bicycle-forum.net Promoting biking discussion.

Main Date: 08 Dec 2005 15:47:03 From: Subject: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! I now have to retract what I said to Indiana Mike about not being attacked in the HRS blog. Gee, do you think it was something I said? >From the picture one would think that I should take stock of myself, if it were me that is. I'm 6 feet tall and the last time I weigh a shade under 170 pounds. I don't take Prozac and never have. The only thing that they got right is that I did suffer a recent bout with acute bacterial prostatitis, but that's behind me now. I find it most telling that I have become the latest target candidate right after Tom Sherman's blunder when he provided the suspects first initials to the last initials that I had provided. Now, Tom might not agree, but it is not unreasonable to assume that I would only have been added to the inane, defamatory HRS blog if those initials were applicable to one or more of the suspects. I can hear Tom now ... coincidence ... circumstantial ... where's the proof? My response is that there have been way too many coincidences and the circumstantial evidence continues to mount. This might come as a surprise to you, but anticipated this predictable response and I am overjoyed that I have been included. Why? Well, because my inclusion lends credence to my contention regarding who is responsible and stands in evidence that what I have had to say has hit home and stuck a nerve. Thanks for tipping your hand guys. You're not the brightest crayons in the box are you? You know, the way I look at it, the more target candidates they include, the more time they will have to devote to (read waste on) an initiative that no one cares abut cares about. I'll give them their due though. These toddlers are a clever lot. If they hadn't cracked their mommy's password, we wouldn't be subjected to their infantile drivel. Be patient. Perhaps one day they will grow up. Don't hold your breath though. Jim McNaa   Date: 15 Dec 2005 05:53:09 From: Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! Tom, > Why does Mr. McNaa continue to insist on attacking certain? > individuals as being responsible for the HRS blog when he is not the > priy target? Mr. McNaa was not even mentioned in the HRS blog > until he started directing accusation towards others without having any PROOF. -- > Do you really think that I'm upset about being inducted into the blog? I fully anticipated and expected the dunderheads to do exactly that. I would have been disappointed if they hadn't acted accordingly. I consider my induction into the HRS blog to be confirmation of those whom I suspect and validation of their culpability. I have all the PROOF that I need. Circumstantial evidence is PROOF. It is just not PROOF that you deem acceptable, but that's not my problem. That's your problem. Quit crying and deal with it. Why have I persisted? Well, because I am convinced of who is responsible, dead set against what they are doing and determined not to allow someone who is more of a magician than a logician deter me. > --> Circumstantial evidence is an acceptable form of proof in a court > of law. I guess maybe I came to someone's defense just the same as you > have even though you allege that you have no dog in this fight. > Was Mr. McNaa looking for a fight with me before this issue of the > HRS blog came up - if so the timing is an amusing coincidence? And if > Mr. McNaa was looking to pick a fight, what does that say about him? > --> I see, without a smiley to serve as a cue card, you are unable to > recognize humor. Lighten up, Tommy boy. For what it is worth in > another post you wrote that you specifically were looking for a public > fight, so I ask in turn what does this say about you. I like to argue about issues, not to denigrate others. The difference ought to be obvious. -- > Oh, it is obvious. You don't denigrate others. You defend those who denigrate others. Readers, what does this say about Mr. Sherman? If we have not been arguing about issues here, then would you please explain to me just what it is that we have been doing? > The fact is that Mr. McNaa can not prove that he is not the author > Of the HRS blog unless he proves another person (or persons) to be the > author (or authors). Therefore, based on Mr. McNaa's criteria of > basing guilt on circumstantial evidence and not proof, he becomes a > probable candidate since his motive of wanting to discredit Ed Gin & > Company is well documented. > --> WARNING ... WARNING Illogical Diversionary Tactics immediately > above. You get more convoluted with each post. The fact is that no > one (including Tom) has established that they are not the author of the > HRS blog by Tom's own standard of proof, however it DOES NOT LOGICALLY > FOLLOW that all who have not done so (including myself and the real > authors) can realistically be considered probable (meaning likely or > plausible candidates) in the absence of sufficient evidence in whatever > form it takes including the circumstantial. Tom, do you really > consider yourself to be a rational, logical person? The question > remains, just where does the existing circumstantial evidence point? > Please note that Tom has rapidly promoted me from a "hypothetical" to a > "probable" candidate. Note also that it can just as easily be said > that Tom has motive to discredit me because I am discrediting his > buddies, but ask him and he will tell you that he has no dog in this > fight, but I am sure you have noticed that Tom tends to bend the truth > a might. Ask yourself this as well. If Mr. McNaa has reason to > discredit Ed Gin & Company, wouldn't he author a blog focused upon > those he desired to discredit rather than on Bacchetta? Just how much > more ridiculous can Mr. Sherman get? To think that this man prides > himself in his ability to think logically. Truth be told this is > getting just too easy, but the repletion is becoming tedious. It is > frustrating dealing with a blockhead. I'm getting bored with it all > and may very well pull the plug soon. If I wanted to discredit Mr. McNaa, I could start a blog denigrating Ed Gin. For the subject matter I would research all of Mr. McNaa's old archived accusations against Ed Gin. Then, I would post messages to public forum's accusing Mr. McNaa of authoring the blog, and the circumstantial evidence would point to Mr. McNaa. See how easy this is? -- > You mean you'd go to all that trouble for me? I'm touched. Well, don't sing it. Bring it. What's holding you back? Go for it. Easy you say? It would entail a substantial amount of time and effort, but I'm sure you know of a few experienced people who would be willing to lend a helping hand. The way I see it, you missed your opportunity when you announced how easily you could accomplish this. In any such event, you wouldn't want to be the number one suspect. Besides, you're probably too late. Your buddies might already be working on that project. Fear not though. If this were to come to pass and if someone were to identify you know who as the most likely culprits, you can always step forward and assume the role of spokesperson in their defense. You appear to be quite comfortable in that role. While I really do not suspect Mr. McNaa very highly of being the HRS blog author, -- > Now you did that on purpose. Are you trying to shock your adversary to death with such a forthright admission? Regardless, I appreciate your honesty, but you shouldn't suspect me at all. There is not even a remote shred of circumstantial evidence to support the possibility. it is funny the way he gets all wound up when his own tactics of ACCUSING WITHOUT PROOF are turned against him (the whole point of the Johnny Sunset story). Mr. McNaa has established his double standard for all of alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent to see, so the story served its purpose well. -- > Equivocation. What's even more funny is the delight that you take in mental masturbation and linguistic gymnastics. > So Mr. McNaa had a falling out with Ed Gin. Why not sleeping dogs > lie [1]? > --> Mr. McNaa would HYPOTHETICALLY take that under advisement if > perhaps it had come from another source. Mr. McNaa should have come to that conclusion before becoming involved. In all likelihood, the HRS blog would never have mentioned him if he had not ACCUSED OTHERS WHILE LACKING PROOF. -- > Being included in the HRS blog doesn't trouble me. As I have previously indicated, the author(s) of the blog would not have responded in this matter if they were not the suspects in question. Their response lends credence to the notion that they are and I thank them profusely for tipping their hand. > Without invading Mr. McNaa's privacy, we can not know what ISP > services he does and does not have. If he can afford a place of > residence, he can likely afford SBC DSL, since the overall cost is less > than $20/month. > --> As usual. Drivel without substance. Affording a place of > residence and being able to afford SBC DSL is not the issue at hand, > but as long as you brought it up. My dialup connection works rather > well for me as long as I don't have to do BIG downloads. Several > broadband users have reked how well my internet connection works. I > have taken great pains to teak my hardware and software to optimal > performance. Up until a few years ago, SBC would not even sell me a > DLS connection because I was beyond the recommended distance for the > local telephone switching station. It has since changed its mind and > neighbors of mine who have SBC DSL are experiencing abysmal > performance. One down the street often has no connectivity for days at > a time. As the price continues to drop, if I go broadband I will > likely go with cable.... And support a monopoly? No thanks. -- > In a feeble attempt at diversion, you deliberately missed my again. I don't have SBC DSL for reasons of my own choosing, so I do not have the same provider as the HRS blog author(s) and this is easily verified as factual. > You ask that I invade Ed Gin's privacy to obtain > his ISP (as part an parcel of you required proof)... Assuming facts not in evidence again, I see. No one has proved Ed Gin is responsible for the HRS blog like Mr. McNaa's statement implies. This is getting to be a bad habit on Mr. McNaa's part. -- > You are putting words in my mouth. The only assumption and implication made here was made by Mr. Sherman. The facts in evidence are that Mr. Sherman requested certain data as part and parcel of what he would accept as proof, ISP number being one component, but that could entail invasion of privacy. Mr. Sherman expressed having a problem with that but had little difficulty expecting the same of Mr.McNaa. I trust that clears things up for the imperceptible Mr. Sherman. Mr. Sherman has repeated, and incorrectly, stated that I have accused or implied that Ed Gin is the author of the HRS blog, but he has failed to cite a single reference when and where Mr. McNaa did this. This is becoming a bad habit on the part of Mr. Sherman's part. I have repeatedly stated that I suspect someone else. How many times must I repeat that before it sinks into that thick skull of yours, dullard? You earned that gratuitous insult. > but are concerned > about invading my privacy to obtain mine. There's something wrong with > this picture. If someone is really interested, I could certainly > provide the information in a verifiable form that would leave no doubt > that I do not share an ISP used by the HRS blog culpable, but then I > couldn't play out my $1000,000 hand now could I? The reward has increased to $1 million dollars? And I though you said you like to argue about issues. Predictably, rather than address the issues, Mr. Sherman points out a typo. As for the dollar amount, I could just as easily offer that amount fully confident that I would never have to pay up, but I'll tell you what. The current offer stands at $100,000. The stakes can either be raised or lowered depending upon Mr. Sherman's level of confidence or lack thereof. So what's it going to be? Are you going to put your money where your mouth is or are you just going to keep running your mouth? Hypothetically speaking, Mr. McNaa could have SBC DSL at a secondary address or be using the service of an acquaintance. How does one prove a negative, anyhow? -- > Mr. Sherman has an overactive imagination. Please note how Mr. Sherman makes it impossible to meet his standard of proof. When Mr. McNaa offers to prove who his ISP is, Mr. Sherman engages in a shell game to simply introduce a secondary ISP at a secondary location. Hypothetical ... hypothetical. Hypothetically speaking, Mr. Sherman could be intelligent and logical, but..... Readers, remember I asked, just how ridiculous will Mr. Sherman become? Well, I think you have to agree the question has been answered. I will now extend my offer of $100,000 to include Mr. Sherman's latest ruse. Please note that one moment Mr. Sherman says that he really does not suspect Mr. McNaa very highly of being the HRS blog author and the next he says that Mr. McNaa could have SBC DSL at a secondary address or be using the service of an acquaintance. Mr. Sherman has just finished painting a revealing self-portrait of contradiction. > > Mr. McNaa's having access to the means and methods is hardly a > > stretch. > > --> No, but what is a stretch is the unproven assumptions that ... 1. > > Mr. McNaa has an internet account with the same provider as those > > "accused" and 2. Mr. McNaa is a viable candidate to author the HRS > > blog. He has gone on record that he has neither the time nor the > > desire to do any such thing. How long will Mr. Sherman pursue this > > inane diversion? Stay tuned as he fails to establish PROOF for either > > unfounded allegation. #1 or #2. Hey, Mr. McNaa has said that he'd > > even make it worth Mr. Sherman's while by extending that generous offer > > of $100.000.00 to these two unsubstantiated allegations as well. You > > know what is amusing in all this. If Mr. McNaa were to say crap > > like this, Tommy boy would be on him like stink on shit, but as Mr. > > McNaa so rightly pointed out in the past; Tom doesn't play by the > > same set of rules that he expects his opposition to play by. That's > > not very fair of him, now is it? > If Mr. McNaa has time to argue with me at length about his unfounded > accusations, he should have time to create a simple blog. As for > desire, his posts (recent and less recent) indicate a great desire to > damage Ed Gin. The protests are not convincing. > --> Unfounded? I refer you to the mounting circumstantial evidence > that you refuse to acknowledge. Mr. McNaa has made time to argue > with you about much more than what you consider unfounded accusations. > Since you like the term motive, ask yourself who has a motive to > trash Bacchetta? Rhetorical question. From your previous posts, your > own written words answer the question. If present and past posts > indicate a great desire to damage Ed Gin, but are not convincing then > what's all the fuss over Tom? This is as much about my desire not to > see the reputation of Bacchetta, its bikes and the company damaged by a > few malcontents with a grudge, but you don't recognize that. You call > that acceptable parody of public figures. As defined by law, you are > WRONG on this account, so you have more that just me to argue with in > this matter. Bacchetta principals should stop insulting people ... -- > Bacchetta principals? Who? Are you trying to turn the tables here Tom? Oh that's right. The HRS blog isn't insulting. It's merely parody and, for the most part acceptable parody, according to Mr. Sherman, but insults .... now, that's where Mr.Sheman draws the line. What a hypocrite ... not a gratuitous insult ... just an observation and a conclusion readily drawn. The HRS blog has a specific objective ... to denigrate. 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 merited and will be haunted by. Remembered for the significant role that he played will be their spokesperson and defender ... Tom Sherman. Jim McNaa   Date: 12 Dec 2005 19:15:09 From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! Edward Dolan wrote: > "Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1134440821.403119.284820@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > > Jim McNaa <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com> wrote: > [...] > >> Does the mention of the product of a necessary biological function > >> disturb Mr. McNaa? Is he that illogically prudish? > >> > >> --> Not in the least. It's just that you've contributed enough > >> bullshit already without adding turds to the mix. > > > > No Shit? [1] > [...] > > > [1] Beth of Alaska reference. > > I wonder what ever happened to her? She was a bit before my time here on > ARBR. She seems like she was a crude woman, the only kind who ever seem to > show up on cycling forums. That no doubt is how Mr. Sherman likes them - > crude and coarse and vulgar. Here is the post for reference: <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent/msg/9abd7de17ebea406?dmode=source >. -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley "ahno. the edo comes and goes. you stand there and experience the edo unless you are bound by ego riding a bike is highly valued as a way to experience and sample the edo" - G. Daniels     Date: 13 Dec 2005 22:44:40 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! "Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1134443709.890995.115410@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com.gnresend... > > Edward Dolan wrote: >> "Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:1134440821.403119.284820@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> > >> > Jim McNaa <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com> wrote: >> [...] >> >> Does the mention of the product of a necessary biological function >> >> disturb Mr. McNaa? Is he that illogically prudish? >> >> >> >> --> Not in the least. It's just that you've contributed enough >> >> bullshit already without adding turds to the mix. >> > >> > No Shit? [1] >> [...] >> >> > [1] Beth of Alaska reference. >> >> I wonder what ever happened to her? She was a bit before my time here on >> ARBR. She seems like she was a crude woman, the only kind who ever seem >> to >> show up on cycling forums. That no doubt is how Mr. Sherman likes them - >> crude and coarse and vulgar. > > Here is the post for reference: > <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent/msg/9abd7de17ebea406?dmode=source>. I do not know why Mr. Sherman does not give us the relevant material instead of always referring us to a link. Most will not go to a link. I myself will only go to a link from those I trust. Mr. Sherman I trust, except when he is trying to be too cute for words. Here is the pertinent part of the link: "Jonathan Lawrence" <jmlawre...