many times as necessary for
> your poor powers of perception to be overcome.
>
> I'll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory insults
> from someone whose opinion matters not. I will leave this discussion
> when I see fit and will leave on my own terms. Although this is an
> elementary concept, I will repeat this as many times as necessary for
> your poor powers of perception to be overcome.
>
> I'll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory insults
> from someone whose opinion matters not. I will leave this discussion
> when I see fit and will leave on my own terms. Although this is an
> elementary concept, I will repeat this as many times as necessary for
> your poor powers of perception to be overcome.
>
> Is 10 a sufficient number of times?
>
> JimmyMac
>
> P.S. Multiple post are deliberate ... not operator error. This is
> purely for Mr Sherman's' benefit.

Yo JimmyMac,

Now you are being as childish as Ed Dolan in a snit. ;)

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

Date: 20 Dec 2005 02:32:58
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

"Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1135059083.551431.45250@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[...]
> Now you are being as childish as Ed Dolan in a snit. ;)
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

Mr. Sherman would like me to rescue him from all of this, but I'll not do
it. After all, Jim is just doing to you what your good buddy Ed Gin to the
group last winter. The difference is that Ed Gin did it on all the threads
and for a prolonged period of time. That is what killed the newsgroup in
case you are interested.

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Date: 19 Dec 2005 22:09:43
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

Edward Dolan wrote:
> ...
> Have you not made reference to a boyhood spent in Wisconsin? Yes, I know
> about tiny Denk. So, you were born there and then your parents came to
> America (Wisconsin)? The newsgroup needs to know!

I was raised in the forest by wolves. ;)

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

Date: 19 Dec 2005 22:06:47
From:
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

Tom Sherman struggled to scribble ... Mr. McNaa either has the most
"final words" in the known universe, or he is going back on his
statement that he is quitting the
discussion.

Mr. Sherman doesn't understand that a person is entitled to change
their mind or to do what they intend to do on their own terms and in
their own good time. Is this not such a rudimentary concept that its
misunderstanding is incomprehensible and even laughable? Perhaps if it
is repeated a few more times it will sink in...

I'lll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory insults
from someone whose opinion matters not. I will leave this discussion
when I see fit and will leave on my own terms. Although this is an
elementary concept, I will repeat this as many times as necessary for
your poor powers of perception to be overcome.

I'll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory insults
from someone whose opinion matters not. I will leave this discussion
when I see fit and will leave on my own terms. Although this is an
elementary concept, I will repeat this as many times as necessary for
your poor powers of perception to be overcome.

I'll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory insults
from someone whose opinion matters not. I will leave this discussion
when I see fit and will leave on my own terms. Although this is an
elementary concept, I will repeat this as many times as necessary for
your poor powers of perception to be overcome.

I'll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory insults
from someone whose opinion matters not. I will leave this discussion
when I see fit and will leave on my own terms. Although this is an
elementary concept, I will repeat this as many times as necessary for
your poor powers of perception to be overcome.

I'll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory insults
from someone whose opinion matters not. I will leave this discussion
when I see fit and will leave on my own terms. Although this is an
elementary concept, I will repeat this as many times as necessary for
your poor powers of perception to be overcome.

I'll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory insults
from someone whose opinion matters not. I will leave this discussion
when I see fit and will leave on my own terms. Although this is an
elementary concept, I will repeat this as many times as necessary for
your poor powers of perception to be overcome.

I'll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory insults
from someone whose opinion matters not. I will leave this discussion
when I see fit and will leave on my own terms. Although this is an
elementary concept, I will repeat this as many times as necessary for
your poor powers of perception to be overcome.

I'll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory insults
from someone whose opinion matters not. I will leave this discussion
when I see fit and will leave on my own terms. Although this is an
elementary concept, I will repeat this as many times as necessary for
your poor powers of perception to be overcome.

I'll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory insults
from someone whose opinion matters not. I will leave this discussion
when I see fit and will leave on my own terms. Although this is an
elementary concept, I will repeat this as many times as necessary for
your poor powers of perception to be overcome.

I'll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory insults
from someone whose opinion matters not. I will leave this discussion
when I see fit and will leave on my own terms. Although this is an
elementary concept, I will repeat this as many times as necessary for
your poor powers of perception to be overcome.

Is 10 a sufficient number of times?

JimmyMac

P.S. Multiple post are deliberate ... not operator error. This is
purely for Mr Sherman's' benefit.

Date: 19 Dec 2005 22:06:16
From:
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

Tom Sherman struggled to scribble ... Mr. McNaa either has the most
"final words" in the known universe, or he is going back on his
statement that he is quitting the
discussion.

Mr. Sherman doesn't understand that a person is entitled to change
their mind or to do what they intend to do on their own terms and in
their own good time. Is this not such a rudimentary concept that its
misunderstanding is incomprehensible and even laughable? Perhaps if it
is repeated a few more times it will sink in...

I'lll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory insults
from someone whose opinion matters not. I will leave this discussion
when I see fit and will leave on my own terms. Although this is an
elementary concept, I will repeat this as many times as necessary for
your poor powers of perception to be overcome.

I'll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory insults
from someone whose opinion matters not. I will leave this discussion
when I see fit and will leave on my own terms. Although this is an
elementary concept, I will repeat this as many times as necessary for
your poor powers of perception to be overcome.

I'll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory insults
from someone whose opinion matters not. I will leave this discussion
when I see fit and will leave on my own terms. Although this is an
elementary concept, I will repeat this as many times as necessary for
your poor powers of perception to be overcome.

I'll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory insults
from someone whose opinion matters not. I will leave this discussion
when I see fit and will leave on my own terms. Although this is an
elementary concept, I will repeat this as many times as necessary for
your poor powers of perception to be overcome.

I'll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory insults
from someone whose opinion matters not. I will leave this discussion
when I see fit and will leave on my own terms. Although this is an
elementary concept, I will repeat this as many times as necessary for
your poor powers of perception to be overcome.

I'll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory insults
from someone whose opinion matters not. I will leave this discussion
when I see fit and will leave on my own terms. Although this is an
elementary concept, I will repeat this as many times as necessary for
your poor powers of perception to be overcome.

I'll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory insults
from someone whose opinion matters not. I will leave this discussion
when I see fit and will leave on my own terms. Although this is an
elementary concept, I will repeat this as many times as necessary for
your poor powers of perception to be overcome.

I'll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory insults
from someone whose opinion matters not. I will leave this discussion
when I see fit and will leave on my own terms. Although this is an
elementary concept, I will repeat this as many times as necessary for
your poor powers of perception to be overcome.

I'll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory insults
from someone whose opinion matters not. I will leave this discussion
when I see fit and will leave on my own terms. Although this is an
elementary concept, I will repeat this as many times as necessary for
your poor powers of perception to be overcome.

I'll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory insults
from someone whose opinion matters not. I will leave this discussion
when I see fit and will leave on my own terms. Although this is an
elementary concept, I will repeat this as many times as necessary for
your poor powers of perception to be overcome.

Is 10 a sufficient number of times?

JimmyMac

P.S. Multiple posst are deliberate ... not operator error. This is
purely for Mr Sherman's benefit.

Date: 19 Dec 2005 22:01:46
From:
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

Tom Sherman struggled to scribble ... Mr. McNaa either has the most
"final words" in the known universe, or he is going back on his
statement that he is quitting the
discussion.

Mr. Sherman doesn't understand that a person is entitled to change
their mind or to do what they intend to do on their own terms and in
their own good time. Is this not such a rudimentary concept that its
misunderstanding is incomprehensible and even laughable? Perhaps if it
is repeated a few more times it will sink in...

I'lll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory insults
from someone whose opinion matters not. I will leave this discussion
when I see fit and will leave on my own terms. Although this is an
elementary concept, I will repeat this as many times as necessary for
your poor powers or perception to be overcome.

I'll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory insults
from someone whose opinion matters not. I will leave this discussion
when I see fit and will leave on my own terms. Although this is an
elementary concept, I will repeat this as many times as necessary for
your poor powers or perception to be overcome.

I'll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory insults
from someone whose opinion matters not. I will leave this discussion
when I see fit and will leave on my own terms. Although this is an
elementary concept, I will repeat this as many times as necessary for
your poor powers or perception to be overcome.

I'll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory insults
from someone whose opinion matters not. I will leave this discussion
when I see fit and will leave on my own terms. Although this is an
elementary concept, I will repeat this as many times as necessary for
your poor powers or perception to be overcome.

I'll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory insults
from someone whose opinion matters not. I will leave this discussion
when I see fit and will leave on my own terms. Although this is an
elementary concept, I will repeat this as many times as necessary for
your poor powers or perception to be overcome.

I'll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory insults
from someone whose opinion matters not. I will leave this discussion
when I see fit and will leave on my own terms. Although this is an
elementary concept, I will repeat this as many times as necessary for
your poor powers or perception to be overcome.

I'll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory insults
from someone whose opinion matters not. I will leave this discussion
when I see fit and will leave on my own terms. Although this is an
elementary concept, I will repeat this as many times as necessary for
your poor powers or perception to be overcome.

I'll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory insults
from someone whose opinion matters not. I will leave this discussion
when I see fit and will leave on my own terms. Although this is an
elementary concept, I will repeat this as many times as necessary for
your poor powers or perception to be overcome.

I'll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory insults
from someone whose opinion matters not. I will leave this discussion
when I see fit and will leave on my own terms. Although this is an
elementary concept, I will repeat this as many times as necessary for
your poor powers or perception to be overcome.

I'll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory insults
from someone whose opinion matters not. I will leave this discussion
when I see fit and will leave on my own terms. Although this is an
elementary concept, I will repeat this as many times as necessary for
your poor powers or perception to be overcome.

Is 10 a sufficient number of times?

JimmyMac

Date: 19 Dec 2005 21:45:49
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

jimmymac_4@yahoo.com wrote:
> Yep, again...
>
> Mr. McNaa continues his dishonest practice of PRESENTING OPINION AS
> FACT.
>
> --> [YAWN]
>
> Where is the PROOF that SJ is involved with the HRS blog? (I am not
> holding my breath here, since Mr. McNaa has yet to present any
> definitive evidence regarding the authorship of the HRS blog).
>
> --> You profess not to accept circumstantial evidence, so why bother
> and I've said we have reached an impasse and I'm done discussing the
> matter.

For someone who says he is done discussing the matter, Mr. McNaa
seems to post a lot of verbiage about it.

To repeat (a necessary action with Mr. McNaa it seems), Mr.
McNaa's circumstantial evidence is weak, and does nothing to even
make one person a prime suspect. If what is presented is the best Mr.
McNaa can come up with regarding the HRS blog authorship, he should
refrain from indicting anyone.