@peoplepc.com > wrote in message news:uofhjooe4bfg0b@corp.supernews.com... > Anyone who has to resort to use of the phrase "no shit" while responding to > another person's reply doesn't deserve to be on this newsgroup. Beth of Alaska wrote: No shit? Now I am with Jonathan Lawrence. He no doubt had high standards like I do. But Beth did show some wit I must admit. I can't figure out why I can never think of stuff like this. I think it is because I am always going for the jugular. In order to be witty, you have to be able step back and see the rek from outside yourself. I am never able to do that. Skip was famous for his ability to do this. Regards, Ed Dolan - Minnesota   Date: 12 Dec 2005 18:27:01 From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! Jim McNaa <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com > wrote: > Tom, > > Mr. McNaa's formatting disturbs the hierarchy of ">" characters used > to k quoted material, since his formatting does not k the > material he is quoting with a ">" character. This is a disservice to > EVERYONE who reads the posts on the threads he is contributing to. His > apology should not be directed to me, but to everyone who reads > alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent - this is not an email conversation after > all. His rudeness to general readership of alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent > is revealing of his character. > > --> And, here I go again. You are the only one asking for an apology. > > Why should I bother to rebut that which is both poorly argued and > lacking in coherence of thought? > > --> I see you continue to feign perceptual difficulties or is it > perhaps the real thing this time around? > > Does the mention of the product of a necessary biological function > disturb Mr. McNaa? Is he that illogically prudish? > > --> Not in the least. It's just that you've contributed enough > bullshit already without adding turds to the mix. No Shit? [1] > Why does Mr. McNaa continue to insist on attacking certain > individuals as being responsible for the HRS blog when he is not the > priy target? Mr. McNaa was not even mentioned in the HRS blog > until he started directing accusation towards others without having any > PROOF. > > --> Circumstantial evidence is an acceptable form of proof in a court > of law. I guess maybe I came to someone's defense just the same as you > have even though you allege that you have no dog in this fight. > > Was Mr. McNaa looking for a fight with me before this issue of the > HRS blog came up - if so the timing is an amusing coincidence? And if > Mr. McNaa was looking to pick a fight, what does that say about him? > > --> I see without a smiley to serve as a cue card you are unable to > recognize humor. Lighten up, Tommy boy. For what it is worth in > another post you worte that you specifically were looking for a public > fight, so I ask in turn what doe this say about you. I like to argue about issues, not to denigrate others. The difference ought to be obvious. > The fact is that Mr. McNaa can not prove that he is not the author > of the HRS blog unless he proves another person (or persons) to be the > author (or authors). Therefore, based on Mr. McNaa's criteria of > basing guilt on circumstantial evidence and not proof, he becomes a > probable candidate since his motive of wanting to discredit Ed Gin & > Company is well documented. > > --> WARNING ... WARNING Illogical Diversionary Tactics immediately > above. You get more convoluted with each post. The fact is that no > one (including Tom) has established that they are not the author of the > HRS blog by Tom's own standard of proof, however it DOES NOT LOGICALLY > FOLLOW that all who have not done so (including myself and the real > authors) can realistically be considered probable (meaning likely or > plausible candidates) in the absence of sufficient evidence in whatever > form it takes including the circumstantial. Tom, do you really > consider youself to be a rational, logical person? The question > remains, just where does the existing circumstantial evidence point? > Please note that Tom has rapidly promoted me from a "hypothetical" to a > "probable" candidate. Note also that it can just as easily be said > that Tom has motive to discredit me because I am discrediting his > buddies, but ask him and he will tell you that he has no dog in this > fight, but I am sure you have noticed that Tom tends to bend the truth > a might. Ask yourself this as well. If Mr. McNaa has reason to > discredit Ed Gin & Company, wouldn't he author a blog focused upon > those he desired to discredit rather than on Bacchetta. Just how much > more ridiculous can Mr. Sherman get? To think that this made prides > himself in his ability to think logically. Truth be told this is > getting just too easy, but the repletion is becoming tedious. It is > frustrating dealing with a blockhead. I'm getting bored with it all > and may very well pull the plug soon. If I wanted to discredit Mr. McNaa, I could start a blog denigrating Ed Gin. For the subject matter I would research all of Mr. McNaa's old archived accusations against Ed Gin. Then, I would post messages to public forum's accusing Mr. McNaa of authoring the blog, and the circumstantial evidence would point to Mr. McNaa. See how easy this is? While I really do not suspect Mr. McNaa very highly of being the HRS blog author, it is funny the way he gets all wound up when his own tactics of ACCUSING WITHOUT PROOF are turned against him (the whole point of the Johnny Sunset story). Mr. McNaa has established his double standard for all of alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent to see, so the story served its purpose well. > I am here to defend the concept of innocent until proven guilty. What > Mr. McNaa is here for should be obvious, and is it not a poor > reflection on him? > > --> You are here for several reasons: > > 1. By your own admission you have indicated that you look for and enjoy > a good fight. > 2. You feel compelled to defend your friends. > 3. Your garner self esteem from victory real or imagined. > > So Mr. McNaa had a falling out with Ed Gin. Why not sleeping dogs > lie [1]? > > --> Mr. McNaa would HYPOTHETICALLY take that under advisement if > perhaps it had come from another source. Mr. McNaa should have come to that conclusion before becoming involved. In all likelihood, the HRS blog would never have mentioned him if he had not ACCUSED OTHERS WHILE LACKING PROOF. > Without invading Mr. McNaa's privacy, we can not know what ISP > services he does and does not have. If he can afford a place of > residence, he can likely afford SBC DSL, since the overall cost is less > than $20/month. > > --> As usual. Drivel without substance. Affording a place of > residence and being able to afford SBC DSL is not the issue at hand, > but as long as you brought it up. My dialup connection works rather > well for me as long as I don't have to do BIG downloads. Several > broadband users have reked how well my internet connection works. I > have taken great pains to teak my hardware and software to optimal > performance. Up until a few years ago, SBC would not even sell me a > DLS connection because I was beyond the recommended distance for the > local telephone switching station. It has since changed its mind and > neighbors of mine who have SBC DSL are experiencing abysmal > performance. One down the street often has no connectivity for days at > a time. As the price continues to drop, if I go broadband I will > likely go with cable.... And support a monopoly? No thanks. > You ask that I invade Ed Gin's privacy to obtain > his ISP (as part an parcel of you required proof)... Assuming facts not in evidence again, I see. No one has proved Ed Gin is responsible for the HRS blog like Mr. McNaa's statement implies. This is getting to be a bad habit on Mr. McNaa's part. > but are concerned > about invading my privacy to obtain mine. There's something wrong with > this picture. If someone is really interested, I could certainly > provide the information in a verifiable from that would leave no doubt > that I do not share an ISP used by the HRS blog culpable, but then I > couldn't play out my $1000,000 hand now could I? The reward has increased to $1 million dollars? Hypothetically speaking, Mr. McNaa could have SBC DSL at a secondary address or be using the service of an acquaintance. How does one prove a negative, anyhow? > > Mr. McNaa's having access to the means and methods is hardly a > > stretch. > > > --> No, but what is a stretch is the unproven assumptions that ... 1. > > Mr. McNaa has an internet account with the same provider as those > > "accused" and 2. Mr. McNaa is a viable candidate to author the HRS > > blog. He has gone on record that he has neither the time nor the > > desire to do any such thing. How long will Mr. Sherman pursue this > > inane diversion? Stay tuned as he fails to establish PROOF for either > > unfounded allegation. #1 or #2. Hey, Mr. McNaa has said that he'd > > even make it worth Mr. Sherman's while by extending that generous offer > > of $100.000.00 to these two unsubstantiated allegations as well. You > > know what is amusing in all this. If Mr. McNaa were to say crap > > like this, Tommy boy would be on him like stink on shit, but as Mr. > > McNaa so rightly pointed out in the past; Tom doesn't play by the > > same set of rules that he expects his opposition to play by. That's > > not very fair of him, now is it? > > If Mr. McNaa has time to argue with me at length about his unfounded > accusations, he should have time to create a simple blog. As for > desire, his posts (recent and less recent) indicate a great desire to > damage Ed Gin. The protests are not convincing. > > --> Unfounded? I refer you to the mounting circumstantial evidence > that you refuse to acknowledge. Mr. McNaa has made time to argue > with you about much more than what you consider unfounded accusations. > Since you like the term motive, ask yourself who has most motive to > trash Bacchetta? Rhetorical question. From your previous posts, your > own written words answer the question. If present and past posts > indicate a great desire to damage Ed Gin, but are not convincing then > what's all the fuss over Tom? This is as much about my desire not to > see the reputation of Bacchetta, its bikes and the company damaged by a > few malcontents with a grudge, but you don't recognize that. You call > that acceptable parody of public figures. As defined by law, you are > WRONG on this account, so you have more that just me to argue with in > this matter. Bacchetta principals should stop insulting people and having "Killer B's" that do the same if they wish to avoid negative feelings. I am using absolute standards, since it is well established that legality and morality are two different things. In the context of the recumbent community and its forums, a person who is a principal in a company and represents that company to the public is a public figure within the recumbent community. > As for the $100,000 dollar offer, it is worthless since it is not > legally binding. > > --> Want to make it wothwhile ... legally binding? Tell you what, I'll > put up $100,000 and you do the same. If I can be proven to be the > author, you'll be $100,000 richer. If I cannot be proven to be the > author, I'll be $100,000 richer. Put up or shut up. Considering what has and has not been claimed, this offer is just ridiculous on Mr. McNaa part. How about Mr. McNaa proving that it is IMPOSSIBLE for him to be the HRS blog author. Note we are not talking about BEING the author. And by impossible, I do not mean extremely improbable, but IMPOSSIBLE BEYOND THE SLIGHTEST DOUBT, no matter how ridiculous the scenario is. Time for Mr. McNaa to put up or shut up. > All that Mr. McNaa would lose by refusing to pay > (in the hypothetical event that he was proven to be the author of the > HRS blog) is reputation. And the loss of reputation from not paying > would be a moot point after the damage done by being revealed as the > HRS blog author after vigorously accusing others. Not impressive at > all, Mr. McNaa. > > --> And you say that I write poorly? Please take note that the word > hypothetical was employed (yeah Tom plays dirty that way). Now, to my > way of thinking, wouldn't this give Tom and his buddies cause for > celebration, money aside? I mean I would be found to be the guilty > party and Mr. Sherman and the JAG alliance would be vindicated ... case > closed. Well let's see just how confident the man really is, shall we? > If you have a hypothectial pair of balls, the offer still stands, but > please understand that we are not talking HYPOTHETICAL money here! > WELL????? See my offer above, which is consistent with my claims, unlike Mr. McNaa's counter-offer WHICH IS INCONSITENT WITH MY CLAIMS. It requires Mr. McNaa to prove a negative. ;) > ***** > > 1. As concerns the issue of time, a blog would demand even more time > > because I would be facing a learning curve, since I've never done one > > and because it is graphics intensive. It is a bit easier when the task > > can be shared especially when two of those whom I suspect have a know > > expertise in that area, but do we really need anymore circumstantial > > evidence? As concerns the issue of willingness, a blog would be > > unsuitable. It is a cowardly conduit because it is a monologue devoid > > of combat with your adversary and there is just no sport in that. > > 3. More important than #1 & #2 is this. As Tom points out, I've had > > issues with certain individuals, two to be exact. Now, if I were to > > author a blog, is it not logical to assume that these individuals would > > be my focus? Now, ask yourself, what is the focus of the HRS blog? > > Don't cheat by looking at the title. I have no issues with any form > > that a bicycle takes (including the NoCom), or with any Bacchetta > > employee or with BROL or its moderator. Now, ask yourself just who > > might the individuals be that have these issues that the HRS blog > > happens to focus on? If you need a point of reference, look through > > the archives of the multitude of posts in various forums. There's no > > mystery here. You'll find parallels to the material in the HRS blog, > > but you'll not find me associated with any of it, although what you > > will discover will leave little doubt in your mind as to who the > > probable candidates are. > > In the above, Mr. McNaa reveals that he knows what is required to > create a blog. > > --> This statement is FALSE AND ILLOGICAL. Mr. Sherman prides himself > in being logical, whereas he should pride himself in his abilities to > prove otherwise. Once again, Mr. Sherman has intentionaly misconstrued > what was written either because he is unable to comprehend what he read > or is unable or unwilling to counter what he either did or did not > understand. Your choice readers. Mr. McNaa discusses at length what goes into a blog, and then tries to claim that he does not know what it takes to create a blog. His only response is to revert to his tactic of accusing without basis. Mr. McNaa states "This statement is FALSE AND", but follows it with personal attacks instead of demonstrating its correctness. > For the rest of his argument, it is a further attack on the behavior of > the author(s) of the HRS blog. Further, Mr. McNaa reveals that he > knows what attitudes and habits are associated with those he accuses of > creating the HRS blog. This furthers the hypothetical case that if Mr. > McNaa wanted to create the blog so certain individuals would be > blamed for it; he would know what subject matter to use. > > Thank you Mr. McNaa for contributing to the hypothetical case that > are the HRS blog author. ;) > > --> LAME. For I while there I though you were pretty bright. I was > mistaken. I revealed nothing regarding "attitudes" or "habits". You > do so love putting words in the mouths of your adversaries. I merely > provided the reasons that I would not even chose the blog format and > called attention to the blogs focus and invited the readership to have > a look for themselves at forum archives for parallels and draw their > own conclusions ... nothing more .. nothing less, and I surely did not > contribute your inane hypothesis. You are really beginning to bore me. > You aren't even a challenge anymore. Since reasoning is failing you, > you have to resort to distortion and trickery. How pitiful. I refer > everyone to the paragrapah above preceded by ***** and see if you agree > with Tom's misinterpretation. Yet again, Mr. McNaa denigrates others WITHOUT PROOF. [YAWN] This is a rather bad habit of his, is it not? Hint; stating something is "LAME" does not make it so, unless Mr. McNaa is really the almighty being (in which case he could cast Ed Gin & Company into the fiery abyss). > > --> PROOF? Actually what you have presented is all that is necessary > > (please don't call it PROOF) to show that IT IS POSSIBLE for anyone > > assuming internet connectivity, motive, willingness and skillset to be > > the author of the HRS blog which is to say you have demonstrated > > nothing significant. Although Mr. Sherman is NOT CATAGORICALLY STATING > > THAT MR. McNAA IS THE HRS BLOG AUTHOR, he is using Mr. McNaa's > > name virtually exclusively in his diversionary efforts. The > > implication of such a tactic should be obvious to all. Draw you own > > conclusions. > > I am only using Mr. McNaa's name in this context since he was so > dogged in accusing others without proof. Turnabout is fair play, is it > not? > > --> Turnabout would only be fair play if from the accused or maybe from > you if you were the accuesd, but that isn't the case here now is it? > You are the person who said you have no dog in this fight are you not? > You lied. I am merely defending the standard of innocent until proven guilty. > > > Let me say this straight out ... I did not create > > > the HRS blog. I have gone on record in hundreds of post regarding how > > > I feel about bicycles. I will repeat in brief for all to understand. > > > I feel that we should be united by what we do and not divided by what > > > we do it on. I envision a cycling community devoid of platform > > > prejudice and platform pejoratives. I am in favor of unity through > > > diversity. And, I have thought about buying a Bacchetta Ti-Aero for > > > quite some time. Now do I sound like a person likely to author the > > > denigrating HRS blog?.... > > > With his vindictive attitude on display numerous times towards Ed Gin & > > Company, who knows how far Mr. McNaa would take things? > > > --> Pure conjecture. > > Just like Mr. McNaa accusing Ed Gin & Company is pure conjecture. > > --> My conjecture is substantiated by circumstantial evidence. Your > conjecture is substantiated by nothing other than your personal opinion > regarding my attitudes? Are you the same guy who requires such a high > standard of PROOF? Ed and I have hurled harsh words at one another > over time, but I have never reked ... you never know how far Ed > will go and Ed has never reked ... you never no how far Jim will go, > so why would you make such an observation? Everything you know about > me is second hand from biased sources. You don't know me personally, > so what you have to say about my on a personal level means nothing. I base my opinion of Mr. McNaa on his online behavior - and is not online behavior what is under discussion here? Since I posted what Mr. McNaa is commenting on as a question, of course it is conjecture. > > Mr. McNaa can not win the argument on logic, so now he is resorting > > to insults. Is not this what he accuses others of doing? > > > --> Thanks for your opinion. Now, care to ask for the opinion of the > > readership? > > Only the portion of the readership that is better informed and more > logical on this matter than I am. I will not be holding my breath. > > --> So then you admit to being well informed. I told you everyone. > The man knows more that he is willing to admit to. Now back to what > you said. Would you settle for 1 out of 2? I'm thinking that there > have to be a whole lot of readers that are more logical than you. I know there are probable candidates whose last names start with initials other than "J", "A" and "G". Of course I will not name them, since that would be ACCUSING WITHOUT PROOF. > > --> But, does the circumstantial evidence point at me or those whom I > > suspect? The readership and Mr. McNaa await your answer? > > No reason to repeat the argument here as to why Mr. McNaa has the > motive to create the HRS blog. > > --> But, does the circumstantial evidence point at me or those whom I > suspect? No reason to repeat the argument here that Mr. McNaa > demonstrated no motive to create the HRS blog whereas the JAGs have > demonstrated motie and Tom Sherman has eluded to said motive. Motive for Mr. McNaa has been well demonstrated. It stretches credulity to think Mr. McNaa would not like to see Ed Gin discredited on a public forum, considering his past statements. The reasoning on how the blog could be used to discredit Ed Gin does not need to be repeated. > I like to argue on Usenet. ;) > > --> Like I said before, this is not about right and wrong but the fun > factor and winning at all costs. I obviously like to argue to, but > Xmas is coming and I've lots to do so you just may have to go back to > mixin' it up with Ed Dolan. I hope you honed your skills. They are > still in need of a bit more work. > > > Do not accuse the kettle of being black without proof, if there is the > > possibility that you could be the pot. > > > --> I wouldn't if there was even a remote possibility. > > The issue of possibility has been addressed, and the defense presented > was feeble. This is why accusations without proof should not be made. > > --> The issue of remoteness was not addressed. What we have here is > the unbiased" opinion of the "hypothetical prosecutor" who fails to > understand that the "hypothetical jury" is the readership. The issue > of possibility has been addressed and if you buy what Tom is cookin', > anyone who has not proved that they are not the author, are possible > candidates.... Logically correct. BRAVO Mr. McNaa! > That would of course include Tom himself.... Of course it is HYPOTHETICALLY POSSIBLE I could be the blog author. My motive would be to have Mr. McNaa accuse Ed Gin WITHOUT PROOF so I could draw Mr. McNaa into a drawn out discussion for my amusement. ;) > Can you imagine > a police investigation of a crime proceeding in this manner? Now about > those accusations. At least accusations made not just by me I might > add were substantiated with circumstantial evidence. Substantial > evidence is acceptable in a court of law, but circumstantial evidence > is inadmissible in Tom Sherman's Kangaroo Court. You have to > understand something about Mr. Sherman. He is an artisan who crafts > the rules of engagement on the fly as is so suit his whim and fancy. In Mr. McNaa's court, one would be guilty until proven innocent, if Mr. McNaa felt you had previously crossed him. > As pointed out above, Mr. McNaa's arguments that he COULD NOT BE the > author of the HRS blog are not convincing. His determination to > continue this argument reveals that he has many axes to grind with > certain persons, which makes him hardy an unbiased evaluator of the > existing evidence. > > --> Now that there is admission of evidence, the next order of business > discredit Mr. McNaa as being an unbiased evaluator of said evidence. > Mr. McNaa will accept that ONLY if Mr. Sherman will admit that he > has a conflict of interest. Since he is friends of the accused, he > cannot be considered an unbiased evaluator and must down and the debate > can then be adjourned. Here's you opportunity to escape Tommy boy. > Take it a run. Knowing the accused party might make me more willing to take up the case, but does not change my arguments. I hypothesize that Mr. McNaa wants me to "cut and run" so he does not have to continue this discussion. [1] Beth of Alaska reference. -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley     Date: 12 Dec 2005 20:59:10 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! "Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1134440821.403119.284820@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Jim McNaa <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com> wrote: [...] >> Does the mention of the product of a necessary biological function >> disturb Mr. McNaa? Is he that illogically prudish? >> >> --> Not in the least. It's just that you've contributed enough >> bullshit already without adding turds to the mix. > > No Shit? [1] [...] > [1] Beth of Alaska reference. I wonder what ever happened to her? She was a bit before my time here on ARBR. She seems like she was a crude woman, the only kind who ever seem to show up on cycling forums. That no doubt is how Mr. Sherman likes them - crude and coarse and vulgar. I note that we presently do not have any women on this group. That is all for the best since we do not need coarse women here. A woman should be refined and have a gentle nature. There seems to be something about cycling that only attracts women who are more like men than women. Who needs that? Regards, Ed Dolan - Minnesota   Date: 12 Dec 2005 17:23:00 From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! Edward Dolan wrote: > ... > Yes, you most likely are right about that. I am only concerned with the > posts to ARBR, specifically those that took place last winter from Johnny > NoCom and his many false and forged names. Joao did an analysis of those > posts and convinced me who was who. Why did it not convince you? People whose word I trust have told me that "Johnny NoCom" was not Ed Gin. This is not hard to believe, since there are other "Monkeys" who seem more logical candidates. As for Joao's analysis, it did not prove who actually composed the "Johnny NoCom" messages. -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley "ahno. the edo comes and goes. you stand there and experience the edo unless you are bound by ego riding a bike is highly valued as a way to experience and sample the edo" - G. Daniels     Date: 12 Dec 2005 19:58:19 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! "Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1134436980.795868.259170@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Edward Dolan wrote: >> ... >> Yes, you most likely are right about that. I am only concerned with the >> posts to ARBR, specifically those that took place last winter from Johnny >> NoCom and his many false and forged names. Joao did an analysis of those >> posts and convinced me who was who. Why did it not convince you? > > People whose word I trust have told me that "Johnny NoCom" was not Ed > Gin. This is not hard to believe, since there are other "Monkeys" who > seem more logical candidates. > > As for Joao's analysis, it did not prove who actually composed the > "Johnny NoCom" messages. I trust Jim McNaa on this issue. In any event, my anger is directed at WHOEVER was posting under the name of Johnny NoCom and his many false and forged names, all from one and the same person. Ed Dolan - Minnesota   Date: 11 Dec 2005 23:20:49 From: Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! Tom, Mr. McNaa's formatting disturbs the hierarchy of " >" characters used to k quoted material, since his formatting does not k the material he is quoting with a " >" character. This is a disservice to EVERYONE who reads the posts on the threads he is contributing to. His apology should not be directed to me, but to everyone who reads alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent - this is not an email conversation after all. His rudeness to general readership of alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent is revealing of his character. -- > And, here I go again. You are the only one asking for an apology. Why should I bother to rebut that which is both poorly argued and lacking in coherence of thought? -- > I see you continue to feign perceptual difficulties or is it perhaps the real thing this time around? Does the mention of the product of a necessary biological function disturb Mr. McNaa? Is he that illogically prudish? -- > Not in the least. It's just that you've contributed enough bullshit already without adding turds to the mix. Why does Mr. McNaa continue to insist on attacking certain individuals as being responsible for the HRS blog when he is not the priy target? Mr. McNaa was not even mentioned in the HRS blog until he started directing accusation towards others without having any PROOF. -- > Circumstantial evidence is an acceptable form of proof in a court of law. I guess maybe I came to someone's defense just the same as you have even though you allege that you have no dog in this fight. Was Mr. McNaa looking for a fight with me before this issue of the HRS blog came up - if so the timing is an amusing coincidence? And if Mr. McNaa was looking to pick a fight, what does that say about him? -- > I see without a smiley to serve as a cue card you are unable to recognize humor. Lighten up, Tommy boy. For what it is worth in another post you worte that you specifically were looking for a public fight, so I ask in turn what doe this say about you. The fact is that Mr. McNaa can not prove that he is not the author of the HRS blog unless he proves another person (or persons) to be the author (or authors). Therefore, based on Mr. McNaa's criteria of basing guilt on circumstantial evidence and not proof, he becomes a probable candidate since his motive of wanting to discredit Ed Gin & Company is well documented. -- > WARNING ... WARNING Illogical Diversionary Tactics immediately above. You get more convoluted with each post. The fact is that no one (including Tom) has established that they are not the author of the HRS blog by Tom's own standard of proof, however it DOES NOT LOGICALLY FOLLOW that all who have not done so (including myself and the real authors) can realistically be considered probable (meaning likely or plausible candidates) in the absence of sufficient evidence in whatever form it takes including the circumstantial. Tom, do you really consider youself to be a rational, logical person? The question remains, just where does the existing circumstantial evidence point? Please note that Tom has rapidly promoted me from a "hypothetical" to a "probable" candidate. Note also that it can just as easily be said that Tom has motive to discredit me because I am discrediting his buddies, but ask him and he will tell you that he has no dog in this fight, but I am sure you have noticed that Tom tends to bend the truth a might. Ask yourself this as well. If Mr. McNaa has reason to discredit Ed Gin & Company, wouldn't he author a blog focused upon those he desired to discredit rather than on Bacchetta. Just how much more ridiculous can Mr. Sherman get? To think that this made prides himself in his ability to think logically. Truth be told this is getting just too easy, but the repletion is becoming tedious. It is frustrating dealing with a blockhead. I'm getting bored with it all and may very well pull the plug soon. I am here to defend the concept of innocent until proven guilty. What Mr. McNaa is here for should be obvious, and is it not a poor reflection on him? -- > You are here for several reasons: 1. By your own admission you have indicated that you look for and enjoy a good fight. 2. You feel compelled to defend your friends. 3. Your garner self esteem from victory real or imagined. So Mr. McNaa had a falling out with Ed Gin. Why not sleeping dogs lie [1]? -- > Mr. McNaa would HYPOTHETICALLY take that under advisement if perhaps it had come from another source. Without invading Mr. McNaa's privacy, we can not know what ISP services he does and does not have. If he can afford a place of residence, he can likely afford SBC DSL, since the overall cost is less than $20/month. -- > As usual. Drivel without substance. Affording a place of residence and being able to afford SBC DSL is not the issue at hand, but as long as you brought it up. My dialup connection works rather well for me as long as I don't have to do BIG downloads. Several broadband users have reked how well my internet connection works. I have taken great pains to teak my hardware and software to optimal performance. Up until a few years ago, SBC would not even sell me a DLS connection because I was beyond the recommended distance for the local telephone switching station. It has since changed its mind and neighbors of mine who have SBC DSL are experiencing abysmal performance. One down the street often has no connectivity for days at a time. As the price continues to drop, if I go broadband I will likely go with cable. You ask that I invade Ed Gin's privacy to obtain his ISP (as part an parcel of you required proof) but are concerned about invading my privacy to obtain mine. There's something wrong with this picture. If someone is really interested, I could certainly provide the information in a verifiable from that would leave no doubt that I do not share an ISP used by the HRS blog culpable, but then I couldn't play out my $1000,000 hand now could I? > Mr. McNaa's having access to the means and methods is hardly a > stretch. > --> No, but what is a stretch is the unproven assumptions that ... 1. > Mr. McNaa has an internet account with the same provider as those > "accused" and 2. Mr. McNaa is a viable candidate to author the HRS > blog. He has gone on record that he has neither the time nor the > desire to do any such thing. How long will Mr. Sherman pursue this > inane diversion? Stay tuned as he fails to establish PROOF for either > unfounded allegation. #1 or #2. Hey, Mr. McNaa has said that he'd > even make it worth Mr. Sherman's while by extending that generous offer > of $100.000.00 to these two unsubstantiated allegations as well. You > know what is amusing in all this. If Mr. McNaa were to say crap > like this, Tommy boy would be on him like stink on shit, but as Mr. > McNaa so rightly pointed out in the past; Tom doesn't play by the > same set of rules that he expects his opposition to play by. That's > not very fair of him, now is it? If Mr. McNaa has time to argue with me at length about his unfounded accusations, he should have time to create a simple blog. As for desire, his posts (recent and less recent) indicate a great desire to damage Ed Gin. The protests are not convincing. -- > Unfounded? I refer you to the mounting circumstantial evidence that you refuse to acknowledge. Mr. McNaa has made time to argue with you about much more than what you consider unfounded accusations. Since you like the term motive, ask yourself who has most motive to trash Bacchetta? Rhetorical question. From your previous posts, your own written words answer the question. If present and past posts indicate a great desire to damage Ed Gin, but are not convincing then what's all the fuss over Tom? This is as much about my desire not to see the reputation of Bacchetta, its bikes and the company damaged by a few malcontents with a grudge, but you don't recognize that. You call that acceptable parody of public figures. As defined by law, you are WRONG on this account, so you have more that just me to argue with in this matter. As for the $100,000 dollar offer, it is worthless since it is not legally binding. -- > Want to make it wothwhile ... legally binding? Tell you what, I'll put up $100,000 and you do the same. If I can be proven to be the author, you'll be $100,000 richer. If I cannot be proven to be the author, I'll be $100,000 richer. Put up or shut up. All that Mr. McNaa would lose by refusing to pay (in the hypothetical event that he was proven to be the author of the HRS blog) is reputation. And the loss of reputation from not paying would be a moot point after the damage done by being revealed as the HRS blog author after vigorously accusing others. Not impressive at all, Mr. McNaa. -- > And you say that I write poorly? Please take note that the word hypothetical was employed (yeah Tom plays dirty that way). Now, to my way of thinking, wouldn't this give Tom and his buddies cause for celebration, money aside? I mean I would be found to be the guilty party and Mr. Sherman and the JAG alliance would be vindicated ... case closed. Well let's see just how confident the man really is, shall we? If you have a hypothectial pair of balls, the offer still stands, but please understand that we are not talking HYPOTHETICAL money here! WELL????? ***** > 1. As concerns the issue of time, a blog would demand even more time > because I would be facing a learning curve, since I've never done one > and because it is graphics intensive. It is a bit easier when the task > can be shared especially when two of those whom I suspect have a know > expertise in that area, but do we really need anymore circumstantial > evidence? As concerns the issue of willingness, a blog would be > unsuitable. It is a cowardly conduit because it is a monologue devoid > of combat with your adversary and there is just no sport in that. > 3. More important than #1 & #2 is this. As Tom points out, I've had > issues with certain individuals, two to be exact. Now, if I were to > author a blog, is it not logical to assume that these individuals would > be my focus? Now, ask yourself, what is the focus of the HRS blog? > Don't cheat by looking at the title. I have no issues with any form > that a bicycle takes (including the NoCom), or with any Bacchetta > employee or with BROL or its moderator. Now, ask yourself just who > might the individuals be that have these issues that the HRS blog > happens to focus on? If you need a point of reference, look through > the archives of the multitude of posts in various forums. There's no > mystery here. You'll find parallels to the material in the HRS blog, > but you'll not find me associated with any of it, although what you > will discover will leave little doubt in your mind as to who the > probable candidates are. In the above, Mr. McNaa reveals that he knows what is required to create a blog. -- > This statement is FALSE AND ILLOGICAL. Mr. Sherman prides himself in being logical, whereas he should pride himself in his abilities to prove otherwise. Once again, Mr. Sherman has intentionaly misconstrued what was written either because he is unable to comprehend what he read or is unable or unwilling to counter what he either did or did not understand. Your choice readers. For the rest of his argument, it is a further attack on the behavior of the author(s) of the HRS blog. Further, Mr. McNaa reveals that he knows what attitudes and habits are associated with those he accuses of creating the HRS blog. This furthers the hypothetical case that if Mr. McNaa wanted to create the blog so certain individuals would be blamed for it; he would know what subject matter to use. Thank you Mr. McNaa for contributing to the hypothetical case that are the HRS blog author. ;) -- > LAME. For I while there I though you were pretty bright. I was mistaken. I revealed nothing regarding "attitudes" or "habits". You do so love putting words in the mouths of your adversaries. I merely provided the reasons that I would not even chose the blog format and called attention to the blogs focus and invited the readership to have a look for themselves at forum archives for parallels and draw their own conclusions ... nothing more .. nothing less, and I surely did not contribute your inane hypothesis. You are really beginning to bore me. You aren't even a challenge anymore. Since reasoning is failing you, you have to resort to distortion and trickery. How pitiful. I refer everyone to the paragrapah above preceded by ***** and see if you agree with Tom's misinterpretation. > --> PROOF? Actually what you have presented is all that is necessary > (please don't call it PROOF) to show that IT IS POSSIBLE for anyone > assuming internet connectivity, motive, willingness and skillset to be > the author of the HRS blog which is to say you have demonstrated > nothing significant. Although Mr. Sherman is NOT CATAGORICALLY STATING > THAT MR. McNAA IS THE HRS BLOG AUTHOR, he is using Mr. McNaa's > name virtually exclusively in his diversionary efforts. The > implication of such a tactic should be obvious to all. Draw you own > conclusions. I am only using Mr. McNaa's name in this context since he was so dogged in accusing others without proof. Turnabout is fair play, is it not? -- > Turnabout would only be fair play if from the accused or maybe from you if you were the accuesd, but that isn't the case here now is it? You are the person who said you have no dog in this fight are you not? You lied. > > Let me say this straight out ... I did not create > > the HRS blog. I have gone on record in hundreds of post regarding how > > I feel about bicycles. I will repeat in brief for all to understand. > > I feel that we should be united by what we do and not divided by what > > we do it on. I envision a cycling community devoid of platform > > prejudice and platform pejoratives. I am in favor of unity through > > diversity. And, I have thought about buying a Bacchetta Ti-Aero for > > quite some time. Now do I sound like a person likely to author the > > denigrating HRS blog?.... > With his vindictive attitude on display numerous times towards Ed Gin & > Company, who knows how far Mr. McNaa would take things? > --> Pure conjecture. Just like Mr. McNaa accusing Ed Gin & Company is pure conjecture. -- > My conjecture is substantiated by circumstantial evidence. Your conjecture is substantiated by nothing other than your personal opinion regarding my attitudes? Are you the same guy who requires such a high standard of PROOF? Ed and I have hurled harsh words at one another over time, but I have never reked ... you never know how far Ed will go and Ed has never reked ... you never no how far Jim will go, so why would you make such an observation? Everything you know about me is second hand from biased sources. You don't know me personally, so what you have to say about my on a personal level means nothing. > Mr. McNaa can not win the argument on logic, so now he is resorting > to insults. Is not this what he accuses others of doing? > --> Thanks for your opinion. Now, care to ask for the opinion of the > readership? Only the portion of the readership that is better informed and more logical on this matter than I am. I will not be holding my breath. -- > So then you admit to being well informed. I told you everyone. The man knows more that he is willing to admit to. Now back to what you said. Would you settle for 1 out of 2? I'm thinking that there have to be a whole lot of readers that are more logical than you. > --> But, does the circumstantial evidence point at me or those whom I > suspect? The readership and Mr. McNaa await your answer? No reason to repeat the argument here as to why Mr. McNaa has the motive to create the HRS blog. -- > But, does the circumstantial evidence point at me or those whom I suspect? No reason to repeat the argument here that Mr. McNaa demonstrated no motive to create the HRS blog whereas the JAGs have demonstrated motie and Tom Sherman has eluded to said motive. I like to argue on Usenet. ;) -- > Like I said before, this is not about right and wrong but the fun factor and winning at all costs. I obviously like to argue to, but Xmas is coming and I've lots to do so you just may have to go back to mixin' it up with Ed Dolan. I hope you honed your skills. They are still in need of a bit more work. > Do not accuse the kettle of being black without proof, if there is the > possibility that you could be the pot. > --> I wouldn't if there was even a remote possibility. The issue of possibility has been addressed, and the defense presented was feeble. This is why accusations without proof should not be made. -- > The issue of remoteness was not addressed. What we have here is the unbiased" opinion of the "hypothetical prosecutor" who fails to understand that the "hypothetical jury" is the readership. The issue of possibility has been addressed and if you buy what Tom is cookin', anyone who has not proved that they are not the author, are possible candidates. That would of course include Tom himself. Can you imagine a police investigation of a crime proceeding in this manner? Now about those accusations. At least accusations made not just by me I might add were substantiated with circumstantial evidence. Substantial evidence is acceptable in a court of law, but circumstantial evidence is inadmissible in Tom Sherman's Kangaroo Court. You have to understand something about Mr. Sherman. He is an artisan who crafts the rules of engagement on the fly as is so suit his whim and fancy. As pointed out above, Mr. McNaa's arguments that he COULD NOT BE the author of the HRS blog are not convincing. His determination to continue this argument reveals that he has many axes to grind with certain persons, which makes him hardy an unbiased evaluator of the existing evidence. -- > Now that there is admission of evidence, the next order of business discredit Mr. McNaa as being an unbiased evaluator of said evidence. Mr. McNaa will accept that ONLY if Mr. Sherman will admit that he has a conflict of interest. Since he is friends of the accused, he cannot be considered an unbiased evaluator and must down and the debate can then be adjourned. Here's you opportunity to escape Tommy boy. Take it a run. Jim McNaa   Date: 11 Dec 2005 20:13:30 From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! Edward Dolan wrote: > "Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1134320195.783823.194390@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > ... > Unless you are posting regularly via Google you will not remember how to > post from there, most especially after you have gotten used to a proper > newsreader. Nothing more than three (3) mouse clicks - certainly the Great Edward Dolan of Worthington can handle that. > ... > >I also believe that it is unacceptable to accuse certain > > people of being the HRS blog author(s) without having reasonable proof. > > The only justification presented so far for the accusations boils down > > to "J., A. and G. are the type of people who would do so." > > Joao convinced me who the culprit was by his analysis of the headers. Jim is > also