> > Readers, how do you suppose Mr. Sherman could think I was ignorant of
> > the history of the online lowracer/highracer discussions when the
> > subject matter has been cross-posted all over the internet and
> > archived? I admit knowing little about MI 2. Having seen quite enough
> > of the disgusting original (MI 1), I had no compulsion to view the
> > sequel, but that has no bearing whatsoever with regard to drawing
> > conclusions about the HRS blog authorship.
>
> > Readers, did you note where Mr. Sherman said ... Speaking of SJ, I
> > understand that ... followed by hearsay, assumptions and untenable
> > assertions none of which have been in anyway substantiated by a shred
> > of evidence let alone proof in a thinly veiled attempt to propose the
> > possibility of persons outside the Chicagoland area as possible HRS
> > blog authors. Mr. Sherman will do anything to divert attention away
> > from Ed Gin and company, but there is some truth to what he said since
> > JS does not live in the Chicagoland area.
>
> WHERE IS Mr. McNaa's PROOF of the AUTHORSHIP of the HRS blog?
>
> --> Responded to nothing as usual. You profess not to accept
> circumstantial evidence, so why bother and I've said we have reached an
> impasse and I'm done discussing the matter.

See above.

> > I find it amusing how Mr. Sherman complains about gratuitous insults
> > and then bursts into a tirade regarding breeding, snobbery, what I
> > believe about my ancestors and immoral positions. Where does he come
> > up with this stuff? Just what is he raving and ranting about anyways?
> > Where did I make mention of breeding or ancestral beliefs?...
>
> Mr. McNaa made mention of my breeding in this post:
> <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent/msg/dba489d...>.
>
> --> I made a passing rek in agreement with what Tom Dolan observed
> and this is what brought all this on? And, form this you made these
> wild assumptions about my beliefs regarding my ancestors and immoral
> positions? [YAWN]

Who is "Tom Dolan"? One presumes Mr. McNaa means Ed Dolan. Mr.
McNaa should be able to get Ed Dolan's name correct, since Mr. Dolan
has posted in excess of five-thousand (5,000) messages to
alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent.

> Mr. McNaa apparently can not remember comments he made one day
> previously. The exact quote by Mr. McNaa is "I agree about Tom.
> There are glimmers of breeding and education."
>
> --> Sounds like a compliment to me, maybe even an overestimation on Tom
> Dolan's part. I probably should not have agreed with him in the first
> place. [YAWN]

Who the heck is this "Tom Dolan" Mr. McNaa keeps referencing?

> Mr. McNaa is losing it if he can not remember what he wrote the
> previous day, not to mention his inability to distinguish opinion from
> proven fact.
>
> > The guy is
> > losin' it I'm tellin' you and just when I was seriously thinking about
> > leaving this discussion. If this continues, I may simply have to stick
> > around here a little while longer just for the entertainment value.
> > You sure can't beat the price of admission.
>
> Another attempt by Mr. McNaa to excuse himself from the fact that he
> is going back on his word about discontinuing this discussion. This
> speaks directly to Mr. McNaa's personal credibility.
>
> --> Merely a statement of fact. Sometimes this amuses me and I enjoy
> it. Sometimes I find it a tedious waste of time. I'll be keeping my
> word and will be leaving the discussion when I chose to and on my own
> terms. I'll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory
> insults from someone whose opinion matters not ... someone who defends
> the HRS blog and Ed Gin and company. What does that say of your
> credibility? [YAWN

The HRS blog is often humorous, and obviously parody, and therefore
harmless.

Other than from Mr. McNaa (who appears to be a biased source due to
his vindictive manner on the subject), Wayne SooHoo on the trikes list
(an apparently similar case) [1] and Mr. Edward Dolan (who apparently
knows nothing beyond what is posted on alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent) I
have yet to hear anything obviously bad about Ed Gin.

> > Readers, remember how I reked I reked that we are judged by the
> > company that we keep and Tom replied that he doesn't associate with me,
> > so he must be alright. This is another example of a conclusion derived
> > from twisted logic (read ILLGOCAL). My rek was not with regard to
> > who doesn't associate with whom, but rather with whom one associates.
> > I do not associate with Ed Gin. Tom Sherman does. Enough said on that
> > account.
>
> > Tom replied (read REPEATED) ... Well, I don't keep company with Mr.,
> > Jim (James?) McNaa, so I guess I am doing alright. ;). Does Mr.
> > Sherman not understand what was said or is his just determined to
> > support what I said and prove how imperceptive and ILLOGICAL he is?
>
> It is clear, based on his posting history that Mr. McNaa is bitter
> that he is less popular than Ed Gin among the members of the
> Chicagoland recumbent riding community, and wishes to discredit Ed Gin
> as a result. We should pity Mr. McNaa for being so angry and
> frustrated for no good reason, but that does not excuse his presenting
> OPINION AS FACT and posting accusations WHILE LACKING PROOF.
>
> --> You continue to jump to conclusions. This is becoming a bad habit
> of yours and it is something that you would not tolerate from an
> adversary, so why should you expect this to go unchallenged? You are
> still operating from the misconception that there is some sort of a
> popularity contest at work here as if I would even want to be popular
> with some of Ed Gin's friends or be proud to call some of them friends
> of my own. That's really is a stretch. 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, fiends
> of Ed Gin 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 the readers should pity me
> for any reason at all, they should pity me for having ever been Ed
> Gin's friend. Here is an interesting FACT for you to think about. Ed
> Gin and I have, strange as this may seem, some common friends. Now,
> how does that fit into your lame hypothesis? You continue to mistake
> Ed Gin as my priy and only focus. I have only pointed this foible
> of yours out to you about a dozen times. How many more times will it
> take to penetrate that thick skull of yours. This is not now, nor has
> it been from the beginning only about Ed Gin, so why do you insist that
> it is? Do you think that repetition will somehow transform this into
> something that it is not?

Mr. McNaa is not credible when he implies he has no bias against Ed
Gin in this discussion.

For what it is worth, I had a neutral opinion of Mr. McNaa prior to
his witch hunt equivalent attacks on Ed Gin over the HRS blog. The
longer this discussion goes on, the worse my impression gets.

If I am repetitive, it is because Mr. McNaa keeps diverting from the
priy point of discussion - WHERE IS THE PROOF OF HRS BLOG
AUTHORSHIP?

> My opinion is my opinion. Circumstantial evidence supports my opinion.

In JimmyMac World [TM] and Ed Dolan World [TM] the circumstantial
evidence is convincing. In the real world it is not, no matter how many
times Mr. McNaa repeats that it is. (Repetition of opinion as fact
only works on the credulous who are predisposed by bias).

> I consider circumstantial evidence to be sufficient proof.

Then Mr. McNaa is dull intellect or a fool.

> Your persistent harping does not in any way, shape or form change any of
> that or matter to me in the least. [YAWN].

And I could care less about what Mr. McNaa thinks, but it is fun to
let him dig the hole he is in even deeper. ;)

Note: It appears that Mr. McNaa has some concern over what I think,
since he addresses his posts to me. However, I address my posts to the
general audience, since that is whom I am writing for (why I
disregarded the suggestion to take this discussion to email).

[1] See <http://www.ihpva.org/pipermail/trikes/2000q1/000784.html >.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

Date: 20 Dec 2005 02:25:11
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

"Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1135057549.116555.281020@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[...]
> Who is "Tom Dolan"? One presumes Mr. McNaa means Ed Dolan. Mr.
> McNaa should be able to get Ed Dolan's name correct, since Mr. Dolan
> has posted in excess of five-thousand (5,000) messages to
> alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent.

I think Jim hates Ed Gin so much that he only associates that name with him.
I too am chagrined that a scum bag like Ed Gin could have the same first
name as me. There ought to be a law against it!

It was an extremely dreaded day for Tom Sherman when Ed Dolan overtook him
as the most prolific poster of all time to ARBR from a single address. That
is why I have decided that I am none other than Mr. ARBR himself and that is
how the lessor lights here can refer to me from on if they so wish.

Mr. Sherman has been careful not so let his envy show, but I know he is
jealous me. The king is dead! Long live the King!

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

PS. Mr. Sherman could have perhaps retained his title if he weren't moving
around so much. He should learn to stay put like I do.

Date: 19 Dec 2005 21:10:14
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

jimmymac_4@yahoo.com wrote:
> The usual trite, orthogonal, digressive drivel by the man who does it
> best ... Tom Sherman. What amazes me though is the uncharacteristic
> restraint that he demonstrated in not bringing to my attention that I
> spelled ILLOGICAL ... ILLGOCAL. Was Tom being kind, not observant or
> has finally realized how pointless it is to point out typos unless, of
> course, they happen to change the context of what was said versus what
> was meant. No matter, it was a pleasant change of pace.

Mr. McNaa either has the most "final words" in the known universe,
or he is going back on his statement that he is quitting the
discussion.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

Date: 19 Dec 2005 21:06:54
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

Edward Dolan wrote:
> ...
> It is ever my delight to tweak the denizens of ARBR thereby bringing some
> excitement into their drab lives. Mr. Sherman especially needs my
> ministrations as he seems not be happy in his native country.

Ed Dolan errs in his assumption of my native country [1]. It is not one
(unlike the US) that grants automatic citizenship by place of birth, or
I might well move (if for no other reason, to get away from the summer
heat - only to get worse with global warming).

> I have been
> urging him for years to emigrate to la belle France where he could be at one
> with his own kind, cowards and traitors to Western Civilization....

French policy towards immigration is rather unfriendly, so that is
easier said than done. [2]

[1] An error Mr. Dolan should not make since I already stated this
before - his memory is slipping, I fear.
[2] All the people in the US that say "then leave" to any criticism of
US government policy should be lobbying the US government to arrange a
treaty with a more politically progressive nation to accept unhappy US
residents that wish to emigrate.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
"are there stones on distant mountain decents king the gored and
deceased? arms and wrists broken ?
or is this unreported?" - G. Daniels

Date: 19 Dec 2005 23:58:46
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

"Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1135055213.912909.145390@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> ...
>> It is ever my delight to tweak the denizens of ARBR thereby bringing some
>> excitement into their drab lives. Mr. Sherman especially needs my
>> ministrations as he seems not be happy in his native country.
>
> Ed Dolan errs in his assumption of my native country [1]. It is not one
> (unlike the US) that grants automatic citizenship by place of birth, or
> I might well move (if for no other reason, to get away from the summer
> heat - only to get worse with global warming).

Have you not made reference to a boyhood spent in Wisconsin? Yes, I know
about tiny Denk. So, you were born there and then your parents came to
America (Wisconsin)? The newsgroup needs to know!

>> I have been
>> urging him for years to emigrate to la belle France where he could be at
>> one
>> with his own kind, cowards and traitors to Western Civilization....
>
> French policy towards immigration is rather unfriendly, so that is
> easier said than done. [2]

Half of North Africa is now in France, so that clearly is not the case. If
the French had any brains, they would prohibit all immigration - period. And
so would the rest of Europe, most especially tiny England. They are already
crowded enough without letting in the rest of the world. The English are
almost as stupid as the French apparently.

> [1] An error Mr. Dolan should not make since I already stated this
> before - his memory is slipping, I fear.
> [2] All the people in the US that say "then leave" to any criticism of
> US government policy should be lobbying the US government to arrange a
> treaty with a more politically progressive nation to accept unhappy US
> residents that wish to emigrate.

France would suit you to T. However, I don't think the French would like you
any better than do we native Americans.

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Date: 19 Dec 2005 20:27:21
From:
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

The usual trite, orthogonal, digressive drivel by the man who does it
best ... Tom Sherman. What amazes me though is the uncharacteristic
restraint that he demonstrated in not bringing to my attention that I
spelled ILLOGICAL ... ILLGOCAL. Was Tom being kind, not observant or
has finally realized how pointless it is to point out typos unless, of
course, they happen to change the context of what was said versus what
was meant. No matter, it was a pleasant change of pace.

JimmyMac

Johnny Sunset wrote:
> jimmymac_4@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Readers,
> >
> > Tom Sherman makes less sense with each post, but he does get funnier.
> >
> > He shouldn't even have brought Monkey Island 2 into the mix, especially
> > since MI 2 and the HRS blog have something very much in common (SJ).
>
> Mr. McNaa continues his dishonest practice of PRESENTING OPINION AS
> FACT.
>
> Where is the PROOF that SJ is involved with the HRS blog? (I am not
> holding my breath here, since Mr. McNaa has yet to present any
> definitive evidence regarding the authorship of the HRS blog).
>
> > Readers, how do you suppose Mr. Sherman could think I was ignorant of
> > the history of the online lowracer/highracer discussions when the
> > subject matter has been cross-posted all over the internet and
> > archived? I admit knowing little about MI 2. Having seen quite enough
> > of the disgusting original (MI 1), I had no compulsion to view the
> > sequel, but that has no bearing whatsoever with regard to drawing
> > conclusions about the HRS blog authorship.
> >
> > Readers, did you note where Mr. Sherman said ... Speaking of SJ, I
> > understand that ... followed by hearsay, assumptions and untenable
> > assertions none of which have been in anyway substantiated by a shred
> > of evidence let alone proof in a thinly veiled attempt to propose the
> > possibility of persons outside the Chicagoland area as possible HRS
> > blog authors. Mr. Sherman will do anything to divert attention away
> > from Ed Gin and company, but there is some truth to what he said since
> > JS does not live in the Chicagoland area.
>
> WHERE IS Mr. McNaa's PROOF of the AUTHORSHIP of the HRS blog?
>
> > I find it amusing how Mr. Sherman complains about gratuitous insults
> > and then bursts into a tirade regarding breeding, snobbery, what I
> > believe about my ancestors and immoral positions. Where does he come
> > up with this stuff? Just what is he raving and ranting about anyways?
> > Where did I make mention of breeding or ancestral beliefs?...
>
> Mr. McNaa made mention of my breeding in this post:
> <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent/msg/dba489d0d9fac98e?dmode=source&hl=en>.
> Mr. McNaa apparently can not remember comments he made one day
> previously. The exact quote by Mr. McNaa is "I agree about Tom.
> There are glimmers of breeding and education."
>
> Mr. McNaa is losing it if he can not remember what he wrote the
> previous day, not to mention his inability to distinguish opinion from
> proven fact.
>
> > The guy is
> > losin' it I'm tellin' you and just when I was seriously thinking about
> > leaving this discussion. If this continues, I may simply have to stick
> > around here a little while longer just for the entertainment value.
> > You sure can't beat the price of admission.
>
> Another attempt by Mr. McNaa to excuse himself from the fact that he
> is going back on his word about discontinuing this discussion. This
> speaks directly to Mr. McNaa's personal credibility.
>
> > Readers, remember how I reked I reked that we are judged by the
> > company that we keep and Tom replied that he doesn't associate with me,
> > so he must be alright. This is another example of a conclusion derived
> > from twisted logic (read ILLGOCAL). My rek was not with regard to
> > who doesn't associate with whom, but rather with whom one associates.
> > I do not associate with Ed Gin. Tom Sherman does. Enough said on that
> > account.
> >
> > Tom replied (read REPEATED) ... Well, I don't keep company with Mr.,
> > Jim (James?) McNaa, so I guess I am doing alright. ;). Does Mr.
> > Sherman not understand what was said or is his just determined to
> > support what I said and prove how imperceptive and ILLOGICAL he is?\
>
> It is clear, based on his posting history that Mr. McNaa is bitter
> that he is less popular than Ed Gin among the members of the
> Chicagoland recumbent riding community, and wishes to discredit Ed Gin
> as a result. We should pity Mr. McNaa for being so angry and
> frustrated for no good reason, but that does not excuse his presenting
> OPINION AS FACT and posting accusations WHILE LACKING PROOF.
>
> Enough said.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

Date: 19 Dec 2005 00:15:43
From:
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

Yep, again...

Mr. McNaa continues his dishonest practice of PRESENTING OPINION AS
FACT.

-- > [YAWN]

Where is the PROOF that SJ is involved with the HRS blog? (I am not
holding my breath here, since Mr. McNaa has yet to present any
definitive evidence regarding the authorship of the HRS blog).

-- > You profess not to accept circumstantial evidence, so why bother
and I've said we have reached an impasse and I'm done discussing the
matter.

> Readers, how do you suppose Mr. Sherman could think I was ignorant of
> the history of the online lowracer/highracer discussions when the
> subject matter has been cross-posted all over the internet and
> archived? I admit knowing little about MI 2. Having seen quite enough
> of the disgusting original (MI 1), I had no compulsion to view the
> sequel, but that has no bearing whatsoever with regard to drawing
> conclusions about the HRS blog authorship.

> Readers, did you note where Mr. Sherman said ... Speaking of SJ, I
> understand that ... followed by hearsay, assumptions and untenable
> assertions none of which have been in anyway substantiated by a shred
> of evidence let alone proof in a thinly veiled attempt to propose the
> possibility of persons outside the Chicagoland area as possible HRS
> blog authors. Mr. Sherman will do anything to divert attention away
> from Ed Gin and company, but there is some truth to what he said since
> JS does not live in the Chicagoland area.

WHERE IS Mr. McNaa's PROOF of the AUTHORSHIP of the HRS blog?

-- > Responded to nothing as usual. You profess not to accept
circumstantial evidence, so why bother and I've said we have reached an
impasse and I'm done discussing the matter.

> I find it amusing how Mr. Sherman complains about gratuitous insults
> and then bursts into a tirade regarding breeding, snobbery, what I
> believe about my ancestors and immoral positions. Where does he come
> up with this stuff? Just what is he raving and ranting about anyways?
> Where did I make mention of breeding or ancestral beliefs?...

Mr. McNaa made mention of my breeding in this post:
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent/msg/dba489d... >.

-- > I made a passing rek in agreement with what Tom Dolan observed
and this is what brought all this on? And, form this you made these
wild assumptions about my beliefs regarding my ancestors and immoral
positions? [YAWN]

Mr. McNaa apparently can not remember comments he made one day
previously. The exact quote by Mr. McNaa is "I agree about Tom.
There are glimmers of breeding and education."

-- > Sounds like a compliment to me, maybe even an overestimation on Tom
Dolan's part. I probably should not have agreed with him in the first
place. [YAWN]

Mr. McNaa is losing it if he can not remember what he wrote the
previous day, not to mention his inability to distinguish opinion from
proven fact.

> The guy is
> losin' it I'm tellin' you and just when I was seriously thinking about
> leaving this discussion. If this continues, I may simply have to stick
> around here a little while longer just for the entertainment value.
> You sure can't beat the price of admission.

Another attempt by Mr. McNaa to excuse himself from the fact that he
is going back on his word about discontinuing this discussion. This
speaks directly to Mr. McNaa's personal credibility.

-- > Merely a statement of fact. Sometimes this amuses me and I enjoy
it. Sometimes I find it a tedious waste of time. I'll be keeping my
word and will be leaving the discussion when I chose to and on my own
terms. I'll not be badgered into leaving by frivolous, inflammatory
insults from someone whose opinion matters not ... someone who defends
the HRS blog and Ed Gin and company. What does that say of your
credibility? [YAWN

> Readers, remember how I reked I reked that we are judged by the
> company that we keep and Tom replied that he doesn't associate with me,
> so he must be alright. This is another example of a conclusion derived
> from twisted logic (read ILLGOCAL). My rek was not with regard to
> who doesn't associate with whom, but rather with whom one associates.
> I do not associate with Ed Gin. Tom Sherman does. Enough said on that
> account.

> Tom replied (read REPEATED) ... Well, I don't keep company with Mr.,
> Jim (James?) McNaa, so I guess I am doing alright. ;). Does Mr.
> Sherman not understand what was said or is his just determined to
> support what I said and prove how imperceptive and ILLOGICAL he is?

It is clear, based on his posting history that Mr. McNaa is bitter
that he is less popular than Ed Gin among the members of the
Chicagoland recumbent riding community, and wishes to discredit Ed Gin
as a result. We should pity Mr. McNaa for being so angry and
frustrated for no good reason, but that does not excuse his presenting
OPINION AS FACT and posting accusations WHILE LACKING PROOF.

-- > You continue to jump to conclusions. This is becoming a bad habit
of yours and it is something that you would not tolerate from an
adversary, so why should you expect this to go unchallenged? You are
still operating from the misconception that there is some sort of a
popularity contest at work here as if I would even want to be popular
with some of Ed Gin's friends or be proud to call some of them friends
of my own. That's really is a stretch. 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, fiends
of Ed Gin 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 the readers should pity me
for any reason at all, they should pity me for having ever been Ed
Gin's friend. Here is an interesting FACT for you to think about. Ed
Gin and I have, strange as this may seem, some common friends. Now,
how does that fit into your lame hypothesis? You continue to mistake
Ed Gin as my priy and only focus. I have only pointed this foible
of yours out to you about a dozen times. How many more times will it
take to penetrate that thick skull of yours. This is not now, nor has
it been from the beginning only about Ed Gin, so why do you insist that
it is? Do you think that repetition will somehow transform this into
something that it is not?

My opinion is my opinion. Circumstantial evidence supports my opinion.
I consider circumstantial evidence to be sufficient proof. Your
persistent harping does not in any way, shape or form change any of
that or matter to me in the least. [YAWN].

Date: 18 Dec 2005 13:39:35
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

jimmymac_4@yahoo.com wrote:
> Readers,
>
> Tom Sherman makes less sense with each post, but he does get funnier.
>
> He shouldn't even have brought Monkey Island 2 into the mix, especially
> since MI 2 and the HRS blog have something very much in common (SJ).

Mr. McNaa continues his dishonest practice of PRESENTING OPINION AS
FACT.

Where is the PROOF that SJ is involved with the HRS blog? (I am not
holding my breath here, since Mr. McNaa has yet to present any
definitive evidence regarding the authorship of the HRS blog).