very convincing on the issue. The fact is that you are not. Only your > loyalty to a friend is admirable, even if he is a scum bucket. The HRS blog has no headers, so Joao de Sousa's analysis is not relevant to who is authoring the HRS blog. -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley "ahno. the edo comes and goes. you stand there and experience the edo unless you are bound by ego riding a bike is highly valued as a way to experience and sample the edo" - G. Daniels     Date: 12 Dec 2005 03:07:50 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! "Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1134360810.778553.314920@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Edward Dolan wrote: >> "Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:1134320195.783823.194390@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... >> ... >> Unless you are posting regularly via Google you will not remember how to >> post from there, most especially after you have gotten used to a proper >> newsreader. > > Nothing more than three (3) mouse clicks - certainly the Great Edward > Dolan of Worthington can handle that. No, it can be confusing unless you are into computers full time. When I first came on this newsgroup I used Google exclusively and I got good at it. However, it took much more time and effort to get the job done because you have to copy and paste. A proper newsreader like my OE just makes everything so much easier. >> ... >> >I also believe that it is unacceptable to accuse certain >> > people of being the HRS blog author(s) without having reasonable proof. >> > The only justification presented so far for the accusations boils down >> > to "J., A. and G. are the type of people who would do so." >> >> Joao convinced me who the culprit was by his analysis of the headers. Jim >> is >> also very convincing on the issue. The fact is that you are not. Only >> your >> loyalty to a friend is admirable, even if he is a scum bucket. > > The HRS blog has no headers, so Joao de Sousa's analysis is not > relevant to who is authoring the HRS blog. Yes, you most likely are right about that. I am only concerned with the posts to ARBR, specifically those that took place last winter from Johnny NoCom and his many false and forged names. Joao did an analysis of those posts and convinced me who was who. Why did it not convince you? Regards, Ed Dolan - Minnesota   Date: 11 Dec 2005 17:57:16 From: Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! Tom, Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic wrote: > Jim McNaa <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic wrote: > > > Jim McNaa <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > Tom, > > > > > > > > Another one of Tom's cyber-skirmish entrapment tradeks is exhibited > > > > here ... putting words into the mouth of his adversary. Contrary to > > > > Mr. Sherman's assertion, as previously explained, Mr. McNaa supplied > > > > the surname initials of those he suspects and Mr. Sherman mated them up > > > > with the initials of their first names ... how telling. What I admit, > > > > is that Tom was able to match the same initial that I could but would > > > > not have provided, however, this comes as no surpise to me. Tom, I > > > > think you should re-read what I said so that you are in sync with the > > > > readership who I'm reasonably certain found it less challenging to > > > > comprehend than you did. > > > > > > > > Jim McNaa > > > > > > > > > > > > Jim McNaa > > > > > > Which of the two (2) Jim McNaa's is writing here? > > > > --> Both of us. It takes two of us to keep pace as we don't stay up > > all odd hours of the night ;^) > > > > > Anyone familiar with who rides lowracers in Chicagoland and who Mr. > > > McNaa does not get along with would come up with the same first > > > initials to match the "J" "A" and "G" that Mr. McNaa posted, so I am > > > not what his point here is. > > > > --> Another smokescreen by Tom. It is telling how Tom consistently > > phrases things so as to betray his partiality. He could just as easily > > have said that they didn't t get along with me as to say that I don't > > get along with them. > > I hate to break this to Mr. McNaa, but I have never heard his name > come up in person or be mentioned until he enters an online discussion. -- > Heartbreaker. > > Mr. Sherman mentions riders of lowracers in Chicago as though I have > > something against the riding platform and all who ride it. I have gone > > on record that I am accepting of any bike in whatever form it takes. > > It should be noted that there are those that ride lowracers in the > > Chicagoland area that I have no issue with and/or with whom I have not > > become acquainted. > > In the context of an Internet forum, if lowracer riders in Chicagoland > are mentioned, the same names will come up. -- > And this has what bearing on what was said? > > As Mr. Sherman previously posted, "J" does not live in the Chicago area["] > > and I have never personally met "J", so it DOES NOT LOGICALLY FOLLOW > > that we don't get along. I've said before, that I hadn't been > > acquainted with "A" until he thrust himself into the heat of battle to > > come to the aid of "G", but I have never personally met "A" either, so > > I don't think that it is appropriate to say that we don't get along. > > Now, it is fair to say that I don't get along with "E" and "E" doesn't > > get along with me, but that is a very complex matter that I will not > > rehash again here. > > Mr. McNaa is getting sloppy. There should be a quote k after the > word area. -- > It most certainly does not, but either way, who really cares. You failed to address anything that was said. Surely you haven't run out of things to say? I repeat that what you said was ILLOGICAL. > > Tom wrote, and I quote,"...so, I am not what his point here is" and if > > I were to take him literally I would have to reply, but Tom, you most > > certainly are. I if I wrote that, Tom would respond ... please > > reformulate the question for clarity, unwilling to recognize the > > obvious omission of "sure", but I digress. > > > > Having spelled out several times what the point is, I'll not allow Tom > > to make me reinvent the wheel again. He knows very well what the point > > is. > > Yes, Mr. McNaa's point is to cast aspersions on Ed Gin. -- > Still trying to figure it out I see. > > > Mr. McNaa is missing a couple of obvious potential candidates [1], > > > but he is too blinded by his hatred for Ed Gin to think clearly. > > > > --> Mr. McNaa refuses to mention any other candidates that are not > > as obvious to him as they apparently are to Tom Sherman, but Mr. > > McNaa has contended all along that he believes that Tom knows far > > more about all this than he is willing to divulge.... > > For the record, no one has told me or admitted to me the identity of > the HRS blog author(s). -- > Yeah we all heard that before, but your list of candidates is longer than mine so you know something that I don't. > > Mr. McNaa's > > feelings about Ed Gin do not obscure his thinking. Ed Gin and Jim > > McNaa parted company long before the lowracer craze, so it is reasonable > > to assume that Mr. McNaa is [?] of other potential candidates simply > > because they were not members of the inner circle when he was. This is > > apparently a difficult concept for Mr. Sherman to grasp. > > Is aware or unaware? -- > I must have had a momentary distraction. Here' s a hint. It is the longer of the two words. You know I've said this before, but it bears repeating. A debate is not about form but about function. Because of this, I have repeated (9 timea out of 10, at least ) overlooked numerous mistakes in your writing and assumed you would be gracious enough to return the favor, but no one will ever accuse you of being gracious. This harkens back to what I have said countless times before. When you have nothing worthwhile to contribute in a response, you resort to inconsequential nitpicking over the insignificant. I could stoop to you level and do likewise, but I hold myself to a higher standard. > > > [1] And no, I will not mention names, since unlike some; I do not want > > > to cast suspicion on the possibly innocent. > > > > --> I am a member of the possibly innocent and yet Tom has mentioned my > > name, cloaked by a hypothetical escape clause so that that he can > > conveniently say something and yet claim that you hadn't actually. I > > easily play that game, but why? I figure you either have something to > > say or you don't. I see no point in saying things hypothetically so > > that I can then later deny that I said them and that is what has been > > done here no matter what spin Tom puts on it. > > Mr. McNaa is not innocent of accusing others without proof. I bring > the hypothetical possibility that he is the HRS blog author so he can > see how easy it is to be the victim of unjustified accusations and how > it is not possible to prove one's innocence other than by confirming > the guilt of another. -- > Circumstantial evidence is acceptable as proof in a court of law. You are not innocent of having accused Mr. McNaa of the possibility that he is the blog author without proof. Why is it that you feel that you are above being held accountable for that which you hold other accountable? You simply will not play by the same rules will you? You know that you just can't win when you do, can you? Mr. McNaa and others have cited much in the way of circumstantial evidence in support of their contention that there is very good reason for their suspicions. Mr. Sherman hasn't never even produced "hypothetical" circumstantial evidence to support his "hypothetic" contention that Mr. McNaa is the HRS blog author and therein lies a very vast difference that Mr. Sherman utterly refuse to recognize.. Jim McNaa     Date: 18 Dec 2005 18:40:52 From: Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! Readers, Another round... Mr. McNaa makes the error of stating OPINION AS FACT. Mr. McNaa has failed to show that the "circumstantial evidence was sufficient". -- > Insufficient to Mr. Sherman perhaps, but we all know how impossible it is fo Mr. Sherman to commit, admit, make a concession, prove anything to, so I'll not try any longer. Sorry Tommy boy. I have to wonder how Mr. Dolan has found the patience to endure this knucklehead for so long. I could care less what Mr. McNaa does (as far as posting to public forums is concerned). However, I do enjoy pointing out when he says one thing, then does another. -- > If he could care less, then why does Mr. Sherman protest so loudly? > > With regard to my child-molester hypothesis and Tom's child-murder > > rebuttal: > > > Please note that at this juncture, I was gracious enough to give Tom > > > the benefit of the doubt by answering the question posed in the > > > negative. Tom was not. He does not give anyone anything. It is not > > > his style to make a concession. > > I was demonstrating by mimicry how ridiculous Mr. McNaa was being. > > --> TRANSLATION: In mimicking Mr. McNaa who was mimicking Mr. > > Sherman, Tom demonstrated how ridiculous he can be and how right Mr. > > McNaa was with regard to his observations about Mr. Sherman's > > twisted logic. A nerve was obviously stuck. > Really? [YAWN] Why would anyone take Mr. McNaa's accusations > seriously, since he has not shown any proof to back them up? > --> Readers, could Tom have made the obvious response to this one any > easier? He's really slipping. Mr. Sherman has several times claimed > that a hypothetical accusation cannot be construed as an accusation > requiring proof, but the ILLOGICAL Mr. Sherman, in contradiction of his > own stated beliefs, expects me to offer proof of a hypothetical > accusation that was plainly stated to be nothing more than an exercise > demonstrating Mr. Sherman's twisted argumentative process. It should > be obvious that Mr. Sherman has a problem comprehending fundamental > concepts and in dealing with someone when they turn the tables on him. > My turn to [YAWN]. Mr. McNaa is being dishonest if he claims his posts were not an attempt to put the responsibility for the HRS blog on Ed Gin (and/or associates of Ed Gin). Mr. McNaa's motive for doing this is clear, since his hatred for Ed Gin is clear. -- > Same old diversionary tactics. I refer the readers to the paragraph immediately above, which Mr. Sherman intentionally ignored. With his failure to recognize that the targets of the HRS blog are not "public figures", as defined by law, and with his failure to recognize that direct-evidence is not required as proof, by law, and for his inability to distinguish between parody and defamation, there is nothing more of any significance that the Mr. Sherman can contribute to this discussion. One SUSPECTS that Mr. McNaa is resentful that he can not get Ed Gin's friends to abandon Ed Gin and come to him instead. Maybe Mr. McNaa should take a look at how he presents himself online to determine why this is so. -- > I could not possibly compete with how poorly Ed Gin has presented himself online. I wouldn't stoop that low. There's no competition over friends between Ed and me that I am aware of other than what you have imagined. I have no desire or need for any friends to abandon Ed Gin and some I wouldn't even want to have as a friend. Ed and I even have a few friends in common. So much for another one of your inane contentions. > > NOTE: Readers, please note what I said above regarding doubt and > > concession, which Mr. Sherman was deliberately failed to address. > > He'll tell you that he only makes a concession when appropriate but > > will be unable to provide an example when this was ever deemed > > appropriate and he will be unable to explain away the issue regarding > > benefit of the doubt and his lack of graciousness. > How gracious is it to accuse other WHILE LACKING PROOF OF THE > ACCUSATION? Why should I concede anything since Mr. McNaa has failed > to sustain his argument over who is responsible for the HRS blog? > --> Readers, this is a typical Tom Sherman technique. Rather than > address the issue, he poses a diversionary question. The question of PROOF is not diversionary, but the basis for this whole discussion. Mr. McNaa is trying to divert the argument elsewhere, since HE LACKS DEFINITIVE PROOF OF THE HRS BLOG AUTHORSHIP. It is a falsehood on Mr. McNaa's part to claim I am the one being diversionary when I refuse to respond to Mr. McNaa's diversions and instead focus on the subject at hand. Since Mr. McNaa is being deliberately obtuse, I will repeat the question. WHERE IS THE PROOF OF HRS BLOG AUTHORSHIP? -- > Since I have said we are at an impasse and there is nothing to gain but the rage of the readership by discussing the issue of proof any more. I'm not being obtuse. I stated that I was willing to agree to disagree. I'm trying to be reasonable and you are not. Furthermore, for the second time (or is it the third ... I'm losing track) you refused to address the issue at hand. You do so hate that I used a hypothetical argument in your own peculiar style to demonstrate how ridiculous you can be and you want me to let go of that because it is part an parcel of the way you debate which I find unacceptable and you are trying now to distance yourself from by diversion. > I presume that he > meant to say HYPOTHETICAL accusation, and was not Mr. Sherman the first > one to employ this very technique? RHETORICAL! Mr. Sherman should > review what I said above regarding his beliefs in answer to his own > question (a hypothetical accusation is not an accusation requiring > proof). What I originally wrote was ... Do I have any reason to > believe that Mr. Sherman is a child molester? > NO... I do not. I merely endeavored to demonstrate just how easy it is > to employ Tom Sherman's style of tedious, hypothetical reasoning to > one's advantage regardless of how reasonable or fair it is to do so ... > and ... I was gracious enough to give Tom the benefit of the doubt by > answering the question posed in the negative. I regarded that as a > courtesy. Tom regarded that as a concession. Both concepts are > apparently alien to Mr. Sherman. I demonstrated what I set out to > demonstrate and as predicted, Mr. Sherman ... 1. could not offer an > excuse for not being gracious enough to extend me the same courtesy > that I extended to him, and 2. could not offer a single example of when > he ever made a concession, not just to me, but to anyone in an > argument. I rest my case. [YAWN] Is Mr. McNaa a child murderer? Most likely not, but of course this negative can not be logically proven unless we can fully document every instant of Mr. McNaa's life. -- > [YAWN] And the same can be said of Mr. Sherman being a child-molester, but I didn't have to be brow beaten into the courtesy of admission. The same can be said of the hypothetical story casting me in the role of HRS blog author. One could do a cut and paste and change all occurrences of Mr. McNaa to Mr. Sherman. > > > I couldn't be more pleased with Tom's response. It should be > > > obvious to all who read this that Tom's brand of logic is quite > > > simple to emulate and that Tom does not appreciate it when he is the > > > object of his own nonsense. I consider Tom's emulation of me > > > emulating him to be a compliment of sorts. > > See above about use of mimicry. Duh! > > --> See above (TRANSLATION) about use of mimicry. DUH!!! In mimicking > > me mimicking him, was Tom perhaps paying himself a left-handed > > compliment? You know what they say about imitation being the sincerest > > form of flattery. > Logic has escaped Mr. McNaa here. > --> Not only has logic has escaped Mr. Sherman here, but an ANSWER has > escaped him aw well and the readership still awaits an explanation that > they were deliberately deprived of. Let the readership post their requests for explanations. I doubt very many people can be found that would choose Mr. McNaa as their spokesman. No one has volunteered so far, nor has he any supporters beside Edward Dolan (enough said). -- > And who pray tell chose you for their spokesperson. You are a self-appointed. And where is your legion of supporters? Have you run out of worthwhile things to say? > > to employ Mr. Sherman's tedious style and method of hypothetical > > reasoning to one's advantage regardless of how reasonable or fair it is > > to do so. It should be obvious to all, including Mr. Sherman that I > > succeeded in my demonstration. Readers don't be misled by Mr. > > Sherman's protests. He just isn't too happy when someone bests him at > > his own game. Tom, you are making this entirely too easy for me. I'm > > getting bored. Perhaps that's your objective ... to bore me into > > leaving. > Really? Where has Mr. McNaa PROVED his accusations of the IDENTITY > of the HRS blog AUTHOR(S)? Do not be distracted by Mr. McNaa's > diversions from the main point of discussion - the fact remains that > Mr. McNaa accused three people of being responsible for the HRS > blog, but has yet to show any PROOF of his ACCUSATIONS. Mr. McNaa is the one attempting to divert attention from the basic premise - he accused Ed Gin and/or associates of Ed Gin as being the author(s) of the HRS blog. -- > Countless times this accusation has been made and countless times I have stated that Mr. Sherman cannot cite a passage where I accused Ed Gin of authorship. I have every reason to assume that he is a MAJOR contributor but have stated that I suspect some else to be the author. I guess Mr. Sherman likes this tune though because he just keeps singing it. WHERE IS THE DEFINITIVE PROOF OF THE HRS BLOG AUTHORSHIP? WHERE IS THE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE? -- > Tom and I have obviously reached an impasse. Tom has his position and I have mine. He feels that he is right and I feel that I am right. I am willing to agree to disagree and I am willing at this juncture to spare the readership. Tom is not. > > So Mr. McNaa's statements that he was leaving the discussion were > > FALSE. > > --> Still more repletion? I refer you to my above comments in answer to > > your misstatement about me lying. HINT ... you'll find that located > > after my first --> > Since Mr. McNaa seems to have trouble staying with the point of > discussion, I will repeat the question for his benefit. > Mr. McNaa, WHERE IS THE PROOF THAT PEOPLE WITH THE INITIALS J, A AND > G ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE HRS BLOG? > --> Since Mr. Sherman can't address certain issues to my or the readers > satisfaction, he is intent only on discussing something that has > already been thoroughly discussed and exhausted. Yes, the issue is exhausted because Mr. McNaa CAN NOT PRESENT DEFINITIVE PROOF OF THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE HRS BLOG. Therefore, he tries to divert the discussion to other things that are matters of opinion. -- > The issue is exhausted because neither or us has contributed anything that is substantially new and there is nothing left to say. > Tom and I have reached an impasse. Tom has his position and I have mine. He feels > that he is right and I feel that I am right. I am willing to agree to disagree and I am > unwilling to spare the readership. Mr. Sherman is not. ^^^^^^^^^^ -- > You are so boringly predictable. I spotted this mistake after it was posted. It should be obvious that I meant WILLING. DUH!!! So Mr. McNaa is continuing the discussion since he is UNWILLING to spare the readership of alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent? I, however, am WILLING to spare the readership the discussion as soon as Mr. McNaa admits HE LACKS DEFINITIVE PROOF OF THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE HRS BLOG and that his accusations towards Ed Gin and company are merely