> Readers, how do you suppose Mr. Sherman could think I was ignorant of
> the history of the online lowracer/highracer discussions when the
> subject matter has been cross-posted all over the internet and
> archived? I admit knowing little about MI 2. Having seen quite enough
> of the disgusting original (MI 1), I had no compulsion to view the
> sequel, but that has no bearing whatsoever with regard to drawing
> conclusions about the HRS blog authorship.
>
> Readers, did you note where Mr. Sherman said ... Speaking of SJ, I
> understand that ... followed by hearsay, assumptions and untenable
> assertions none of which have been in anyway substantiated by a shred
> of evidence let alone proof in a thinly veiled attempt to propose the
> possibility of persons outside the Chicagoland area as possible HRS
> blog authors. Mr. Sherman will do anything to divert attention away
> from Ed Gin and company, but there is some truth to what he said since
> JS does not live in the Chicagoland area.

WHERE IS Mr. McNaa's PROOF of the AUTHORSHIP of the HRS blog?

> I find it amusing how Mr. Sherman complains about gratuitous insults
> and then bursts into a tirade regarding breeding, snobbery, what I
> believe about my ancestors and immoral positions. Where does he come
> up with this stuff? Just what is he raving and ranting about anyways?
> Where did I make mention of breeding or ancestral beliefs?...

Mr. McNaa made mention of my breeding in this post:
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent/msg/dba489d0d9fac98e?dmode=source&hl=en >.
Mr. McNaa apparently can not remember comments he made one day
previously. The exact quote by Mr. McNaa is "I agree about Tom.
There are glimmers of breeding and education."

Mr. McNaa is losing it if he can not remember what he wrote the
previous day, not to mention his inability to distinguish opinion from
proven fact.

> The guy is
> losin' it I'm tellin' you and just when I was seriously thinking about
> leaving this discussion. If this continues, I may simply have to stick
> around here a little while longer just for the entertainment value.
> You sure can't beat the price of admission.

Another attempt by Mr. McNaa to excuse himself from the fact that he
is going back on his word about discontinuing this discussion. This
speaks directly to Mr. McNaa's personal credibility.

> Readers, remember how I reked I reked that we are judged by the
> company that we keep and Tom replied that he doesn't associate with me,
> so he must be alright. This is another example of a conclusion derived
> from twisted logic (read ILLGOCAL). My rek was not with regard to
> who doesn't associate with whom, but rather with whom one associates.
> I do not associate with Ed Gin. Tom Sherman does. Enough said on that
> account.
>
> Tom replied (read REPEATED) ... Well, I don't keep company with Mr.,
> Jim (James?) McNaa, so I guess I am doing alright. ;). Does Mr.
> Sherman not understand what was said or is his just determined to
> support what I said and prove how imperceptive and ILLOGICAL he is?\

It is clear, based on his posting history that Mr. McNaa is bitter
that he is less popular than Ed Gin among the members of the
Chicagoland recumbent riding community, and wishes to discredit Ed Gin
as a result. We should pity Mr. McNaa for being so angry and
frustrated for no good reason, but that does not excuse his presenting
OPINION AS FACT and posting accusations WHILE LACKING PROOF.

Enough said.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

Date: 18 Dec 2005 12:50:21
From:
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

Readers,

Tom Sherman makes less sense with each post, but he does get funnier.

He shouldn't even have brought Monkey Island 2 into the mix, especially
since MI 2 and the HRS blog have something very much in common (SJ).

Readers, how do you suppose Mr. Sherman could think I was ignorant of
the history of the online lowracer/highracer discussions when the
subject matter has been cross-posted all over the internet and
archived? I admit knowing little about MI 2. Having seen quite enough
of the disgusting original (MI 1), I had no compulsion to view the
sequel, but that has no bearing whatsoever with regard to drawing
conclusions about the HRS blog authorship.

Readers, did you note where Mr. Sherman said ... Speaking of SJ, I
understand that ... followed by hearsay, assumptions and untenable
assertions none of which have been in anyway substantiated by a shred
of evidence let alone proof in a thinly veiled attempt to propose the
possibility of persons outside the Chicagoland area as possible HRS
blog authors. Mr. Sherman will do anything to divert attention away
from Ed Gin and company, but there is some truth to what he said since
JS does not live in the Chicagoland area.

I find it amusing how Mr. Sherman complains about gratuitous insults
and then bursts into a tirade regarding breeding, snobbery, what I
believe about my ancestors and immoral positions. Where does he come
up with this stuff? Just what is he raving and ranting about anyways?
Where did I make mention of breeding or ancestral beliefs? The guy is
losin' it I'm tellin' you and just when I was seriously thinking about
leaving this discussion. If this continues, I may simply have to stick
around here a little while longer just for the entertainment value.
You sure can't beat the price of admission.

Readers, remember how I reked I reked that we are judged by the
company that we keep and Tom replied that he doesn't associate with me,
so he must be alright. This is another example of a conclusion derived
from twisted logic (read ILLGOCAL). My rek was not with regard to
who doesn't associate with whom, but rather with whom one associates.
I do not associate with Ed Gin. Tom Sherman does. Enough said on that
account.

Tom replied (read REPEATED) ... Well, I don't keep company with Mr.,
Jim (James?) McNaa, so I guess I am doing alright. ;). Does Mr.
Sherman not understand what was said or is his just determined to
support what I said and prove how imperceptive and ILLOGICAL he is?

JimmyMac

Date: 17 Dec 2005 13:55:04
From:
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

Kurt Fischer wrote:
> <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
> > The HRS blog continues in the fine Jayson/Gin tradition
> > of hatred and defamation.
> [...]
>
> In my opinion there is no hatred or (real) defamation in this blog, at
> least not against Bacchetta or highracers. Poor, tasteless jokes, yes,
> more than enough, but in my eyes the author of the HRS blog doesn't try
> to bash Bacchetta - on the contrary: in fact this blog is *pro*
> Bacchetta and *pro* highracer, mainly for one simple reason: The insults
> and accusations on this blog are too far away from reality to be taken
> seriously, hardly anyone who isn't completely out of his senses is
> willing to give them credit.
>
> Simple deliberation: I hate someone and start looking for the best way
> to bash and discredit him. Would it be wise or useful to accuse him of
> things easily recognizable *at first glance* as not true and obviously
> faked?
>
> No, that would turn out quite contrary to my goals. My intentions soon
> will be obvious, nobody will take me serious anymore and my "enemy" will
> get all the sympathies. Only a real fool could choose this strategy. I
> don't know the author of this blog, but I can't imagine he's that
> stupid. There's a lot of wit and creativity involved in this blog,
> unfortunately in a very tasteless and primitive manner. Much to my
> chagrin a lot of creative potential gets lost this way every day.
>
> Now, if it's not Bacchetta, who is the target this blog tries to bash?
> In my opinion the author aims among others at individuals who criticize
> Bacchetta, e.g. for insufficient braking power of some models or
> consider the seat height too high.
>
> "Oh, your saying the brakes are poor and the seats too high? Yes, you're
> right. Look at the millions of people getting killed or seriously
> injured while falling off this dangerous bikes..."
> In other words: he ridicules the critics by exaggerating their concerns.
>
> I don't know about the role Bacchetta plays in this game, but their
> sales are certainly not decreasing because of this blog. In fact I
> suspect they kind of profit in this affair, at least the popularity of
> the brand is increasing.
>
> I also suspect the Author doesn't like the folks at Volae very much. He
> writes:
> http://highracers.blogspot.com/2005/12/bwian-joins-killer-bee-company-as
> -head.html
>
> " If you must buy a recumbent highracer, please support the Volae
> Company run by hard working, honest American folks with decent morals."
>
> At first glance this sounds like a pretty neat compliment, but from the
> mouth of someone who either talks pure b***s*** or usually says exactly
> the opposite of what he thinks, that's actually a serious insult.
>
> So, if you are looking for the man behind this blog, I suggest searching
> for someone who is obsessed by recumbents, esp. by highracers, who most
> probably rides one himself, doesn't like Volae and Trek and has a very,
> very poor and tasteless sense of humor. Maybe we should ask Kevin K.
> first, he seems to have the right connections. ;-)
>
> Regards,
> Kurt

Kurt,

On 11-12-04, in the "Curious -- Why Do You Continue To Stay With ARBR"
thread, in reference to flame wars, you wrote ... sometimes it can even
be fun to be a part of this absurdity. A little mud-wrestling now and
then cleans heart and soul, that's especially important when it's
winter and we can't go outside to ride enough.

Well, it's winter again (not officially, but...) and surely the threads
surrounding the HRS blog are among the more absurd to have surfaced
since the Johnny NoCom ones, so I guess you decided to join the
cyber-mud wrestling and baited Kevin in the process. Whereas you know
that I have a different take on this than you, I would be interesting
to hear what Kevin has to say. Yo, Kevin you listenin'?

JimmyMac

Date: 17 Dec 2005 13:54:52
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

Jim McNaa <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Ed,
>
> Sorry about those typos (you/your ... onlu/only). I thought I'd point
> those out before Tom did. That's one of his favorite pastimes. My
> fingers seem to be very uncooperative as of late. Fortunately,
> communication is unimpaired for all by the imperceptive Mr. Sherman.
>
> I hear you about Monkey Island. It was a forum though devoid of
> pictures, so you must have visited a blog or website ... maybe Seth
> Jayson's. I never found anything worthwhile coming from the MI
> bunch anyways. The HRS blog continues in the fine Jayson/Gin tradition
> of hatred and defamation. Oops, did I slip and name names. Tom will
> be outraged.

Monkey Island II (MI II) allowed the posting of pictures. Is Mr.
McNaa that ignorant of the history of online lowracer/highracer
discussion? If so, he is hardly the person to be drawing conclusions
about the HRS blog authorship.

Speaking of SJ, I understand that many of the most offensive posts on
MI II DID NOT COME FROM THE CHICAGOLAND AREA. Could it be that one of
those posters who have no connection to Ed Gin and Company is
responsible for the HRS blog?

> I agree about Tom. There are glimmers of breeding and education.

Breeding is a classist concept. Is Mr. McNaa a classist snob who
believes what one's ancestors have done is more important that what a
person actually does? Talk about immoral positions!

> There
> are even glimmers of intelligence, but none of integrity. How can he
> expect to command respect of the readership when he defends those that
> disrespect other respected members in the recumbent community?

How is saying that Mr. McNaa LACKS THE PROOF OF HRS BLOG AUTHORSHIP
defending the actual authors? Mr. McNaa needs to revisit the
concepts of logic, or is he just "flinging poo" (to use a Monkey Island
expression).

> Tom
> would say, the HRS blog doesn't disrespect anything. It merely
> disrespects that which has similar parallels in the reality ...
> CRAP!!!. What does that say of the HRS blog? Are we to believe that
> it is a parody of itself, not to be taken seriously? If so, then there
> should be no need to defend it. Similarities? The company denigrated
> just happens to reside in the same locale as the company in the HRS
> blog. Brolies couldn't possibly be BROL members, JimmyMac couldn't
> possibly be Jim McNaa (jimmymac_4) and Killer Bees are what ...
> insects?

Mr. McNaa demonstrates that he totally missed the context of what I
wrote. However, my point remains - while it may seem obvious what is
being parodied, BEING SEEMINGLY OBVIOUS IS NOT THE SAME AS PROOF.

> This bears repeating. The HRS blog has a specific objective and that
> objective is not mimicry and satire of that which only has parallel
> similarities in reality. The objective is defamation of specific
> designated targets. The HRS blog fails in its objective to define
> those that it denigrates. The HRS blog succeeds in defining its author
> and its contributors. The denigrated will survive character
> assassination, but the author and contributors will struggle to escape
> their own self-inflicted, sullied reputations that they have merited
> and will continue to be haunted by. Remembered for the significant
> role that he played will be their spokesperson and defender ... Tom
> Sherman.

Mr. McNaa needs to read Kurt Fischer's follow-up post. As it has
been my contention all along, it is possible that the HRS blog is an
attempt to discredit members of the lowracer riding community, as
certain well known lowracer riders would be blamed by the ignorant for
being authors of the blog.

> Check out Mr. Sherman's latest feeble ramblings. He asked why I
> mention my intention to leave the discussion. His question is in
> response to an answer already provided when I stated that I can't stand
> Tom and his nonsense and don't intend to waste time on him. I am
> beginning to wonder if Tom is hearing impaired, suffering from
> perceptual deficiencies or both.

Mr. McNaa is the one impaired if he can not understand there are
other obvious candidates for the HRS blog authorship that have initials
other than J, A and G, and that his circumstantial evidence is feeble
indeed.

> You will also notice that Tom still refuses to recognize the definition
> of private and public figures as defined by law, but, by his own
> admission, he doesn't have any regard for the court system either. His
> response to both issues (public persons and circumstantial), are
> pitifully unimpressive.

Please PROVE CONCLUSIVELY WHO THE REAL TARGETS OF THE HRS BLOG ARE. Can
Mr. McNaa do this? I think not.

As for the courts, anyone who thinks that decisions are made solely on
the basis of legal merit is naive. The courts respond to social
pressure, and often show bias to those with wealth and privilege.

> I reked that we are judged by the company that we keep and Tom
> replied that he doesn't associate with me, so he must be alright.
> This is another example of a conclusion derived from twisted logic
> (read ILLGOCAL). My rek was not with regard to who doesn't
> associate with whom, but rather with whom one associates. I do not
> associate with Ed Gin. Tom Sherman does. Enough said on that account.

Well, I don't keep company with Mr., Jim (James?) McNaa, so I guess
I am doing alright. ;) In addition, Mr. McNaa has yet to PROVE his
accusations towards Ed Gin. If we are to adopt Mr. McNaa's guilty
until proven innocent position, than Mr. McNaa has a problem since
there have been unpleasant (and as far as I know, unproven) accusations
against him. Or does Mr. McNaa deserve a special standard due to his
having better breeding than the rest of us?

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

Date: 18 Dec 2005 01:02:33
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

"Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1134856492.497412.100450@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Jim McNaa <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Ed,
[...]

>> I agree about Tom. There are glimmers of breeding and education.
>
> Breeding is a classist concept. Is Mr. McNaa a classist snob who
> believes what one's ancestors have done is more important that what a
> person actually does? Talk about immoral positions!

No, Mr. Sherman is confusing Mr. McNaa with Mr. Dolan. I am the one who
thinks that one's ancestors are more important than I am. What a person
actually does never impresses me at all. It is what our ancestors did that
impress me. After all, they produced us, we did not produce them. Just like
Mr. Sherman to get everything backwards.

But Mr. Sherman is a working class peasant, even though a civil engineer.
Mr. Dolan is a person of breeding and culture (in other words, an
aristocrat) who looks down his noble nose at all the peasants in the world,
Mr. Sherman foremost among them.
[...]

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Date: 17 Dec 2005 13:32:02
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

Kurt Fischer wrote:
> <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
> > The HRS blog continues in the fine Jayson/Gin tradition
> > of hatred and defamation.
> [...]
>
> In my opinion there is no hatred or (real) defamation in this blog, at
> least not against Bacchetta or highracers. Poor, tasteless jokes, yes,
> more than enough, but in my eyes the author of the HRS blog doesn't try
> to bash Bacchetta - on the contrary: in fact this blog is *pro*
> Bacchetta and *pro* highracer, mainly for one simple reason: The insults
> and accusations on this block are too far away from reality to be taken
> seriously, hardly anyone who isn't completely out of his senses is
> willing to give them credit.
>
> Simple deliberation: I hate someone and start looking for the best way
> to bash and discredit him. Would it be wise or useful to accuse him of
> things easily recognizable *at first glance* as not true and obviously
> faked?
>
> No, that would turn out quite contrary to my goals. My intentions soon
> will be obvious, nobody will take me serious anymore and my "enemy" will
> get all the sympathies. Only a real fool could choose this strategy. I
> don't know the author of this blog, but I can't imagine he's that
> stupid. There's a lot of wit and creativity involved in this blog,
> unfortunately in a very tasteless and primitive manner. Much to my
> chagrin a lot of creative potential gets lost this way every day.
>
> Now, if it's not Bacchetta, who is the target this blog tries to bash?
> In my opinion the author aims among others at individuals who criticize
> Bacchetta, e.g. for insufficient braking power of some models or
> consider the seat height too high.
>
> "Oh, your saying the brakes are poor and the seats too high? Yes, you're
> right. Look at the millions of people getting killed or seriously
> injured while falling off this dangerous bikes..."
> In other words: he ridicules the critics by exaggerating their concerns.
>
> I don't know about the role Bacchetta plays in this game, but their
> sales are certainly not decreasing because of this blog. In fact I
> suspect they kind of profit in this affair, at least the popularity of
> the brand is increasing.
>
> I also suspect the Author doesn't like the folks at Volae very much. He
> writes:
> http://highracers.blogspot.com/2005/12/bwian-joins-killer-bee-company-as
> -head.html
>
> " If you must buy a recumbent highracer, please support the Volae
> Company run by hard working, honest American folks with decent morals."
>
> At first glance this sounds like a pretty neat compliment, but from the
> mouth of someone who either talks pure b***s*** or usually says exactly
> the opposite of what he thinks, that's actually a serious insult.
>
> So, if you are looking for the man behind this blog, I suggest searching
> for someone who is obsessed by recumbents, esp. by highracers, who most
> probably rides one himself, doesn't like Volae and Trek and has a very,
> very poor and tasteless sense of humor. Maybe we should ask Kevin K.
> first, he seems to have the right connections. ;-)

Kurt Fischer makes a very convincing argument that the target of the
HRS blog would not be Bacchetta et al, but the critics of Bacchetta et
al. Finally someone else with reason joins the argument.

Adding to the support of Kurt Fischer's hypothesis are the reports that
some of the most offensive posts on the now defunct Monkey Island II
came from those associated with the "highracer crowd" and not the
"lowracer group".

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

Date: 17 Dec 2005 07:35:41
From:
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

Ed,

Sorry about those typos (you/your ... onlu/only). I thought I'd point
those out before Tom did. That's one of his favorite pastimes. My
fingers seem to be very uncooperative as of late. Fortunately,
communication is unimpaired for all by the imperceptive Mr. Sherman.

I hear you about Monkey Island. It was a forum though devoid of
pictures, so you must have visited a blog or website ... maybe Seth
Jayson's. I never found anything worthwhile coming from the MI
bunch anyways. The HRS blog continues in the fine Jayson/Gin tradition
of hatred and defamation. Oops, did I slip and name names. Tom will
be outraged.

I agree about Tom. There are glimmers of breeding and education. There
are even glimmers of intelligence, but none of integrity. How can he
expect to command respect of the readership when he defends those that
disrespect other respected members in the recumbent community? Tom
would say, the HRS blog doesn't disrespect anything. It merely
disrespects that which has similar parallels in the reality ...
CRAP!!!. What does that say of the HRS blog? Are we to believe that
it is a parody of itself, not to be taken seriously? If so, then there
should be no need to defend it. Similarities? The company denigrated
just happens to reside in the same locale as the company in the HRS
blog. Brolies couldn't possibly be BROL members, JimmyMac couldn't
possibly be Jim McNaa (jimmymac_4) and Killer Bees are what ...
insects?

This bears repeating. The HRS blog has a specific objective and that
objective is not mimicry and satire of that which only has parallel
similarities in reality. The objective is defamation of specific
designated targets. The HRS blog fails in its objective to define
those that it denigrates. The HRS blog succeeds in defining its author
and its contributors. The denigrated will survive character
assassination, but the author and contributors will struggle to escape
their own self-inflicted, sullied reputations that they have merited
and will continue to be haunted by. Remembered for the significant
role that he played will be their spokesperson and defender ... Tom
Sherman.

Check out Mr. Sherman's latest feeble ramblings. He asked why I
mention my intention to leave the discussion. His question is in
response to an answer already provided when I stated that I can't stand
Tom and his nonsense and don't intend to waste time on him. I am
beginning to wonder if Tom is hearing impaired, suffering from
perceptual deficiencies or both.

You will also notice that Tom still refuses to recognize the definition
of private and public figures as defined by law, but, by his own
admission, he doesn't have any regard for the court system either. His
response to both issues (public persons and circumstantial), are
pitifully unimpressive.

I reked that we are judged by the company that we keep and Tom
replied that he doesn't associate with me, so he must be alright.
This is another example of a conclusion derived from twisted logic
(read ILLGOCAL). My rek was not with regard to who doesn't
associate with whom, but rather with whom one associates. I do not
associate with Ed Gin. Tom Sherman does. Enough said on that account.

Jim

Date: 17 Dec 2005 20:46:14
From: Kurt Fischer
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

<jimmymac_4@yahoo.com > wrote:

[...]
> The HRS blog continues in the fine Jayson/Gin tradition
> of hatred and defamation.
[...]

In my opinion there is no hatred or (real) defamation in this blog, at
least not against Bacchetta or highracers. Poor, tasteless jokes, yes,
more than enough, but in my eyes the author of the HRS blog doesn't try
to bash Bacchetta - on the contrary: in fact this blog is *pro*
Bacchetta and *pro* highracer, mainly for one simple reason: The insults
and accusations on this blog are too far away from reality to be taken
seriously, hardly anyone who isn't completely out of his senses is
willing to give them credit.

Simple deliberation: I hate someone and start looking for the best way
to bash and discredit him. Would it be wise or useful to accuse him of
things easily recognizable *at first glance* as not true and obviously
faked?

No, that would turn out quite contrary to my goals. My intentions soon
will be obvious, nobody will take me serious anymore and my "enemy" will
get all the sympathies. Only a real fool could choose this strategy. I
don't know the author of this blog, but I can't imagine he's that
stupid. There's a lot of wit and creativity involved in this blog,
unfortunately in a very tasteless and primitive manner. Much to my
chagrin a lot of creative potential gets lost this way every day.

Now, if it's not Bacchetta, who is the target this blog tries to bash?
In my opinion the author aims among others at individuals who criticize
Bacchetta, e.g. for insufficient braking power of some models or
consider the seat height too high.