OPINION. -- > Mr. Sherman has indicated that obtaining such proof from the, standpoint of practicality is nearly impossible and as such renders such a demand aw worthless. The stipulation set forth as acceptable proof by Mr. Sherman could entail invasion of privacy, braking the law, acquiring an attorney, obtaining a court order, expenditure of funds, etc, etc. A stated previously, if I were Bacchetta I might consider this, but I ma not Baccheeta. In the event that all the stipulations were met, it is still reasonable to assume that Mr. Sherman would not find the proof definitive enough to satisfy him. That is just what and who he is. Just because Mr. Sherman has placed a number of difficult hoops before Mr. McNaa to jump through, that does not mean that Mr. McNaa is obliged to do so. I wasn't put on God's green earth to dance to Mr. Sherman's music. I have no intention of attempting to prove anything to Tom Sherman just because he demands it of me, no matter how log or how loudly he continues to demand it of me. Nor will I admit that I lack definitive proof of authorship of the HRS bog just because he demands that of me either. Mr. Sherman must think me to be a fool, but by now he should know better. I guess then, this means that this will either drag on forever of it will end when I just tire of responding and that should be soon enough. Oh yeah, and I never said that my suspicions were not opinion, contrary to what Mr. Sherman would lead you believe. What I said was that I am convinced that my suspicion (opinions) are correct based on circumstantial evidence that Tom does not find acceptable and I do. So there is no misunderstanding, I will repeat ... Tom and I have obviously reached an impasse. Tom holds one position and I hold an opposing position. Tom feels that he is right and I feel that I am right. I am willing to agree to disagree and, at this juncture, I am willing to spare the readership. Tom is not. > The world eagerly awaits the presentation by Mr. McNaa of the > definitive proof of HRS blog authorship. > --> The world (read ARBR readers) eagerly awaits Mr. Sherman's silence. Other than Edward Dolan (enough said) I have not seen any requests for me to desist from the argument while allowing Mr. McNaa to present his OPINION AS FACT. -- > That would make the score one to nothing then, since no one had requested me to desist from the argument and allow you to present your OPINION AS FACT. > I hate to be accused of diverting Mr. Sherman; however, in the absence > of his ability to recognize that the targets of the HRS blog are not > "public figures", as defined by law, and in the absence of Mr. > Sherman's ability to recognize that direct-evidence is required as > proof, as required by law, and in the absence of Mr. Sherman's > inability to distinguish between parody and defamation, there is no > significance to anything more that the Mr. Sherman has to say in this > matter. There is no significance to anything Mr. McNaa has to say in this argument, since he presents OPINION (based on personal dislike) AS FACT, and CAN NOT PRODUCE DEFINITIVE PROOF OF THE HRS BLOG AUTHORSHIP. -- > Speaking of opinions not substantiated by evidence, you just made one ... "based on personal dislike". You keep assuming that Ed Gin is the target in all this. I have gone on record to state that the person I suspect as the author is not Ed Gin and having never even met him, have no reason dislike him unless my induction into the HRS blog could be construed as a reason enough but that was long after the fact. My opinion is substantiated by circumstantial evidence that I find acceptable and you do not and that's the bottom line no matter what spin you put on it. WHERE IS THE PROOF, Mr. McNaa? -- > Where is you COMMON SENSE Mr. Sherman? We have obviously reached an impasse. You hold one position and I hold an opposing position. You feel that you are right and I feel that I am right. I am willing to agree to disagree and, at this juncture and spare the readership and you do not. As far as I am concerned, with your failure to recognize that the targets of the HRS blog are not "public figures", as defined by law, and with your failure to recognize that direct-evidence is not the only acceptable form of proof, as defined by law, and because of your inability to distinguish between parody and defamation, there is nothing more of any significance that you can contribute to this discussion. Like I said. We are at an impasse, but a stalemate is just unacceptable because for you this isn't about right and wrong. This is about ego and winning and declaring victory. Well sorry, Tommy boy, but you just can't' win 'em all. Sometimes you just have to recognize that you win some and you loose some and walking away when the game is tied isn't all that bad and going into extras innings is pointless as the game will only be called on account of darkness ... the darkness being lack of readership interest. Now you can go on parroting your demand for DEFINITIVE PROOF (shouting all you want), but that doesn't change one bit any of what I just said. Jim McNaa     Date: 18 Dec 2005 15:32:08 From: Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! Readers, Here we go again... Mr. McNaa should not call himself "poor" and imply he could not afford a SBC DSL connection if that is not the case. It does reflect poorly on his credibility. -- > Readers, is this not an example of an idiom that is simply not understood by an idiot? When I said ... poor Mr. McNaa has a dial-up connection, was anyone except for Mr. Sherman so unperceptive as to understand that to mean that Mr. McNaa was poverty-stricken and could not afford and SBC DSL connection? Mr. Sherman is counting on the reader not to have read Mr. McNaa's explanation of why he neither has nor wants an SBC DLS connection. Mr. Sherman's intentional deception reflects poorly on his credibility. Mr. McNaa is creating so many straw men that one suspects he made his fortune in scarecrow production. =E0 Mr. Sherman is far better at standup than he is at logic. Mr. McNaa's $100,000 challenge is made in bad faith on a false premise, and therefore is not worth the electrons used to display it. -- > Mr. McNaa's $100,000 challenge was not made in good faith, then there is no risk in accepting the challenge. The offer still stands. > 3. Readers, couldn't I have used this very same argument regarding > those whom I suspect as responsible for the HRS blog and conclude that > Mr. Sherman's demand for direct evidence as the only acceptable proof > was ridiculous in practical terms? Of course I could have. Would Mr. > Sherman have considered that argument acceptable had I used it? > Absolutely not, but as I have said before Mr. Sherman utterly refuses > to play by the same set of rules the he demands his adversary to play > by, but that should be apparent to all by now. The burden of proof lies upon the accuser, unless the accuser is THE GREAT MR. McNAA, IN WHICH CASE THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT. Nice double standard, Mr. McNaa. -- > Readers, I refer you to #3 above. I told you that Tom's reason for not having to provide evidence, though valid for him would not be valid for me (read would b e contested). Remember what I said about Mr. Sherman not playing by the same set of rules. Mr. Sherman introduced the double standard here and this was not first time. This is an all too familiar bad habit of Mr. Sherman's that he needs to work on. > Allow me to reiterate. Mr. McNaa is amenable to having his > challenge drawn up so as to make it legal and binding to satisfy Mr. > Sherman's objection in that regards and to prove liquid assets > sufficient to cover the amount of the challenge. If Mr. Sherman can > prove that Mr. McNaa is the author of the HRS blog, Mr. Sherman will > be $100,000 richer. If Mr. McNaa cannot be proven to be the author > of the HRS blog, then Mr. McNaa will be $100,000 richer. Depending > upon Mr. Sherman's level of confidence or lack thereof, Mr. McNaa is > willing to adjust these stakes up or down accordingly. Will Mr. > Sherman accept? Of course not!!! Why??? (As stated above) Mr. McNaa's challenge is based upon a false straw man premise. Presenting the challenge in this manner reveals much that is unpleasant about Mr. McNaa's debating tactics and character. No wonder certain former acquaintances no longer wish to associate with him. -- > Nonsense followed by a gratuitous insult. Mr. McNaa first expressed a willingness to comply with Mr. Sherman's legality requirement. Then Mr. McNaa expressed a willingness to comply with Mr. Sherman's liquid assets requirement. Mr. Sherman had to find some way to weasel out of this (verb intentionally chosen to reflect the demeanor of my adversary). Mr. Sherman's failure to accept Mr. McNaa's challenge speaks volumes about his lack of character. Mr. Sherman asserts that my challenge somehow says something about Mr. McNamra's "character" and from this Mr. Sherman concludes, "No wonder blah, blah, blah...". Mr. Sherman should stick to what you know best .=2E. the field of engineering, because logic is certainly is not his area of expertise. Since Mr. Sherman raised the issue, I defy him to name names of these former acquaintances that no longer wish to associate with Mr. McNaa. One is Ed Gin and I'll not associate him so he doesn't even have the option of associating with me. The numbers of those that will not associate with Ed Gin far outnumber the number of those who will not associate with me and Ed Gin has lost more friends in the past few years than I and all my friends combined will ever lose in a lifetime. The statistics speak for themselves. Besides those that will not associate with me are those with whom I am proud not to be associated. In the case of Ed Gin, I am ashamed to having ever been associated with him. Mr. McNaa has failed to challenge my real position, that it is THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE that he could be the author of the HRS blog. Please note that proving someone else to be the HRS blog author would not invalidate my argument, as it is base on THEORETICAL POSSIBLITY, not actual authorship (as Mr. McNaa's straw man falsely proclaims). -- > I have previously demonstrated that this "straw man" challenge is just merely an exercise in mental masturbation and linguistic gymnastics, and nothing more. I refer you to the following previous post ... Hypothetically speaking, Mr. Sherman could be a child molester. Whereas there is no proof to support the contention that Mr. Sherman is a child molester, there is also no proof to support the contention that he is not a child molester. Consequently, in the absence of such proof, it cannot be said with any degree of certainty that Mr. Sherman is not a child molester. In the interim, until Mr. Sherman can produce definitive proof that he is a not child molester, the possibility that Mr. Sherman is a child molester must be maintained. Does anyone see just how ridiculous Mr. Sherman's emulated hypothetical "logic" can become? Do I have any reason to believe that Mr. Sherman is a child molester? NO. I do not. I merely endeavored to demonstrate just how easy it is to employ Mr. Sherman's style of tedious, hypothetical reasoning to one's advantage regardless of how reasonable or fair it is to do so. Please note the one very essential difference here. I did not challenge Mr. Sherman to disprove that he was not a child-molester and was gracious enough to indicate that I had no reason to assume that he was. He did not extend the same courtesy when he portrayed me to be a child-murdered. What does this say of the man. I emphatically stated that I was merely demonstrating how Mr. Sherman employs his twisted logic in a debate. Remember what I said about this not being about right and wrong, but about winning. Now, back to Mr. Sherman's hypothesis. Readers ask yourself this question. If someone were to be proven to be the HRS blog author, at that juncture what relevance would Mr. Sherman's theoretical hypothesis have? What reason would I have to argue with him over a moot point and who among the readership would be the least bit interest in all this other than the one who's ego was at stake. I think someone has revealed something here about his basic insecurities. I have no intention to challenge Mr. Sherman's theoretical hypothesis. I challenged the validity of his reasoning process and I'll not entertain his theoretical nonsense any further. If he wants to continue play childish games, he'll have to find someone else for his entertainment. > Because Mr. Sherman does not > like to lose and Mr. Sherman knows this to be a no win situation for > which he would have to pay dearly. Both his ego and his pocketbook > would suffer a loss. Mr. Sherman knows who the author is and he knows > who the major contributor is. The above is a lie, but is not surprising considering the source. -- > Be more specific. Are saying you enjoy losing or you refuse to admit that it is a no win situation, or you don't know whose responsible? No one has admitted authorship to me. In fact, I have had no communication with those Mr. McNaa accuses of authoring the HRS blog since the time the blog came into existence (due to various constraints totally unrelated to anything being discussed here, and for the sake of openness, I expect that I will have contact with some or all of the parties Mr. McNaa accuses in the near future). -- > Constraints? Sounds kinky! At the New Year's Eve party at Porky Gin's on Deming, you will of course come into contact with some or all of the parties I suspect as well as a few more that you have reason to suspect. I remind the readers about the old adage of judging someone by the company they keep. Need I comment any further about how this reflects upon Mr. Sherman? Time to retire the straw man, Mr. McNaa. He is rotting and his stench is settling on you. -- > You first. > Mr. McNaa could just as easily extend > this offer to Mr. Sherman to prove the innocence of those Mr. McNaa > suspects, but again Mr. Sherman would be in the same no win situation. Yes, it is a no win situation, which is why in all MORAL legal systems guilt has to be proved, not innocence. And why should Mr. McNaa extend this offer when he can not prove his own innocence (a near impossibility, it should be noted, even in the case that Mr. McNaa has no connection at all to the HRS blog). =E0 To provide you with the opportunity to prove that your right and take my money. Why else? Mr. McNaa commenting on debating tactics is the pot calling the kettle black. =E0 Mr. Sherman commenting on debating tactics is the kettle calling the pot black. > If this were not a no win situation, wouldn't Mr. Sherman have excepted > Mr. McNaa's challenge to shut him up and take his money long ago > rather than offer excuses for why the challenge is unacceptable? Mr. McNaa presents something unreasonable as reasonable, which is similar to presenting a falsehood. -- > And, Mr. Sherman desperately struggles to transform what is reasonable into something that is appears to be unreasonable and he talks of post and kettles? Nice little twist there Tom, but correct me if I'm wrong. Something is either true or it is false. How is something similar to a falsehood? You do like to play with concepts and with words. Keep at it and one day you might even get good at it. That straw man of Mr. McNaa's is getting very tired and smelly. -- > Whatever. JimmyMac     Date: 11 Dec 2005 20:54:27 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1134352635.949166.130310@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Tom, > > Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic wrote: >> Jim McNaa <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com> wrote: [...] > --> I must have had a momentary distraction. Here' s a hint. It is > the longer of the two words. You know I've said this before, but it > bears repeating. A debate is not about form but about function. > Because of this, I have repeated (9 timea out of 10, at least ) > overlooked numerous mistakes in your writing and assumed you would be > gracious enough to return the favor, but no one will ever accuse you of > being gracious. This harkens back to what I have said countless times > before. When you have nothing worthwhile to contribute in a response, > you resort to inconsequential nitpicking over the insignificant. I > could stoop to you level and do likewise, but I hold myself to a higher > standard. Jim has really hit on something here. Only I, the Great Ed Dolan, can take Mr. Sherman on when it comes to nit- picking. In fact, Mr. Sherman and I can get so involved with nit-picking that we lose all track of any content. Unfortunately for the readership of ARBR, both Mr. Sherman and I are heavily into form and mostly we could care less about function (substance). Only Mr. Sherman truly deserves me and I him. We are surely both going to go to Hell for our transgressions against the readership of ARBR. [...] Regards, Ed Dolan - Minnesota   Date: 11 Dec 2005 16:07:19 From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! Jim McNaa <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com > wrote: > Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic wrote: > > Jim McNaa <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Tom, > > > > > > Another one of Tom's cyber-skirmish entrapment tradeks is exhibited > > > here ... putting words into the mouth of his adversary. Contrary to > > > Mr. Sherman's assertion, as previously explained, Mr. McNaa supplied > > > the surname initials of those he suspects and Mr. Sherman mated them up > > > with the initials of their first names ... how telling. What I admit, > > > is that Tom was able to match the same initial that I could but would > > > not have provided, however, this comes as no surpise to me. Tom, I > > > think you should re-read what I said so that you are in sync with the > > > readership who I'm reasonably certain found it less challenging to > > > comprehend than you did. > > > > > > Jim McNaa > > > > > > > > > Jim McNaa > > > > Which of the two (2) Jim McNaa's is writing here? > > --> Both of us. It takes two of us to keep pace as we don't stay up > all odd hours of the night ;^) > > > Anyone familiar with who rides lowracers in Chicagoland and who Mr. > > McNaa does not get along with would come up with the same first > > initials to match the "J" "A" and "G" that Mr. McNaa posted, so I am > > not what his point here is. > > --> Another smokescreen by Tom. It is telling how Tom consistently > phrases things so as to betray his partiality. He could just as easily > have said that they didn't t get along with me as to say that I don't > get along with them. I hate to break this to Mr. McNaa, but I have never heard his name come up in person or be mentioned until he enters an online discussion. > Mr. Sherman mentions riders of lowracers in Chicago as though I have > something against the riding platform and all who ride it. I have gone > on record that I am accepting of any bike in whatever form it takes. > It should be noted that there are those that ride lowracers in the > Chicagoland area that I have no issue with and/or with whom I have not > become acquainted. In the context of an Internet forum, if lowracer riders in Chicagoland are mentioned, the same names will come up. > As Mr. Sherman previously posted, "J" does not live in the Chicago area["] > and I have never personally met "J", so it DOES NOT LOGICALLY FOLLOW > that we don't get along. I've said before, that I hadn't been > acquainted with "A" until he thrust himself into the heat of battle to > come to the aid of "G", but I have never personally met "A" either, so > I don't think that it is appropriate to say that we don't get along. > Now, it is fair to say that I don't get along with "E" and "E" doesn't > get along with me, but that is a very complex matter that I will not > rehash again here. Mr. McNaa is getting sloppy. There should be a quote k after the word area. > Tom wrote, and I quote,"...so, I am not what his point here is" and if > I were to take him literally I would have to reply, but Tom, you most > certainly are. I if I wrote that, Tom would respond ... please > reformulate the question for clarity, unwilling to recognize the > obvious omission of "sure", but I digress. > > Having spelled out several times what the point is, I'll not allow Tom > to make me reinvent the wheel again. He knows very well what the point > is. Yes, Mr. McNaa's point is to cast aspersions on Ed Gin. > > Mr. McNaa is missing a couple of obvious potential candidates [1], > > but he is too blinded by his hatred for Ed Gin to think clearly. > > --> Mr. McNaa refuses to mention any other candidates that are not > as obvious to him as they apparently are to Tom Sherman, but Mr. > McNaa has contended all along that he believes that Tom knows far > more about all this than he is willing to divulge.... For the record, no one has told me or admitted to me the identity of the HRS blog author(s). > Mr. McNaa's > feelings about Ed Gin do not obscure his thinking. Ed Gin and Jim > McNaa parted company long before the lowracer, so it is reasonable > to assume that Mr. McNaa is [?] of other potential candidates simply > because they were not members of the inner circle when he was. This is > apparently a difficult concept for Mr. Sherman to grasp. Is aware or unaware? > > [1] And no, I will not mention names, since unlike some; I do not want > > to cast suspicion on the possibly innocent. > > --> I am a member of the possibly innocent and yet Tom has mentioned my > name, cloaked by a hypothetical escape clause so that that he can > conveniently say something and yet claim that you hadn't actually. I > easily play that game, but shy? I