"Oh, your saying the brakes are poor and the seats too high? Yes, you're
right. Look at the millions of people getting killed or seriously
injured while falling off this dangerous bikes..."
In other words: he ridicules the critics by exaggerating their concerns.

I don't know about the role Bacchetta plays in this game, but their
sales are certainly not decreasing because of this blog. In fact I
suspect they kind of profit in this affair, at least the popularity of
the brand is increasing.

I also suspect the Author doesn't like the folks at Volae very much. He
writes:
http://highracers.blogspot.com/2005/12/bwian-joins-killer-bee-company-as
-head.html

" If you must buy a recumbent highracer, please support the Volae
Company run by hard working, honest American folks with decent morals."

At first glance this sounds like a pretty neat compliment, but from the
mouth of someone who either talks pure b***s*** or usually says exactly
the opposite of what he thinks, that's actually a serious insult.

So, if you are looking for the man behind this blog, I suggest searching
for someone who is obsessed by recumbents, esp. by highracers, who most
probably rides one himself, doesn't like Volae and Trek and has a very,
very poor and tasteless sense of humor. Maybe we should ask Kevin K.
first, he seems to have the right connections. ;-)

Regards,
Kurt

Date: 17 Dec 2005 20:44:56
From: Kurt Fischer
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

<jimmymac_4@yahoo.com > wrote:

[...]
> The HRS blog continues in the fine Jayson/Gin tradition
> of hatred and defamation.
[...]

In my opinion there is no hatred or (real) defamation in this blog, at
least not against Bacchetta or highracers. Poor, tasteless jokes, yes,
more than enough, but in my eyes the author of the HRS blog doesn't try
to bash Bacchetta - on the contrary: in fact this blog is *pro*
Bacchetta and *pro* highracer, mainly for one simple reason: The insults
and accusations on this block are too far away from reality to be taken
seriously, hardly anyone who isn't completely out of his senses is
willing to give them credit.

Simple deliberation: I hate someone and start looking for the best way
to bash and discredit him. Would it be wise or useful to accuse him of
things easily recognizable *at first glance* as not true and obviously
faked?

No, that would turn out quite contrary to my goals. My intentions soon
will be obvious, nobody will take me serious anymore and my "enemy" will
get all the sympathies. Only a real fool could choose this strategy. I
don't know the author of this blog, but I can't imagine he's that
stupid. There's a lot of wit and creativity involved in this blog,
unfortunately in a very tasteless and primitive manner. Much to my
chagrin a lot of creative potential gets lost this way every day.

Now, if it's not Bacchetta, who is the target this blog tries to bash?
In my opinion the author aims among others at individuals who criticize
Bacchetta, e.g. for insufficient braking power of some models or
consider the seat height too high.

"Oh, your saying the brakes are poor and the seats too high? Yes, you're
right. Look at the millions of people getting killed or seriously
injured while falling off this dangerous bikes..."
In other words: he ridicules the critics by exaggerating their concerns.

I don't know about the role Bacchetta plays in this game, but their
sales are certainly not decreasing because of this blog. In fact I
suspect they kind of profit in this affair, at least the popularity of
the brand is increasing.

I also suspect the Author doesn't like the folks at Volae very much. He
writes:
http://highracers.blogspot.com/2005/12/bwian-joins-killer-bee-company-as
-head.html

" If you must buy a recumbent highracer, please support the Volae
Company run by hard working, honest American folks with decent morals."

At first glance this sounds like a pretty neat compliment, but from the
mouth of someone who either talks pure b***s*** or usually says exactly
the opposite of what he thinks, that's actually a serious insult.

So, if you are looking for the man behind this blog, I suggest searching
for someone who is obsessed by recumbents, esp. by highracers, who most
probably rides one himself, doesn't like Volae and Trek and has a very,
very poor and tasteless sense of humor. Maybe we should ask Kevin K.
first, he seems to have the right connections. ;-)

Regards,
Kurt

Date: 17 Dec 2005 06:28:43
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

Jim McNaa <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Ed,
>
> Thanks for you insight.
>
> I see that Tom still confuses morality and legality.

What confusion (another accusation without proof from Mr. McNaa)?

Legality is a set of rules established by whoever happens to have power
in society at the moment. There is no inherent connection to morality,
unless one believes that the ruler(s) have been granted their authority
by a higher power (e.g. the divine right of kings).

I am eagerly waiting for Mr. McNaa's explanation of how legality and
morality are the same.

> It amuses me that he thinks I can't stand the heat.

Then why is Mr. McNaa constantly mentioning how he wishes to leave
the discussion?

> What I can't stand
> is Tom and his nonsense and I just won't waste any more time on him.

I can only hope I never meet Mr. McNaa in real life (a disadvantage
of close geographical proximity).

> Did you notice how he virtually steered clear of the public versus
> private and circumstantial evidence issues?

In the context of a recumbent discussion forum, principal's of
organizations that participate in the discussions as representatives of
their companies are public figures within that context (and no, I do
not care what the courts say, since legal decisions are not made on a
moral basis).

As for circumstantial evidence, there are several individuals whose
names do not starts with the letters J, A or G that would have the
means, motive and ability to create the HRS blog, so Mr. McNaa's
veiled accusations have little merit, since NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE HAS
BEEN PRESENTED.

> You remember that I said
> about fundamental components being crucial for his mantra and doctrine
> to be valid and prevail and with the failure of either his position in
> the debate crumbles. Well it has, hasn't it?

The burden is on Mr. McNaa to prove his veiled accusations. WHERE IS
THE PROOF?

> So what did he do? He
> asserted that in the HRS blog there existed only similarities to the
> objects of defamation that had onlu some parallel to reality. So the
> joke's on us then? The blog isn't about what we thought it was all
> this time? What is this guy smokin'? Next he'll be saying that the
> graphics merely resemble the objects of defamation. Worse yet, he'll
> insit that we believe it too.

While the objects of parody appear similar to real persons and
organizations (does this mean the real Mr. McNaa is similar to the
"Jimmy Mac" presented in the blog?), without knowing the mind of the
HRS blog author(s) we can not KNOW what the real objects of parody are.
Perfectly logical (which may be why it escapes Mr. McNaa).

> You've gone toe to toe with this goof for years now. Is this wacko for
> real or what?

Mr. McNaa is asking Ed Dolan for advice here, when Ed Dolan's
purpose on alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent is to be provocative and cause
contention. Now that is funny!

> One thing that he has in common with his good buddies is
> that he has too much time on his hands. To think that he wastes it on
> the likes of the blog jerks.

How about my wasting it on the likes of Mr. McNaa? ;)

> You know what they say about judging you by the company you keep.

Well, I do not associate with Mr. McNaa, so I guess I am alright.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

Date: 18 Dec 2005 01:52:06
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

"Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1134829723.559049.135170@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Jim McNaa <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Ed,
>>
>> Thanks for you insight.
>>
>> I see that Tom still confuses morality and legality.
>
> What confusion (another accusation without proof from Mr. McNaa)?
>
> Legality is a set of rules established by whoever happens to have power
> in society at the moment. There is no inherent connection to morality,
> unless one believes that the ruler(s) have been granted their authority
> by a higher power (e.g. the divine right of kings).

There is quite a close connection between legality and morality. It is not
one to one of course, but a legal system is based on morality. In the case
of most Western nations it is based on a religion, namely Christianity. That
is why Western societies are so superior to most third world nations which
are not Christian.

You would not want to have your legal system based on Islamic morality
unless you are crazy as a bed bug. You would also not want your legal system
based on secularist thinking devoid of religion either. Logic and
rationality have ever failed mankind, as the history of the 20th century
illustrates to perfection to all but blooming idiots. The blooming idiots
these days are mostly liberals who think legality and morality are two
different things and they do not relate to one another. I wonder where Mr.
Sherman thinks legal rules come from if not some inkling of a moral
universe.

The reason abortion is such an abomination to all but liberal screwballs is
because it flies in the face of Christian teaching for a thousand years or
more. Our society badly needs to debate this issue in our legislatures and
not leave it to the courts to decide. A Supreme Court grounded in Christian
morality would never have ruled that abortion is OK.
[...]

>> You've gone toe to toe with this goof for years now. Is this wacko for
>> real or what?
>
> Mr. McNaa is asking Ed Dolan for advice here, when Ed Dolan's
> purpose on alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent is to be provocative and cause
> contention. Now that is funny!

It is ever my delight to tweak the denizens of ARBR thereby bringing some
excitement into their drab lives. Mr. Sherman especially needs my
ministrations as he seems not be happy in his native country. I have been
urging him for years to emigrate to la belle France where he could be at one
with his own kind, cowards and traitors to Western Civilization. If he found
the French to be difficult, like most of the rest of the world does, then he
could emigrate to the Middle East, maybe even Palestine in as much as he has
previously expressed great sympathy for them.

Did you know there were a few Americans (left wing liberal wacko nuts) who
emigrated to the Soviet Union back in the 30's. Once they got there, they
realized it was the biggest mistake of their stupid lives, but they were
stuck. Several of them ended up in the Gulag for absolutely no reason other
than they were Americans. I guess the Soviets figured anyone stupid enough
to emigrate to the Soviet Union was a security risk. Mr. Sherman would
similarly have his eyes opened if he were to emigrate to a Moslem country in
the Middle East. In a matter of days, he would beg to be allowed to enter
Israel, the land of the Jews.
[...]

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

PS. Why would anyone say I cause contention when all anyone ever has to do
is just agree with me!

Date: 16 Dec 2005 20:17:26
From:
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

Ed,

Thanks for you insight.

I see that Tom still confuses morality and legality.

It amuses me that he thinks I can't stand the heat. What I can't stand
is Tom and his nonsense and I just won't waste any more time on him.

Did you notice how he virtually steered clear of the public versus
private and circumstantial evidence issues? You remember that I said
about fundamental components being crucial for his mantra and doctrine
to be valid and prevail and with the failure of either his position in
the debate crumbles. Well it has, hasn't it? So what did he do? He
asserted that in the HRS blog there existed only similarities to the
objects of defamation that had onlu some parallel to reality. So the
joke's on us then? The blog isn't about what we thought it was all
this time? What is this guy smokin'? Next he'll be saying that the
graphics merely resemble the objects of defamation. Worse yet, he'll
insit that we believe it too.

You've gone toe to toe with this goof for years now. Is this wacko for
real or what? One thing that he has in common with his good buddies is
that he has too much time on his hands. To think that he wastes it on
the likes of the blog jerks. You know what they say about judging you
by the company you keep.

Jim

Date: 17 Dec 2005 00:00:49
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

<jimmymac_4@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1134793046.058719.19080@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Ed,
>
> Thanks for your insight.
>
> I see that Tom still confuses morality and legality.
>
> It amuses me that he thinks I can't stand the heat. What I can't stand
> is Tom and his nonsense and I just won't waste any more time on him.
>
> Did you notice how he virtually steered clear of the public versus
> private and circumstantial evidence issues? You remember what I said
> about fundamental components being crucial for his mantra and doctrine
> to be valid and prevail and with the failure of either his position in
> the debate crumbles. Well it has, hasn't it? So what did he do? He
> asserted that in the HRS blog there existed only similarities to the
> objects of defamation that had only some parallel to reality. So the
> joke's on us then? The blog isn't about what we thought it was all
> this time? What is this guy smokin'? Next he'll be saying that the
> graphics merely resemble the objects of defamation. Worse yet, he'll
> insist that we believe it too.
>
> You've gone toe to toe with this goof for years now. Is this wacko for
> real or what? One thing that he has in common with his good buddies is
> that he has too much time on his hands. To think that he wastes it on
> the likes of the blog jerks. You know what they say about judging you
> by the company you keep.
>
> Jim

Jim, I once briefly looked in on the Monkey Island website (or was it a
blog?) and had to turn away from it as it was full of obscene pictures and
full of the kind of words I hadn't heard since I was in the Navy some 50
years ago. That Mr. Sherman can find such goings on the least bit amusing or
"fascinating" (his own word) is beyond me. I gave up on this teenager crap
long ago and in fact I never liked it even when I was a teenager.

But I am high class and who knows what Mr. Sherman is. He give clues from
time to time that he has some breeding and education, but than at other
times he goes off slumming with characters who have no character. I do not
understand it at all.

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Date: 21 Dec 2005 23:01:20
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1135230036.737537.124740@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Edward Dolan, Troll of Worthington, wrote:
> >> ...
> >> Mr. Sherman's defense of these blog scum bags borders on insanity.
> >
> > Eddie boy is confused. How I am defending the HRS blog author(s) by
> > claiming there is no proof that Ed Gin is involved?
>
> Circumstantial evidence is all the proof a newsgroup needs. Jim McNaa and
> others have provided all the circumstantial evidence that any sane person
> needs.
>
> You do not condemn the blogs as you should just as you did not condemn Ed
> Gin for posting the way he did last winter on ARBR. You are constantly out
> to lunch when there is serious business to attend to. What conclusion are we
> suppose to draw from your absences?

We can conclude there are things known locally in Chicagoland by
certain Monkeys that Mr. Dolan is unaware of.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
"fdlagjaesgtp4epsadvdsajvadsvadjvdxzjvodjvof
adsgvogjvoasjcaoivor6udfda0tvuojdxvosdotvfl" - Ed Dolan

Date: 22 Dec 2005 02:27:08
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

"Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1135232999.620241.183850@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
>> You do not condemn the blogs as you should just as you did not condemn Ed
>> Gin for posting the way he did last winter on ARBR. You are constantly
>> out
>> to lunch when there is serious business to attend to. What conclusion are
>> we
>> suppose to draw from your absences?
>
> We can conclude there are things known locally in Chicagoland by
> certain Monkeys that Mr. Dolan is unaware of.

No doubt true, but just how incestuous are you going to allow this newsgroup
to get. You need to explain to Mr. Kurt Fischer of Germany as well as me and
numerous others just where you stand on this issue of scum bag blogs who
assassinate other's good names and who troll newsgroups in Europe (besides
ARBR) like insane idiots.

We are all listening intently for your input. I have even turned up my
hearing aid so as not to miss a single syllable of what you are going to
say. Be warned - I am prepared to go ballisitic if you keep repeating your
previous excuses for them. In fact, I may even go into orbit!

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Date: 22 Dec 2005 02:00:48
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

"Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1135232999.620241.183850@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1135230036.737537.124740@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Edward Dolan, Troll of Worthington, wrote:
>> >> ...
>> >> Mr. Sherman's defense of these blog scum bags borders on insanity.
>> >
>> > Eddie boy is confused. How I am defending the HRS blog author(s) by
>> > claiming there is no proof that Ed Gin is involved?
>>
>> Circumstantial evidence is all the proof a newsgroup needs. Jim McNaa
>> and
>> others have provided all the circumstantial evidence that any sane person
>> needs.
>>
>> You do not condemn the blogs as you should just as you did not condemn Ed
>> Gin for posting the way he did last winter on ARBR. You are constantly
>> out
>> to lunch when there is serious business to attend to. What conclusion are
>> we
>> suppose to draw from your absences?
>
> We can conclude there are things known locally in Chicagoland by
> certain Monkeys that Mr. Dolan is unaware of.

Tom, I am going to stay away from the blog issue since I know next to
nothing about any of it nor do I want to know anything about it. I am only
concerned about what took place here on ARBR last winter. I will leave the
blog issue to you, Jim and others who are knowledgeable.

As regards the ARBR issue of last winter, you seem to be telling me that we
can't be sure it was Ed Gin who was doing all the damage. Well, I am sure
and so is Jim and most of the rest of the group. However, forget that issue
for one moment. Do you or do you not condemn the manner of the posting that
was taking place then. I refer specifically to the use of false names too
numerous to keep track of, forged names and addresses, the trolling on all
threads and the utterly vile and obscene language that was being presented?
You have never yet told the group what you thought of that kind of behavior.
Again, forget about WHO might have been responsible. Do you condemn the
behavior?

Mr. Sherman knows that I am no more a troll than he is. So far, we have only
had one real troll on this group for as long as I have been here. His name
is Ed Gin and he destroyed this newsgroup for all practical purposes last
winter by his insane and criminal trolling.

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Date: 15 Dec 2005 17:10:35
From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

Jim McNaa <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com > posted before cutting and running:
> 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. It should
> be obvious that Mr. Sherman and I are both tenacious and determined,
> but I recognize that one of us had to be the least stubborn, exercise
> sound judgment and adjourn this debate lest it persist ad infinitum.
> Confident that Mr. Sherman would not be that person, I assumed the role
> in this capacity. I am well aware that when Mr. Sherman outlasts (read
> wears down) an opponent, he promptly declares himself the victor. Mr.
> Sherman will undoubtedly again delude himself and assert that he was
> triumphant over his adversary. Do not be misled by his charade.
> Pretense and posturing should not be confused with victory.

Translation: Cut and Run. ;)

> What follows are my closing arguments and my parting thoughts. Please
> note that in this debate, there have been two fundamental components
> that are, without qualification, crucial for Mr. Sherman's mantra and
> doctrine to be valid and prevail. With the failure of either, Mr.
> Sherman's position in this debate crumbles into the ashes of obscurity.
> Let's subject each of these two key elements to critical analysis.
>
>
> -------------
> Public Figure
> -------------
>
> Mr. Sherman defines a public figure from a moral perspective, which is
> absurd. Morality has nothing to do with how a public figure is defined
> where it matters ... in the courtroom. How do constitutional law
> professionals and the Supreme Court define "public figures"? Public
> figures are defined as those who by reason of the notoriety of their
> achievements or the vigor and success with which they seek the public's
> attention, or those who occupy positions of persuasive power and
> influence, or those who have assumed roles of especial prominence in
> the affairs of society and in the resolution of public questions, or
> those who have thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public
> controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues
> involved, are classified as public figures under the First Amendment.
>
> Those specifically targeted by the HRS bog do not fall into the
> category of "public figures" as defined. It should be duly noted that
> private individuals need only show that a defamatory falsehood was made
> negligently (with reckless disregard as to its truth). Demonstration
> of malice is not required. If someone believes that a defamation has
> occurred through publication of a known falsehood, the victim can
> initiate a civil action of libel against the offending party and
> collect both compensatory and punitive damages. The bottom line is
> that libel and libelous statements are beyond First Amendment
> protection. Please note that nowhere do constitutional law
> professionals or the Supreme Court include morality in the definition
> of a public figure. The bottom line is that MR. SHERMAN IS WRONG! By
> continually referring to those victimized by the HRS blog as "public
> figures", Mr. Sherman exposes himself for what and who he is. MR.
> SHERMAN IS ILLOGICAL!

[YAWN] Legality and morality are obviously not the same things. In
various times and places (including in some cases the US), slavery,
infanticide, gender discrimination, class based discrimination, racial
based discrimination, genocide, domestic violence and rape have been
legal. I rest my case on this matter.

Besides, who is being parodied on the HRS blog? Except for one case, I
see no real names of people and companies. Certainly, the similarity to
certain actual persons and organizations is notable, but that is not
the same as parodying using actual identities. The difference is
significant, as connecting the parody figures to real persons and
organizations requires UNPROVEN ASSUMPTIONS.

> -----------------------
> Circumstantial Evidence
> -----------------------
>
> Mr. Sherman insists upon (read demands) what is known as direct
> evidence. He subscribes to the misconception that circumstantial
> evidence is insufficient in and of itself to establish adequate proof.
> Mr. Sherman demands "proof" in a form, which he knows to be costly and
> exceedingly difficult to obtain without transgressing the law and/or
> without securing an attorney and a court order. He demands a higher
> standard than required simply because, for Mr. Sherman, this debate was
> not about right and wrong but about winning. As concerns
> circumstantial evidence, Mr. Sherman would have you believe that one
> cannot be considered guilty solely on the basis of circumstantial
> evidence. Mr. Sherman is in error. That's right. MR. SHERMAN IS
> WRONG! His insistence in this regard proves that MR. SHERMAN IS
> ILLOGICAL!
>
> Most criminal convictions are based on circumstantial evidence because
> most criminals are careful not to generate any direct evidence during
> the commission of a crime. Courts often rely on circumstantial
> evidence to determine the facts of a case. The laws regarding
> circumstantial evidence are complex and can vary by case, but this much
> can be said. It is a popularly held belief (particularly by Mr.
> Sherman) that direct evidence is more important than circumstantial
> evidence; however, the two are equal in weight in the eyes of the law.
> Some legal experts contend that circumstantial evidence can carry more
> weight in a case than direct evidence. Criminal prosecutors often rely
> heavily on circumstantial evidence to prove their case. Civil cases
> are often based solely, or priily, on circumstantial evidence,
> particularly in cases involving liability.

Many people have been convicted for crimes they did not commit, and
many more for legal crimes that were not immoral. I, of course hold to
the higher absolute standard of morality and logic. Mr. McNaa
UTTERLY FAILED in PROVING BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT the IDENTITY of the
HRS blog AUTHOR(S).

> ---------------------
> Some Parting Thoughts
> ---------------------
>
> Now that the debate has concluded, I can focus on tasks that are more
> pleasurable, more rewarding and less wasteful of my time. In closing,
> I would like to share a few words with Tom and the readership.
>
> Tom, argumentation is, for you, little more than an exercise in mental
> masturbation and linguistic gymnastics. Several times I referred to
> you as "Teflon Tom" for a specific reason that I am convinced did not
> escape your attention. You approach a debate as though it were a
> sporting event, but not a contact sport like one played out on the
> gridiron, but more like the non-contact sport of dodge ball where the
> object of the game is evasion. In a debate you craft the rules of
> engagement on the fly to suit your whims and fancy. You demand that
> your adversary conform to your set of rules from which you exempt
> yourself. Debate for you is more about form than function. You
> attempt to frustrate your opponent by nitpicking writing proficiency,
> and identifying grammatical errors, typos and misspellings of your
> adversary as if you were not remiss in this regard. You deliberately
> misconstrue that which your adversary intended when you are unable or
> unwilling to counter or when you endeavor to divert the attention of
> your opponent or the readership. I prefer engaging an adversary who
> enters into the field of battle with the understanding that we play
> fairly (by the same rules) knowing full well that you win some and you
> lose some. You regard any concession as a sign of weakness rather than
> one of recognition. Consequently, you are unwilling to concede
> anything, twisting and distorting, rationalizing at every turn,
> deluding yourself into believing that you have made your point even
> when you've failed.