figure you either have something to > say or you don't. I see no point in saying things hypothetically so > that I can then later deny that I said them and that is what has been > done here no matter what spin Tom puts on it. Mr. McNaa is not innocent of accusing others without proof. I bring the hypothetical possibility that he is the HRS blog author so he can see how easy it is to be the victim of unjustified accusations and how it is not possible to prove one's innocence other than by confirming the guilt of another. -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley     Date: 17 Dec 2005 07:03:29 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! Mike Rice wrote: > On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 04:26:40 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> > wrote: > > > >> > >> FOG's? ;) > > > >Translation, please? > > Fat Old Guys. Or Fat Old Geezers. -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley     Date: 17 Dec 2005 07:02:21 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! Edward Dolan wrote: > > I miss Leonard L. Love. He was a bull dog about that freaking high price for > the BigHa and just about drove old Varney crazy with frustration.... I have corrected Ed Dolan on this before, but he still can not get Lorenzo L. Love's name right. See <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent/msg/cb1422bf04695d36?dmode=source >. > Why are you using "Johnny Sunset"? I do not like the "Johnny" as you well > know what associations that name has for me. Bingo! -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley "I SWEAR NO ONE WITH AN IQ UNDER 120 READS MY STUFF" - G. Daniels       Date: 18 Dec 2005 02:27:06 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1134831741.014270.6810@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Edward Dolan wrote: >> >> I miss Leonard L. Love. He was a bull dog about that freaking high price >> for >> the BigHa and just about drove old Varney crazy with frustration.... > > I have corrected Ed Dolan on this before, but he still can not get > Lorenzo L. Love's name right. See > <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent/msg/cb1422bf04695d36?dmode=source>. But I am getting closer and closer all the time. Who has a name like Lorenzo these days? Leonard is bad enough. >> Why are you using "Johnny Sunset"? I do not like the "Johnny" as you well >> know what associations that name has for me. > > Bingo! Still, you ought to settle on something and stick with it. No one likes a scatterbrain. And 'Johnny' is just so common! But then you are a commoner aren't you? "Commoner" "Of no special distinction or quality; widely known or commonly encountered; average or ordinary or usual "the common man"; "a common sailor"; "the common cold"; "a common nuisance"; " WordWeb 2004 > -- > Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley > "I SWEAR NO ONE WITH AN IQ UNDER 120 READS MY STUFF" - G. Daniels "I swear no one with any kind of IQ whatsoever reads his stuff" - E. Dolan Regards, Ed Dolan - Minnesota     Date: 16 Dec 2005 17:41:44 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! Mike Rice wrote: > ... I'm pretty sure it was your > outrageous over-reaction and insults that drove off Larry Varney... I thought it was "Triple el" asking Mr. Varney repeatedly if Mr. Varney would pay full list price for a BigHa. -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley       Date: 16 Dec 2005 23:18:38 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1134783704.359468.118180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > > Mike Rice wrote: >> ... I'm pretty sure it was your >> outrageous over-reaction and insults that drove off Larry Varney... > > I thought it was "Triple el" asking Mr. Varney repeatedly if Mr. Varney > would pay full list price for a BigHa. > -- > Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley I miss Leonard L. Love. He was a bull dog about that freaking high price for the BigHa and just about drove old Varney crazy with frustration. I haven't laughed that hard in ages, which just goes to show that real life humor is so much funnier than anything Hollywood throws at us. Why are you using "Johnny Sunset"? I do not like the "Johnny" as you well know what associations that name has for me. Regards, Ed Dolan - Minnesota   Date: 11 Dec 2005 09:46:20 From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! Jim McNaa <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com > wrote: > Tom, > > I see Mr. McNaa is still using non-standard quoting format. It would > > be polite if he would use standard quoting so it would be clear who > wrote what. > > --> You're expecting an apology? You are operating under the > misconception that I was put on God's green earth to dance to your > music. I can assure you that I was not. Does cheese come with that > wine? --> represents my reply to what you wrote immediately above. > The > and > >, etc. should sort the rest out. Is this really all that > challenging for you? Mr. McNaa's formatting disturbs the hierarchy of " >" characters used to k quoted material, since his formatting does not k the material he is quoting with a " >" character. This is a disservice to EVERYONE who reads the posts on the threads he is contributing to. His apology should not be directed to me, but to everyone who reads alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent - this is not an email conversation after all. His rudeness to general readership of alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent is revealing of his character. > > > --> Reader, so not be deceived by the deliberately confusing, contrived > > > wording. Note that Tom did not emphatically state that there are NO > > > SIMILARITIES. The operative word here is the qualifier > > > "coincidental". I wholeheartedly agree with Tom. The similarities are > > > most certainly NOT COINCIDENTAL between his story and reality. The > > > story was mostly true to what inspired it ... REALITY, a reality that > > > both Tom and I are/were privy to. Cloaked in obscurities, the story > > > was intentionally told in such a way that only those in inner circle > > > would understand its vague references. As such, the story was rather > > > factual up until Tom introduced the outlandish assertion that I was the > > > author of the blog who sacrificed Bacchetta in order be able to > > > implicate three specific individuals (who I have yet to name) as the > > > responsible parties and convince the readership to turn on them (though > > > unnamed remember). Tom, did you really expect anyone to buy that crap? > > > As if this wasn't absurd enough, Tom went on to indicate that I > > > inducted myself into the blog to trash myself to avoid suspicion as I > > > carried out my vendetta against the real responsible parties that Tom > > > portrayed as victims. You're devious, Tom. I'll give you that; but, > > > this is the most far-fetched, twisted spin that you have yet put on all > > > this in an effort to vindicate those responsible. Have you not yet > > > heard the voice of failure whispering in your ear? As concerns your > > > footnote, the usnet newsgroup archives has more than enough information > > > because one individual in particular is infamous for cross posing his > > > crap for all to see. Besides, I believe that I still have some of the > > > Monkey Island banter archived because I thought it come in handy some > > > day. > > > Using a sock puppet blog to discredit others is not farfetched, > > especially when one considers the posting habits of some of the > > anti-Monkey crowd. > > > --> I see, as usual, you entirely missed my point and that which you > > may have understood you merely ignored. Am I surprised that you > > ignored what I said? Not in the least because I am convinced that you > > didn't have a reasonable response to offer... > > Why should I respond to blather? > > --> Another cyber-skirmish tradek of Teflon Tom Sherman. When he > has nothing to offer in rebuttal he simply slaps on a disrespectful > label and skips to the next item on the agenda. Why should I bother to rebut that which is both poorly argued and lacking in coherence of thought? > > As concerns the posting > > habits of the Monkey crowd, anyone who has ever read their garbage > > knows perfectly well that they are not a higher standard to which > > others would care to aspire. As concerns far-fetched, I wasn't > > referring to a blog as being an unlikely means of discrediting others, > > but I'm not going to interpret what I did say above. As long as the > > readership understood what you did not, that's good enough for me. By > > the way, you have a lot of nerve even bringing up posting habits. No > > on even comes close to the tasteless, vulgar and malicious posts of the > > Monkey Island crowd. > > No, certain people on the anti-Monkey crowd are nasty, but appear nicer > > to the casual reader since they present the appearance of being polite. > > A turd presented on a plate with all the trappings in a 5-star > restaurant is still a turd. > > --> Well this is peculiar. In a nutshell, this is exactly what I have > been saying about certain people in the Monkey crowd. Perhaps I should > include certain people in the pro-Monkey crowd. Must you bring fecal > matter to the discussion? Does the mention of the product of a necessary biological function disturb Mr. McNaa? Is he that illogically prudish? > > As for buying things, why should I buy the accusations made by the > > anti-Monkey crowd, when they have yet to exhibit a shred of DEFINITIVE > > PROOF of the HRS blog author(s) identities? Ever hear the expression, > > "put up or shut up"? > > > --> Put it on your Xmax list Tom, but it ain't happenin' I asked > > several times what you would consider definitive proof and you always > > go mute. I put that on my Xmas list and it ain't happein' either. > > Present evidence that indicates beyond a reasonable doubt the identity > of the HRS blog poster(s). Such ISP records indicating the time of > posting and origin of the posting computer, documentation of the > physical location of the posting computer, documentation of who > physically was present at the location of the posting computer at the > time the post was made, email records sent to the posting computer from > > "contributors" to the blog, similar documentation (as above) proving > who sent the emails, etc. This should not be hard for the Great Jim > McNaa to produce. > > --> Getting a little edgy aren't you, Tom? Most of this would entail > hiring an attorney and obtaining a court order. I might consider it if > I were Bacchetta and then you'd have your proof, but why would I go to > all the trouble and expense since I am not the priy target of the > HRS blog? Why does Mr. McNaa continue to insist on attacking certain individuals as being responsible for the HRS blog when he is not the priy target? Mr. McNaa was not even mentioned in the HRS blog until he started directing accusation towards others without having any PROOF. > > Considering Mr. McNaa's reaction to the mention that the available > > facts could not rule him out at this point certainly makes me wonder if > > he doth protest too loudly. > > > --> And the facts do not rule you out either, but I am willing to > > concede that this is highly unlikely because the circumstantial > > evidence does not implicate you any more than it does me. As concerns > > protesting too loudly, I answered that immediately above. Please > > reread. Perhaps this time it will not elude your poor powers of > > perception. > > Mr. McNaa could have resisted the temptation to smear by posting > unfounded accusations in the first place. > > --> And deprive myself of a good fight with Mr. Sherman? Was Mr. McNaa looking for a fight with me before this issue of the HRS blog came up - if so the timing is an amusing coincidence? And if Mr. McNaa was looking to pick a fight, what does that say about him? > If Mr. McNaa had done so, > the question of whether he is the author of the HRS blog would never > have arisen. > > --> Oh so it's a question is it. Read between the lines. I believe > that question has been answered. The fact is that Mr. McNaa can not prove that he is not the author of the HRS blog unless he proves another person (or persons) to be the author (or authors). Therefore, based on Mr. McNaa's criteria of basing guilt on circumstantial evidence and not proof, he becomes a probable candidate since his motive of wanting to discredit Ed Gin & Company is well documented. > The fact that Mr. McNaa jumped at the chance to > discredit Ed Gin & Company is telling. Maybe Mr. McNaa should have > left well enough alone, instead of jumping into a fight that did not > involve him at the time. > > --> But look at all the fun I would have missed. You are in this for > the fun factor aren't you, Tom? I am here to defend the concept of innocent until proven guilty. What Mr. McNaa is here for should be obvious, and is it not a poor reflection on him? So Mr. McNaa had a falling out with Ed Gin. Why not sleeping dogs lie [1]? > > Since we are dealing with motive and > > circumstantial evidence, based on the attitudes exhibited in his posts, > > Mr. McNaa certainly has the motive to smear certain (current and > > former) member of the Chicagoland lowracer riding community. Mr. > > McNaa would also appear to have access to the means and methods of > > creating the HRS blog and the anonymous posts to > > alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent. > > > --> Slow down MR. ILLOGICAL! For the sake of argument, lets say I > > accept your premise that based on the attitudes exhibited in his posts, > > Mr. McNaa certainly has the motive to smear certain (current and > > former) member of the Chicagoland lowracer riding community, how then > > does is LOGICALLY follow that Mr. McNaa would also appear to have > > access to the means and methods of creating the HRS blog and the > > anonymous posts to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent. Well it doesn't now > > does it?... > > By posting here, Mr. McNaa proves he has Internet and computer > access - all that is needed to create the blog. > > --> And intenrnet access can be predicated of how many other people? > Whereas posting here proves that I have use of a computer with internet > access, it establishes nothing else. All that is needed is to create > the blog? Too late. Someone beat me to it. > > By his past participation in certain discussion forums, Mr. McNaa > would have obtained knowledge of the people, organizations and products > > parodied in the HRS blog. > > Mr. McNaa lives in the Chicagoland area, so he could obtain an ISP > address from the same provider used by those he accuses of being behind > > the HRS blog. > > --> He could but he hasn't. Poor Mr. McNaa has but has a dialup > account with an ISP way out on the west coast, so he couldn't possibly > have the same provider now could he. Without invading Mr. McNaa's privacy, we can not know what ISP services he does and does not have. If he can afford a place of residence, he can likely afford SBC DSL, since the overall cost is less than $20/month. > Mr. McNaa's having access to the means and methods is hardly a > stretch. > --> No, but what is a stretch is the unproven assumptions that ... 1. > Mr. McNaa has an internet account with the same provider as those > "accused" and 2. Mr. McNaa is a viable candidate to author the HRS > blog. He has gone on record that he has neither the time nor the > desire to do any such thing. How long will Mr. Sherman pursue this > inane diversion? Stay tuned as he fails to establish PROOF for either > unfounded allegation. #1 or #2. Hey, Mr. McNaa has said that he'd > even make it worth Mr. Sherman's while by extending that generous offer > of $100.000.00 to these two unsubstantiated allegations as well. You > know what is amusing in all this. If Mr. McNaa were to say crap > like this, Tommy boy would be on him like stink on shit, but as Mr. > McNaa so rightly pointed out in the past; Tom doesn't play by the > same set of rules that he expects his opposition to play by. That's > not very fair of him, now is it? If Mr. McNaa has time to argue with me at length about his unfounded accusations, he should have time to create a simple blog. As for desire, his posts (recent and less recent) indicate a great desire to damage Ed Gin. The protests are not convincing. As for the $100,000 dollar offer, it is worthless since it is not legally binding. All that Mr. McNaa would lose by refusing to pay (in the hypothetical event that he was proven to be the author of the HRS blog) is reputation. And the loss of reputation from not paying would be a moot point after the damage done by being revealed as the HRS blog author after vigorously accusing others. Not impressive at all, Mr. McNaa. > > And to think that you pride yourself in being logical and > > Defy anyone to identify where you have made a statement that is > > illogical. Because one has a motive, this does not mean that they also > > have the means and methods or even the willingness to act on said > > motive. Means and methods imply the tools and the know how in addition > > to the time and willingness to transform motive into action. You have > > made an illogical quantum leap in logic. You assumptions are > > unfounded. Where yours proof?... > > See above. The means and methods to create the HRS blog are hardly a > challenge to meet. As for time and willingness, Mr. McNaa is > demonstrating on this very forum he has the time and willingness to > pursue his accusations against Ed Gin & Company to great lengths. > > --> Now initially this would seem to make some degree of sense for a > change if it were not for a couple of facts: > > 1. As concerns the issue of time, a blog would demand even more time > because I would be facing a learning curve, since I've never done one > and because it is graphics intensive. It is a bit easier when the task > can be shared especially when two of those whom I suspect have a know > expertise in that area, but do we really need anymore circumstantial > evidence? As concerns the issue of willingness, a blog would be > unsuitable. It is a cowardly conduit because it is a monologue devoid > of combat with your adversary and there is just no sport in that. > 3. More important than #1 & #2 is this. As Tom points out, I've had > issues with certain individuals, two to be exact. Now, if I were to > author a blog, is it not logical to assume that these individuals would > be my focus? Now, ask yourself, what is the focus of the HRS blog? > Don't cheat by looking at the title. I have no issues with any form > that a bicycle takes (including the NoCom), or with any Bacchetta > employee or with BROL or its moderator. Now, ask yourself just who > might the individuals be that have these iddues that the HRS blog > happens to focus on? If you need a point of reference, look through > the archives of the multitude of posts in various forums. There's no > mystery here. You'll find parallels to the material in the HRS blog, > but you'll not find me associated with any of it, although what you > will discover will leave little doubt in your mind as to who the > probable candidates are. In the above, Mr. McNaa reveals that he knows what is required to create a blog. For the rest of his argument, it is a further attack on the behavior of the author(s) of the HRS blog. Further, Mr. McNaa reveals that he knows what attitudes and habits are associated with those he accuses of creating the HRS blog. This furthers the hypothetical case that if Mr. McNaa wanted to create the blog so certain individuals would be blamed for it; he would know what subject matter to use. Thank you Mr. McNaa for contributing to the hypothetical case that you are the HRS blog author. ;) > As for proof, I have presented all that is necessary to show that IT IS > POSSIBLE for Mr. McNaa to be the author of the HRS blog. I do not > need proof beyond a reasonable doubt, because I AM NOT CATAGORICALLY > STATING THAT MR. McNAA IS THE HRS BLOG AUTHOR. > > --> PROOF? Actually what you have presented is all that is necessary > (please don't call it PROOF) to show that IT IS POSSIBLE for anyone > assuming internet connectivity, motive, willingness and skillset to be > the author of the HRS blog which is to say you have demonstrated > nothing significant. Although Mr. Sherman is NOT CATAGORICALLY STATING > THAT MR. McNAA IS THE HRS BLOG AUTHOR, he is using Mr. McNaa's > name virtually exclusively in his diversionary efforts. The > implication of such a tactic should be obvious to all. Draw you own > conclusions. I am only using Mr. McNaa's name in this context since he was so dogged in accusing others without proof. Turnabout is fair play, is it not? > > If you want to learn more about blogs > > and anonymous posting, talk to you JAG buddies because they are > > certifiable experts. > > Mr. McNaa just can not stop with the unfounded accusations, can he? > > --> 8^). > > > Let me say this straight out ... I did not create > > the HRS blog. I have gone on record in hundreds of post regarding how > > I feel about bicycles. I will repeat in brief for all to understand. > > I feel that we should be united by what we do and not divided by what > > we do it on. I envision a cycling community devoid of platform > > prejudice and platform pejoratives. I am in favor of unity through > > diversity. And, I have thought about buying a Bacchetta Ti-Aero for > > quite some time. Now do I sound like a person likely to author the > > denigrating HRS blog?.... > > With his vindictive attitude on display numerous times towards Ed Gin & > > Company, who knows how far Mr. McNaa would take things? > > --> Pure conjecture. Just