Translation: If you can not stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

> Tom, until I encountered you, I was unaware that anyone could stack
> bullshit so high. Regardless of what you have said or will say in your
> own feeble defense, as self-appointed spokesperson, your efforts for
> vindication for the JAG alliance condemn you as a collaborator. Thanks
> for making it clear to the ARBR readership just where you stand and
> with whom. I no longer have the ambition, the forbearance, the
> dedication or the time required to endure you, your specious reasoning
> or your incoherent rhetoric.

At the end, Mr. McNaa insists on stating suspicion as fact. No
wonder is quitting the argument, since Mr. McNaa LACKS PROOF OF THE
IDENTITY of the HRS blog author(s).

> Tom, nothing is nearly so dangerous as sincere ignorance coupled with
> conscientious stupidity. You resemble those reks. You are an
> obtuse, sanctimonious ARBR contaminant ... a pretentious windbag and a
> master of subterfuge. You are arrogant, obstinate, pompous narcissist.
> You are a myopic, incorrigible dunderhead. You are self-righteous and
> filled with your own self-importance. You are an appalling waste of
> raw material that would be of most benefit if recycled into the food
> chain. I regret that I wasted so much time on someone so unworthy.

Lacking PROOF of his contentions, Mr. McNaa resorts to a long string
of insults.

> At
> this time, I would like to delegate the task of unscrewing the
> inscrutable over to your archrival and nemesis ... Ed Dolan. Tom, here
> is word of advice. The next time you are itching for a public fight,
> it would prudent for you to select your adversary more judiciously.

I think I picked my opponent well. He was "hoisted on his own petard"
by posting a hypothesis he could not back up.

WHERE IS THE PROOF OF THE HRS BLOG AUTHOR(S) IDENTIES, Mr. McNAA?

> Doing so will ensure a greater possibility of success and minimize the
> probability of further embarrassment. Sorry to just, as you say, "cut
> and run", but I take great joy in knowing just how much that infuriates
> you.

Others cutting and running does not bother me at all, since I enjoy
pointing it out. ;)

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

Date: 16 Dec 2005 03:39:35
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

"Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1134695435.129990.48900@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Many people have been convicted for crimes they did not commit, and
> many more for legal crimes that were not immoral. I, of course hold to
> the higher absolute standard of morality and logic. ...
[...]

There is just no way I am going to give the above a free pass, at least not
with the likes of Mr. Sherman.

What absolute standard, pray tell? Unless you are appealing to a religion,
there are no absolute standards for morality. Logic is totally irrelevant to
the issue of what is moral. With logic, you can make anything either moral
or immoral. Logic is simply a means, not an end.

Is Mr. Sherman religious since that is the only possible appeal he can make
to an absolute morality. I recommend Christianity to him if he is serious
about searching for an absolute morality. Do not even think about any other
religions as they are all steeped in tribal roots and possessed of all kinds
of barbarisms.

However, for Mr. Sherman to adequately understand the human dilemma, he
would have to embrace the concept of original sin, a key part of the
Judeo-Christian tradition. Secularists like to think that human nature is a
blank slate that can be written on by experience whereas we original sinners
know that is not the case. Human nature is so damn despicable (due to
original sin) that it has to be rigidly circumscribed if we are to live
together in society.

That incidentally is why I am a conservative and why liberalism is wrong
headed and never works in the long run in any society. Christians tend to be
conservative and can even be Democrats, but can never be liberal. Abhor your
liberalism if you would be saved from your situational morality, oh you
seeker of absolute morality!

The Chicago area (Fox River Valley) is just chock full of Catholic Churches
where you can go to learn all about absolute morality. A good and holy
celibate priest will take you under his wing and teach you everything you
will ever have to know about absolute morality. I recommend my brother's
church, St. John Cantius, where I understand they also have an outstanding
musical program.

Go my son, with God,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Date: 16 Dec 2005 02:58:18
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

"Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1134695435.129990.48900@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
[...]
> [YAWN] Legality and morality are obviously not the same things. In
> various times and places (including in some cases the US), slavery,
> infanticide, gender discrimination, class based discrimination, racial
> based discrimination, genocide, domestic violence and rape have been
> legal. I rest my case on this matter.

All of the above items that Mr. Sherman mentions were regarded as moral too
at the time and place where they took place. Abortion is now legal and
liberals like Sherman regard it as moral too. I think it ought to be legal
to kill (murder) abortionists and all who practice it. And that would also
be the moral thing to do according to my lights.
[...]

> Many people have been convicted for crimes they did not commit, and
> many more for legal crimes that were not immoral. I, of course hold to
> the higher absolute standard of morality and logic.
[...]

Nonsense! Most criminals have gotten away with many crimes by the time they
are finally caught for something or other. They are all guilty of something.
I say off with their heads! It is far, far better that ten innocent men be
executed than that one guilty man go free. (Now, we will see if anyone is
reading this thread.)
[...]

> Translation: If you can not stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Jim is writing about a thousand words to every one of Tom's. Mr. Sherman is
the laziest cook in the kitchen, heat or no heat.

Jim McNaa wrote:

>> Tom, until I encountered you, I was unaware that anyone could stack
>> bullshit so high. Regardless of what you have said or will say in your
>> own feeble defense, as self-appointed spokesperson, your efforts for
>> vindication for the JAG alliance condemn you as a collaborator. Thanks
>> for making it clear to the ARBR readership just where you stand and
>> with whom. I no longer have the ambition, the forbearance, the
>> dedication or the time required to endure you, your specious reasoning
>> or your incoherent rhetoric.
>
> At the end, Mr. McNaa insists on stating suspicion as fact. No
> wonder is quitting the argument, since Mr. McNaa LACKS PROOF OF THE
> IDENTITY of the HRS blog author(s).

Circumstantial evidence is all that is required by any sane person.

>> Tom, nothing is nearly so dangerous as sincere ignorance coupled with
>> conscientious stupidity. You resemble those reks. You are an
>> obtuse, sanctimonious ARBR contaminant ... a pretentious windbag and a
>> master of subterfuge. You are arrogant, obstinate, pompous narcissist.
>> You are a myopic, incorrigible dunderhead. You are self-righteous and
>> filled with your own self-importance. You are an appalling waste of
>> raw material that would be of most benefit if recycled into the food
>> chain. I regret that I wasted so much time on someone so unworthy.
>
> Lacking PROOF of his contentions, Mr. McNaa resorts to a long string
> of insults.

You drive others to it by your standoffishness (only the Great Ed Dolan can
make up words like this - the rest of you are prohibited from doing it). I
would not waste so many words on you, but then I am not Jim.
[...]

> Others cutting and running does not bother me at all, since I enjoy
> pointing it out. ;)

Mr. Sherman just normally disappears without any announcements. He is unlike
me that way. Once when he left ARBR he said nothing at all. He just
disappeared like the Cheshire cat.

When I leave ARBR, quite often and regularly, I always make an announcement
and a big event of it. That is because I deserve it. I am not a disappearing
cat like Mr. Sherman who slinks quietly away into the night.

My next final farewell will be my 6th I believe. I promise lots of
fireworks!

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Date: 21 Dec 2005 21:40:36
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

Edward Dolan, Troll of Worthington, wrote:
> ...
> Mr. Sherman's defense of these blog scum bags borders on insanity.

Eddie boy is confused. How I am defending the HRS blog author(s) by
claiming there is no proof that Ed Gin is involved?

> I think
> Jim McNaa is quite right to lump him in with them. I was not prepared to
> go that far myself, but his defense of them leads me to believe he has gone
> over to the dark side....

Dark Side: UK term for recumbent rider. Guilty as charged! :)

> ...
> Why are we cutting Mr. Sherman any slack on any of this? He can either get
> on the right side of these issues....

Sitting on the right side of the aisle in the assembly generally leads
to being wrong.

"On your left"!

> or he can go to Hell as far as I am concerned....

What is with this obsession of Ed Dolan for me to travel to Hell,
Michigan? [1]

> Who does he think he is anyway?

Orphaned Earth Cycles seek me out. What higher praise could there be?

[1]
<http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?searchtype=address&country=US&addtohistory=&searchtab=home&formtype=address&popflag=0&latitude=&longitude=&name=&phone=&cat=&address=&city=hell&state=mi&zipcode= >.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

Date: 22 Dec 2005 00:20:40
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

"Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1135230036.737537.124740@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Edward Dolan, Troll of Worthington, wrote:
>> ...
>> Mr. Sherman's defense of these blog scum bags borders on insanity.
>
> Eddie boy is confused. How I am defending the HRS blog author(s) by
> claiming there is no proof that Ed Gin is involved?

Circumstantial evidence is all the proof a newsgroup needs. Jim McNaa and
others have provided all the circumstantial evidence that any sane person
needs.

You do not condemn the blogs as you should just as you did not condemn Ed
Gin for posting the way he did last winter on ARBR. You are constantly out
to lunch when there is serious business to attend to. What conclusion are we
suppose to draw from your absences?

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

PS. Mr. Sherman is no Lorenzo L. Love! Mr. Love harped on just one defense
against the advocates for the BigHa, its very high price. But he did it with
panache, a quality that Mr. Sherman lacks.

Date: 21 Dec 2005 15:16:43
From:
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

Kurt,

I think what you have had to say here is even handed and fair enough
and I agree with your observations. As concerns the attention getting
spamming in the Europen theater, it is not unreasonable to assume that
it is from the same source that has been spamming ARBR and that is
likely the HRS blog authors themselves who seek recognition even from
outside the US borders. Now Tom might argue that it could be from
someone, like myself, for instance, intednding to discredit the authors
and while this is plausible, it is not my style and the authors have
brought more than enough discredit upon themselves without me or anyone
else having to pitch in and render assistance. Maybe Kevin will weigh
in with an opinion.

JimmyMac

Date: 15 Dec 2005 08:37:27
From: Porky
Subject: Re: In Departing ... My Final Words to Tom Sherman

Jimmy Mac,

Better change that filthy underwear!

http://highracers.blogspot.com/2005/12/jimmymac-redefines-skidks-at-st.html

It's party time at Winter Walkbike Camp in St Petes. JimmyMac and
company are having fun on the lawn of their deluxe accommodations
suite. After the 10 mile morning training ride in the parking lot, they
burn off some more calories twisting the afternoon away.

We at HRS has learned there is a shortage of Killer Bee Asswipe at
walkbike camp. JimmyMac, on the far right of this photo definitely
needs a roll of Killer Bee Asswipe before this game of twister gets out
of hand.