like Mr. McNaa accusing Ed Gin & Company is pure conjecture. > > Take your right hand and grab your left ear and > > your left hand and grab your right ear and pull your head out of you > > ass ... brain dead. > > Mr. McNaa can not win the argument on logic, so now he is resorting > to insults. Is not this what he accuses others of doing? > > --> Thanks for your opinion. Now, care to ask for the opinion of the > readership? Only the portion of the readership that is better informed and more logical on this matter than I am. I will not be holding my breath. > > Tell you what, Ed Gin once made a $10,000 offer > > that I'm sure you are familiar with. I'll go him 10 fold better. If > > you Tom Sherman or any member of the JAG alliance can prove that I am > > the author of the HRS blog I will pay you $100,000.00 ... incentive > > enough for you? I can just hear the wheels turning in the heads of the > > Ed Gin's Monkey minions as to how they can possibly forge everything so > > they can get their hands on the money. It would keep the monkeys in > > bananas for the rest of their lives. Well Tom, you made the > > hypothetical accusation. The money is on the table. Where's your PROOF? > > I do not need proof beyond what I have presented, since I am not > claiming as FACT the authorship of the HRS blog, but instead merely > pointing out that based on circumstantial evidence there are certainly > other possibilities than the ones presented by Mr. McNaa as FACT. > > --> But, does the circumstantial evidence point at me or those whom I > suspect? The readership and Mr. McNaa await your answer? No reason to repeat the argument here as to why Mr. McNaa has the motive to create the HRS blog. > > Please note that this is not an accusation > > (which would be immoral without reasonable proof) but merely a > > statement of what is hypothetically possible. After all, it could turn > > out that "Mojo" is really the Nobel Peace Prize committee. > > --> The usual Teflon disclaimer as though there were nothing really > > intended by it. It was just a cerebral exercise, demonstrating of how > > cleverly ridiculous he can be. He didn't mean any harm in it and it > > was purely coincidental that his adversary was the focus of the > > hypothetically absurd. > > I have "no dog in this fight" other than pointing out what I believe to > > be unacceptable behavior. > > --> Does anyone believe this to be true? If it were, don't you think > the dog would have left by now? I like to argue on Usenet. ;) > Maybe certain people should not be so quick to point fingers when they > lack conclusive evidence. > > --> Please. I will address your misconceptions regarding your feeble > argumentative mainstays ("public figure" and "circumstantial evidence" > in a separate post. I prefer not to have that buried here. Stay > tuned. > > > > It is interesting to note that someone who is willing to accuse without > > > evidence is upset at the mere appearance of the shoe being on the other > > > foot. There is a valuable lesson here, I believe to those who are > > > willing to learn. > > > > --> This is a deliberate falsehood. There is plenty of evidence, but > > > it is circumstantial in nature. You want to discuss evidence, well > > > where's yours? The proverbial shoe would only be on the other foot > > > if there were evidence in support of your ludicrous assertion, but > > > there is not. There is a valuable lesson to be learned here. The > > > lesson is that Tom doesn't play fairly. He will take others to task > > > for suggesting anything that is not fact substantiated by definitive > > > proof, but at the same time exempts himself from his own standard. Now > > > here comes the word that he is so fond of. Tom, where's your PROOF? > > > At least others and I provided circumstantial evidence whereas you have > > > provided nothing but an accusatory hypothesis ... inane conjecture ... > > > reckless speculation, with not so much as a shred of evidence, even > > > circumstantial in nature and herein lies the very vast difference that > > > escaped you attention. So, how does the shoe feel on your foot? > > I have no need to post proof, since I have not made any accusations, > > but merely stated possible motives and means. > > > --> I don't expect you to ever hold yourself accountable for any > > actions you take. That is a trait that you share with sociopaths. > > > More gratuitous insults from Mr. McNaa. > > --> 8^) > > > You can artfully rationalize everything that you do. The hypothetical > > story was told with obvious purpose and you and I have differing views > > regarding what that purpose was and the readership will have to come to > > their own conclusion. > > Do not accuse the kettle of being black without proof, if there is the > possibility that you could be the pot. > > --> I wouldn't if there was even a remote possibility. The issue of possibility has been addressed, and the defense presented was feeble. This is why accusations without proof should not be made. > > The bottom line is that the story had a header > > and trailer to cover your devious intentions. The bottom line is that > > accusations were made and/or implied hypothetically so you could not be > > held accountable. You said above ... Mr. McNaa certainly has the > > motive to smear certain (current and former) member of the Chicagoland > > lowracer riding community. Mr. McNaa would also appear to have > > access to the means and methods of creating the HRS blog and the > > anonymous posts to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent. There is little doubt > > that you have accused me of motive, means and methods. I accuse you of > > distortion of the truth that was hidden behind a thinly veiled > > hypothetical story. You are always hiding behind something. When did > > you first get out from behind your mothers skirt? > > [YAWN] See above. My only goal here is to point out that accusations > should not be made without proof. When someone continues with that > morally unacceptable activity, it may be necessary to demonstrate to > that person that he/she could just as well be the perpetrator of the > crime, based on the evidence available. > > --> You define PROOF differently that does the law and the court > system, but a know-it-all knows no bounds and takes on all comers. You > should heed the words of Dirty Harry ... A man's got to know his > limitations. Keep your pants on Tom I said I'd get to that and I can > assure you that I will. Your goal is obvious ... to cover the butts of > your buddies. Sorry, but if your intent was to demonstrate that I > could just as well be the perpetrator of the crime (thanks for calling > it what it is), based on the evidence available, you failed miserably. > See what I said above about why I would not author the HRS blog and to > whom the circumstantial evidence points. You really are getting > desperate. This is really lame. I expected better of you. If this > keeps up, I may just lose interest and you wouldn't want for that to > happen now would you? As pointed out above, Mr. McNaa's arguments that he COULD NOT BE the author of the HRS blog are not convincing. His determination to continue this argument reveals that he has many axes to grind with certain persons, which makes him hardy an unbiased evaluator of the existing evidence. > > > > That portion of your story > > > > was a major departure from reality. Since I am now an HRS blog > > > > inductee, a victim of parody and a "private" individual why have you > > > > not denounced the "nameless" authors or do you seriously believe I am > > > > the author of the HRS blog and Baccchetta and your associates are all > > > > my hapless victims. > > > The existence of the HRS blog does raise certain questions. What could > > > have people associated with Bacchetta and BROL have done to provoke > > > such a response? Do we assume that they are guilty of some grievous > > > offense? Or alternatively, do we assume that the HRS blog author(s) > > > is/are mentally ill and truly delusional, and believe in offenses from > > > Bacchetta and BROL that did not really occur? Or a third possibility, > > > the HRS blog author is using reverse psychology to gain support for > > > Bacchetta and BROL [2]. Or could the HRS blog be a tool in a personal > > > vendetta. The last possibility hardly stretches credibility, does it > > > not? > > > --> Someone, not myself has made this accusation? Who? Your pseudonym > > > ... Johnny Sunset. From the questions above it is obvious that you > > > have picked sides and your friendship with the accused has obscured you > > > objectivity. Yes, the very existence of the blog raises some > > > questions, but why is it that all of your questions are decidedly > > > one-sided? Never mind. That was a rhetorical question. There could > > > be many reasons for the existence of the blog, most of which go beyond > > > the scope of this discussion. Better questions might be these. Is > > > the direction that blog has taken commensurate with whatever imagined > > > offense may or may not have occurred? Why is it that only a small > > > minority has issues with both BROL and Bacchetta? Who is the common > > > denominator in all this? Are all the moderated forums, their > > > readership and moderators wrong to have consistently ousted these same > > > few people?... > > If a hypothetical moderated forum accepts advertising for a > > hypothetical advertiser and said advertisers product is being > > attacked... > > On the other hand, if hypothetical individuals receiving financially > > valuable consideration from a manufacturer promote the manufacturers > > products on said forum... > > Which side gets would be censored by the moderator(s) of the forum(s), > > if the hypothetical censorship did indeed occur? > > --> Please edit the above sentence for clarity. > > There have been real accusations of the hypothetical scenarios listed > > above. > > --> Please ... anything but the hypothetical arena again. You failed > > to address a single issue raised and you failed to answer a single > > question, but that's par for the course. > > > Is this not the reason why Monkey Island forum came into > > > existence?... > > Monkey Island's mission was to provide a place for the "idiots to > > bark". > > > --> Because they were no longer welcome anywhere else specifically > > because of their barking. I'll take that as a YES. > > The original Monkey Island came into existence so people could post > opinions about performance recumbent without being censored if they > denigrated the products or performance of others. Based on the public > comments of the site webmaster, Monkey Island I was shut down when the > conversation turned mostly to matters of insult. > > --> So then they are even nasty to each other. No wonder they're > called monkeys. I congratulate the moderator for doing the right > thing. > > The second Monkey > Island was intended to be a free for all. Why Monkey Island II was shut > > down is a matter for the forum owner to tell, if and when he so > desires. > > --> So, the second Monkey Island was little more than a continuation of > what toppled the first one. Truth be told, I could care less why > either one folded. > > > > The existence of the blog is merely a new wrinkle in an old > > > lineage that can be traced back years in newsgroup archives. A blog is > > > an arena where those who are maligned have no avenue for rebuttal. It > > > should be obvious that the blog format was deliberately chosen for > > > presentation of HRS subject matter simply because the blog is a > > > cyber-soapbox from which an uncontested monologue can be disgorged with > > > no conduit for dissension ... no opportunity for disagreement. Those > > > involved prefer to demonstrate their immaturity and spew their hatred > > > without concern for a dissenting voice. Cowards avoid confrontation. > > > Of course, it is absurdly unlikely, but not impossible, that the HRS > > > blog is the work of a group of monkeys randomly pounding on computer > > > keyboards. ;) > > > I will state one thing again that I said at the very beginning of the > > > discussion - there is in all likelihood more going on here than meet > > > the eye (of the uninvolved alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent reader). > > > --> A fair statement for a change, but there is also much that is known > > > from the discussion that has taken place in this regard. > > > Yes, certain people on the anti-Monkey side have revealed unpleasant > > aspects of their personalities. > > > -> And a certain person on the pro-Monkey side has revealed telling > > character deficiencies. > > [YAWN] So much for Mr. "High Road" Jim McNaa. > > --> Say Goodnight Tommy. Good Morning. What a pleasant day for heated Usenet discussion it is. [1] An expression, not intended to cast any hominid as a canine. -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley     Date: 11 Dec 2005 19:24:27 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! "Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1134323180.163347.12990@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Jim McNaa <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com> wrote: [...] >> --> Well this is peculiar. In a nutshell, this is exactly what I have >> been saying about certain people in the Monkey crowd. Perhaps I should >> include certain people in the pro-Monkey crowd. Must you bring fecal >> matter to the discussion? > > Does the mention of the product of a necessary biological function > disturb Mr. McNaa? Is he that illogically prudish? It is a question of good taste more than anything else. Why would someone with a college education have to resort to the most crude of all allusions. Why can't Mr. Sherman be high minded like me! Mr. Sherman either did not go to a high class college like I did or else he was born in a barn. [...] Regards, Ed Dolan - Minnesota   Date: 11 Dec 2005 08:56:35 From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! Edward Dolan wrote: > "Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1134251577.908634.169070@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > > Jim McNaa <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > I see Mr. McNaa is still using non-standard quoting format. It would > > be polite if he would use standard quoting so it would be clear who > > wrote what. > > I think Jim is using the Google web site and it can be confusing to post > messages from there. I ended up unintentionally top posting when I last used > Google! Hey Eddie, I told you how to post properly from Google Groups back when you were masquerading as "GOD". However, certain other web portals to Usenet may not allow for proper formatting (AOL comes to mind, as does cyclingforums.com). > [...] > > > No, certain people on the anti-Monkey crowd are nasty, but appear nicer > > to the casual reader since they present the appearance of being polite. > > A turd presented on a plate with all the trappings in a 5-star > > restaurant is still a turd. > > Mr. Sherman has apparently been unduly influenced by Wayne Leggitt, the ARBR > poet of excrement. I think it would be highly appropriate to use this type > of allusion with Wayne, but certainly not with Jim. It would also be > EXTREMELY HIGHLY APPROPRIATE to use that allusion with your good buddy Ed > Gin. As they say, excrement happens (biological fact). The acceptability of discussing one end of the process (food preparation and intake) but not the other (elimination of the waste products after digestion) is a merely artificial social convention. Mr. Dolan should be aware the correct spelling of the name of the owner of LoGo Trikes USA is "Wayne Leggett". > [...] > > > Mr. McNaa can not win the argument on logic, so now he is resorting > > to insults. Is not this what he accuses others of doing? > > You would not know logic if it jumped up and bit you in the elbow. Your > defense of the indefensible puts you at odds with the entire newsgroup. I am > amazed that you seemingly have no shame. The circumstantial evidence as to > who is doing what is overwhelming and the only thing involved here is > character assassination, not parody. Ah, if only it could happen to you. > Your eyes would be opened in a New York minute! I can think of at least one person who has made anonymous posts denigrating highracers and BROL but whose last name starts with a letter that is NOT "J", "A" or "G". Knowing this, I would say it is logically unreasonable for Mr. McNaa and other to jump to the conclusions they are posting as to the identity of the HRS blog author. > [...] > > > I have "no dog in this fight" other than pointing out what I believe to > > be unacceptable behavior. > > This is as close to the truth of the matter as Mr. Sherman is ever going to > get. I can accept that. After all, Mr. Sherman is not the criminal here. I > am assuming his "unacceptable behavior" pertains to the arch criminal vandal > troll and not to anyone else. I pointed out the particular cases where I believe the HRS blog went beyond acceptable behavior (as is documented in the Google Groups archives). I also believe that it is unacceptable to accuse certain people of being the HRS blog author(s) without having reasonable proof. The only justification presented so far for the accusations boils down to "J., A. and G. are the type of people who would do so." > [...] > > > The original Monkey Island came into existence so people could post > > opinions about performance recumbent without being censored if they > > denigrated the products or performance of others. Based on the public > > comments of the site webmaster, Monkey Island I was shut down when the > > conversation turned mostly to matters of insult. The second Monkey > > Island was intended to be a free for all. Why Monkey Island II was shut > > down is a matter for the forum owner to tell, if and when he so > > desires. > > An interesting bit of history that I was unaware of because I do not go > slumming to such sites. I just looked at it once briefly, and that was > enough for me - but apparently not for Mr. Sherman. He likes the gutter no > doubt. Did I not already say in a previous message of mine that he has no > taste. Did Mr. Sherman find the graphics on that site to be perhaps amusing? I avoid riding in the gutter as it leaves no room to maneuver to one side, and it greatly increases the incidence of tire punctures from debris. Take the lane when necessary. > [...] > > >> Yes, certain people on the anti-Monkey side have revealed unpleasant > >> aspects of their personalities. > >> > >> -> And a certain person on the pro-Monkey side has revealed telling > >> character deficiencies. > > > > [YAWN] So much for Mr. "High Road" Jim McNaa. > > Why bother to be high minded when confronted with Sherman obduracy. It is > enough to drive a sane person stark raving mad. Everyone learns sooner or > later when engaged with Mr. Sherman that it is going to be the low road in > the final analysis. It is a characteristic of all liberals. Ed Dolan continues to amuse with has rabid ranting. -- 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: 11 Dec 2005 19:54:16 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! "Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1134320195.783823.194390@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > Edward Dolan wrote: >> "Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:1134251577.908634.169070@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> > >> > Jim McNaa <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> > I see Mr. McNaa is still using non-standard quoting format. It would >> > be polite if he would use standard quoting so it would be clear who >> > wrote what. >> >> I think Jim is using the Google web site and it can be confusing to post >> messages from there. I ended up unintentionally top posting when I last >> used >> Google! > > Hey Eddie, > > I told you how to post properly from Google Groups back when you were > masquerading as "GOD". However, certain other web portals to Usenet may > not allow for proper formatting (AOL comes to mind, as does > cyclingforums.com). Unless you are posting regularly via Google you will not remember how to post from there, most especially after you have gotten used to a proper newsreader. Yes, I think AOL is different from the others. I can't even get email from AOL that jibes with my OE. >> [...] >> >> > No, certain people on the anti-Monkey crowd are nasty, but appear nicer >> > to the casual reader since they present the appearance of being polite. >> > A turd presented on a plate with all the trappings in a 5-star >> > restaurant is still a turd. >> >> Mr. Sherman has apparently been unduly influenced by Wayne Leggitt, the >> ARBR >> poet of excrement. I think it would be highly appropriate to use this >> type >> of allusion with Wayne, but certainly not with Jim. It would also be >> EXTREMELY HIGHLY APPROPRIATE to use that allusion with your good buddy >> Ed >> Gin. > > As they say, excrement happens (biological fact). The acceptability of > discussing one end of the process (food preparation and intake) but not > the other (elimination of the waste products after digestion) is a > merely artificial social convention. Well, yes, but it is what separates aristocrats like me from peasants like you. You need to shuck your low class origins now that you have gotten an education and are a civil engineer. Leave the low brow stuff to characters like Slugger and Wayne LoGo. > Mr. Dolan should be aware the correct spelling of the name of the owner > of LoGo Trikes USA is "Wayne Leggett". That name has got a couple of double consonants in it and two vowels also the same. He can either get a sensible name or get used to it being spelled wrong. >> [...] >> >> > Mr. McNaa can not win the argument on logic, so now he is resorting >> > to insults. Is not this what he accuses others of doing? >> >> You would not know logic if it jumped up and bit you in the elbow. Your >> defense of the indefensible puts you at odds with the entire newsgroup. I >> am >> amazed that you seemingly have no shame. The circumstantial evidence as >> to >> who is doing what is overwhelming and the only thing involved here is >> character assassination, not parody. Ah, if only it could happen to you. >> Your eyes would be opened in a New York minute! > > I can think of at least one person who has made anonymous posts > denigrating highracers and BROL but whose last name starts with a > letter that is NOT "J", "A" or "G". Knowing this, I would say it is > logically unreasonable for Mr. McNaa and other [s] to jump to the > conclusions they are posting as to the identity of the HRS blog author. I have absolutely nothing against BROL and I only dislike high racers because I can't ride them due to the high crank. I certainly do not go on and on about either. If I wanted to engage the readership of BROL, I would certainly know how to do it just as well as Mr. Sherman. Since it is a moderated forum, I would have to be more business like. ARBR, being unmoderated, is more for fun and games as everyone should know by now. >> [...] >> >> > I have "no dog in this fight" other than pointing out what I believe to >> > be unacceptable behavior. >> >> This is as close to the truth of the matter as Mr. Sherman is ever going >> to >> get. I can accept that. After all, Mr. Sherman is not the criminal here. >> I >> am assuming his "unacceptable behavior" pertains to the arch criminal >> vandal >> troll and not to anyone else. > > I pointed out the particular cases where I believe the HRS blog went > beyond acceptable behavior (as is documented in the Google Groups > archives). Your finest moment on this issue so far. I also believe that it is unacceptable to accuse certain > people of being the HRS blog author(s) without having reasonable proof. > The only justification presented so far for the accusations boils down > to "J., A. and G. are the type of people who would do so." Joao convinced me who the culprit was by his analysis of the headers. Jim is also very convincing on the issue. The fact is that you are not. Only your loyalty to a friend is admirable, even if he is a scum bucket. >> [...] >> >> > The original Monkey Island came into existence so people could post >> > opinions about performance recumbent without being censored if they >> > denigrated the products or performance of others. Based on the public >> > comments of the site webmaster, Monkey Island I was shut down when the >> > conversation turned mostly to matters of insult. The second Monkey >> > Island was intended to be a free for all. Why Monkey Island II was shut >> > down is a matter for the forum owner to tell, if and when he so >> > desires. >> >> An interesting bit of history that I was unaware of because I do not go >> slumming to such sites. I just looked at it once briefly, and that was >> enough for me - but apparently not for Mr. Sherman. He likes the gutter >> no >> doubt. Did I not already say in a previous message of mine that he has no >> taste. Did Mr. Sherman find the graphics on that site to be perhaps >> amusing? > > I avoid riding in the gutter as it leaves no room to maneuver to one > side, and it greatly increases the incidence of tire punctures from > debris. Take the lane when necessary. > >> [...] >> >> >> Yes, certain people on the anti-Monkey side have revealed unpleasant >> >> aspects of their personalities. >> >> >> >> -> And a certain person on the pro-Monkey side has revealed telling >> >> character deficiencies. >> > >> > [YAWN] So much for Mr. "High Road" Jim McNaa. >> >> Why bother to be high minded when confronted with Sherman obduracy. It is >> enough to drive a sane person stark raving mad. Everyone learns sooner or >> later when engaged with Mr. Sherman that it is going to be the low road >> in >> the final analysis. It is a characteristic of all liberals. > > Ed Dolan continues to amuse with has rabid ranting. Thanks Tom for not editing me out of all my content. Readers can judge for themselves who is ranting and who is raving. Regards, Ed Dolan - Minensota   Date: 10 Dec 2005 23:38:01 From: Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! Tom, I see Mr. McNaa is still using non-standard quoting format. It would be polite if he would use standard quoting so it would be clear who wrote what. -- > You're expecting an apology? You are operating under the misconception that I was put on God's green earth to dance to your music. I can assure you that I was not. Does cheese come with that wine? -- > represents my reply to what you wrote immediately above. The > and > >, etc. should sort the rest out. Is this really all that challenging for you? > > --> Reader, so not be deceived by the deliberately confusing, contrived > > wording. Note that Tom did not emphatically state that there are NO > > SIMILARITIES. The operative word here is the qualifier > > "coincidental". I wholeheartedly agree with Tom. The similarities are > > most certainly NOT COINCIDENTAL between his story and reality. The > > story was mostly true to what inspired it ... REALITY, a reality that > > both Tom and I are/were privy to. Cloaked in obscurities, the story > > was intentionally told in such a way that only those in inner circle > > would understand its vague references. As such, the story was rather > > factual up until Tom introduced the outlandish assertion that I was the > > author of the blog who sacrificed Bacchetta in order be able to > > implicate three specific individuals (who I have yet to name) as the > > responsible parties and convince the readership to turn on them (though > > unnamed remember). Tom, did you really expect anyone to buy that crap? > > As if this wasn't absurd enough, Tom went on to indicate that I > > inducted myself into the blog to trash myself to avoid suspicion as I > > carried out my vendetta against the real responsible parties that Tom > > portrayed as victims. You're devious, Tom. I'll give you that; but, > > this is the most far-fetched, twisted spin that you have yet put on all > > this in an effort to vindicate those responsible. Have you not yet > > heard the voice of failure whispering in your ear? As concerns your > > footnote, the usnet newsgroup archives has more than enough information > > because one individual in particular is infamous for cross posing his > > crap for all to see. Besides, I believe that I still have some of the > > Monkey Island banter archived because I thought it come in handy some > > day. > Using a sock puppet blog to discredit others is not farfetched, > especially when one considers the posting habits of some of the > anti-Monkey crowd. > --> I see, as usual, you entirely missed my point and that which you > may have understood you merely ignored. Am I surprised that you > ignored what I said? Not in the least because I am convinced that you > didn't have a reasonable response to offer... Why should I respond to blather? -- > Another cyber-skirmish tradek of Teflon Tom Sherman. When he has nothing to offer in rebuttal he simply slaps on a disrespectful label and skips to the next item on the agenda. > As concerns the posting > habits of the Monkey crowd, anyone who has ever read their garbage > knows perfectly well that they are not a higher standard to which > others would care to aspire. As concerns far-fetched, I wasn't > referring to a blog as being an unlikely means of discrediting others, > but I'm not going to interpret what I did say above. As long as the > readership understood what you did not, that's good enough for me. By > the way, you have a lot of nerve even bringing up posting habits. No > on even comes close to the tasteless, vulgar and malicious posts of the > Monkey Island crowd. No, certain people on the anti-Monkey crowd are nasty, but appear nicer to the casual reader since they present the appearance of being polite. A turd presented on a plate with all the trappings in a 5-star restaurant is still a turd. -- > Well this is peculiar. In a nutshell, this is exactly what I have been saying about certain people in the Monkey crowd. Perhaps I should include certain people in the pro-Monkey crowd. Must you bring fecal matter to the discussion? > As for buying things, why should I buy the accusations made by the > anti-Monkey crowd, when they have yet to exhibit a shred of DEFINITIVE > PROOF of the HRS blog author(s) identities? Ever hear the expression, > "put up or shut up"? > --> Put it on your Xmax list Tom, but it ain't happenin' I asked > several times what you would consider definitive proof and you always > go mute. I put that on my Xmas list and it ain't happein' either. Present evidence that indicates beyond a reasonable doubt the identity of the HRS blog poster(s). Such ISP records indicating the time of posting and origin of the posting computer, documentation of the physical location of the posting computer, documentation of who physically was present at the location of the posting computer at the time the post was made, email records sent to the posting computer from "contributors" to the blog, similar documentation (as above) proving who sent the emails, etc. This should not be hard for the Great Jim McNaa to produce. -- > Getting a little edgy aren't you, Tom? Most of this would entail hiring an attorney and obtaining a court order. I might consider it if I were Bacchetta and then you'd have your proof, but why would I go to all the trouble and expense since I am not the priy target of the HRS blog? > Considering Mr. McNaa's reaction to the mention that the available > facts could not rule him out at this point certainly makes me wonder if > he doth protest too loudly. > --> And the facts do not rule you out either, but I am willing to > concede that this is highly unlikely because the circumstantial > evidence does not implicate you any more than it does me. As concerns > protesting too loudly, I answered that immediately above. Please > reread. Perhaps this time it will not elude your poor powers of > perception. Mr. McNaa could have resisted the temptation to smear by posting unfounded accusations in the first place. -- > And deprive myself of a good fight with Mr. Sherman? If Mr. McNaa had done so, the question of whether he is the author of the HRS blog would never have arisen. -- > Oh so it's a question is it. Read between the lines. I believe that question has been answered. The fact that Mr. McNaa jumped at the chance to discredit Ed Gin & Company is telling. Maybe Mr. McNaa should have left well enough alone, instead of jumping into a fight that did not involve him at the time. -- > But look at all the fun I would have missed. You are in this for the fun factor aren't you, Tom? > Since we are dealing with motive and > circumstantial evidence, based on the attitudes exhibited in his posts, > Mr. McNaa certainly has the motive to smear certain (current and > former) member of the Chicagoland lowracer riding community. Mr. > McNaa would also appear to have access to the means and methods of > creating the HRS blog and the anonymous posts to > alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent. > --> Slow down MR. ILLOGICAL! For the sake of argument, lets say I > accept your premise that based on the attitudes exhibited in his posts, > Mr. McNaa certainly has the motive to smear certain (current and > former) member of the Chicagoland lowracer riding community, how then > does is LOGICALLY follow that Mr. McNaa would also appear to have > access to the means and methods of creating the HRS blog and the > anonymous posts to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent. Well it doesn't now > does it?... By posting here, Mr. McNaa proves he has Internet and computer access - all that is needed to create the blog. -- > And intenrnet access can be predicated of how many other people? Whereas posting here proves that I have use of a computer with internet access, it establishes nothing else. All that is needed is to create the blog? Too late. Someone beat me to it. By his past participation in certain discussion forums, Mr. McNaa would have obtained knowledge of the people, organizations and products parodied in the HRS blog. Mr. McNaa lives in the Chicagoland area, so he could obtain an ISP address from the same provider used by those he accuses of being behind the HRS blog. -- > He could but he hasn't. Poor Mr. McNaa has but has a dialup account with an ISP way out on the west coast, so he couldn't possibly have the same provider now could he. Mr. McNaa's having access to the means and methods is hardly a stretch. -- > No, but what is a stretch is the unproven assumptions that ... 1. Mr. McNaa has an internet account with the same provider as those "accused" and 2. Mr. McNaa is a viable candidate to author the HRS blog. He has gone on record that he has neither the time nor the desire to do any such thing. How long will Mr. Sherman pursue this inane diversion? Stay tuned as he fails to establish PROOF for either unfounded allegation. #1 or #2. Hey, Mr. McNaa has said that he'd even make it worth Mr. Sherman's while by extending that generous offer of $100.000.00 to these two unsubstantiated allegations as well. You know what is amusing in all this. If Mr. McNaa were to say crap like this, Tommy boy would be on him like stink on shit, but as Mr. McNaa so rightly pointed out in the past; Tom doesn't play by the same set of rules that he expects his opposition to play by. That's not very fair of him, now is it? > And to think that you pride yourself in being logical and > Defy anyone to identify where you have made a statement that is > illogical. Because one has a motive, this does not mean that they also > have the means and methods or even the willingness to act on said > motive. Means and methods imply the tools and the know how in addition > to the time and willingness to transform motive into action. You have > made an illogical quantum leap in logic. You assumptions are > unfounded. Where yours proof?... See above. The means and methods to create the HRS blog are hardly a challenge to meet. As for time and willingness, Mr. McNaa is demonstrating on this very forum he has the time and willingness to pursue his accusations against Ed Gin & Company to great lengths. -- > Now initially this would seem to make some degree of sense for a change if it were not for a couple of facts: 1. As concerns the issue of time, a blog would demand even more time because I would be facing a learning curve, since I've never done one and because it is graphics intensive. It is a bit easier when the task can be shared especially when two of those whom I suspect have a know expertise in that area, but do we really need anymore circumstantial evidence? As concerns the issue of willingness, a blog would be unsuitable. It is a cowardly conduit because it is a monologue devoid of combat with your adversary and there is just no sport in that. 3. More important than #1 & #2 is this. As Tom points out, I've had issues with certain individuals, two to be exact. Now, if I were to author a blog, is it not logical to assume that these individuals would be my focus? Now, ask yourself, what is the focus of the HRS blog? Don't cheat by looking at the title. I have no issues with any form that a bicycle takes (including the NoCom), or with any Bacchetta employee or with BROL or its moderator. Now, ask yourself just who might the individuals be that have these iddues that the HRS blog happens to focus on? If you need a point of reference, look through the archives of the multitude of posts in various forums. There's no mystery here. You'll find parallels to the material in the HRS blog, but you'll not find me associated with any of it, although what you will discover will leave little doubt in your mind as to who the probable candidates are. As for proof, I have presented all that is necessary to show that IT IS POSSIBLE for Mr. McNaa to be the author of the HRS blog. I do not need proof beyond a reasonable doubt, because I AM NOT CATAGORICALLY STATING THAT MR. McNAA IS THE HRS BLOG AUTHOR. -- > PROOF? Actually what you have presented is all that is necessary (please don't call it PROOF) to show that IT IS POSSIBLE for anyone assuming internet connectivity, motive, willingness and skillset to be the author of the HRS blog which is to say you have demonstrated nothing significant. Although Mr. Sherman is NOT CATAGORICALLY STATING THAT MR. McNAA IS THE HRS BLOG AUTHOR, he is using Mr. McNaa's name virtually exclusively in his diversionary efforts. The implication of such a tactic should be obvious to all. Draw you own conclusions. > If you want to learn more about blogs > and anonymous posting, talk to you JAG buddies because they are > certifiable experts. Mr. McNaa just can not stop with the unfounded accusations, can he? -- > 8^). > Let me say this straight out ... I did not create > the HRS blog. I have gone on record in hundreds of post regarding how > I feel about bicycles. I will repeat in brief for all to understand. > I feel that we should be united by what we do and not divided by what > we do it on. I envision a cycling community devoid of platform > prejudice and platform pejoratives. I am in favor of unity through > diversity. And, I have thought about buying a Bacchetta Ti-Aero for > quite some time. Now do I sound like a person likely to author the > denigrating HRS blog?.... With his vindictive attitude on display numerous times towards Ed Gin & Company, who knows how far Mr. McNaa would take things? -- > Pure conjecture. > Take your right hand and grab your left ear and > your left hand and grab your right ear and pull your head out of you > ass ... brain dead. Mr. McNaa can not win the argument on logic, so now he is resorting to insults. Is not this what he accuses others of doing? -- > Thanks for your opinion. Now, care to ask for the opinion of the readership? > Tell you what, Ed Gin once made a $10,000 offer > that I'm sure you are familiar with. I'll go him 10 fold better. If > you Tom Sherman or any member of the JAG alliance can prove that I am > the author of the HRS blog I will pay you $100,000.00 ... incentive > enough for you? I can just hear the wheels turning in the heads of the > Ed Gin's Monkey minions as to how they can possibly forge everything so > they can get their hands on the money. It would keep the monkeys in > bananas for the rest of their lives. Well Tom, you made the > hypothetical accusation. The money is on the table. Where's your PROOF? I do not need proof beyond what I have presented, since I am not claiming as FACT the authorship of the HRS blog, but instead merely pointing out that based on circumstantial evidence there are certainly other possibilities than the ones presented by Mr. McNaa as FACT. -- > But, does the circumstantial evidence point at me or those whom I suspect? The readership and Mr. McNaa await your answer? > Please note that this is not an accusation > (which would be immoral without reasonable proof) but merely a > statement of what is hypothetically possible. After all, it could turn > out that "Mojo" is really the Nobel Peace Prize committee. > --> The usual Teflon disclaimer as though there were nothing really > intended by it. It was just a cerebral exercise, demonstrating of how > cleverly ridiculous he can be. He didn't mean any harm in it and it > was purely coincidental that his adversary was the focus of the > hypothetically absurd. I have "no dog in this fight" other than pointing out what I believe to be unacceptable behavior. -- > Does anyone believe this to be true? If it were, don't you think the dog would have left by now? Maybe certain people should not be so quick to point fingers when they lack conclusive evidence. -- > Please. I will address your misconceptions regarding your feeble argumentative mainstays ("public figure" and "circumstantial evidence" in a separate post. I prefer not to have that buried here. Stay tuned. > > It is interesting to note that someone who is willing to accuse without > > evidence is upset at the mere appearance of the shoe being on the other > > foot. There is a valuable lesson here, I believe to those who are > > willing to learn. > > --> This is a deliberate falsehood. There is plenty of evidence, but > > it is circumstantial in nature. You want to discuss evidence, well > > where's yours? The proverbial shoe would only be on the other foot > > if there were evidence in support of your ludicrous assertion, but > > there is not. There is a valuable lesson to be learned here. The > > lesson is that Tom doesn't play fairly. He will take others to task > > for suggesting anything that is not fact substantiated by definitive > > proof, but at the same time exempts himself from his own standard. Now > > here comes the word that he is so fond of. Tom, where's your PROOF? > > At least others and I provided circumstantial evidence whereas you have > > provided nothing but an accusatory hypothesis ... inane conjecture ... > > reckless speculation, with not so much as a shred of evidence, even > > circumstantial in nature and herein lies the very vast difference that > > escaped you attention. So, how does the shoe feel on your foot? > I have no need to post proof, since I have not made any accusations, > but merely stated possible motives and means. > --> I don't expect you to ever hold yourself accountable for any > actions you take. That is a trait that you share with sociopaths. > More gratuitous insults from Mr. McNaa. -- > 8^) > You can artfully rationalize everything that you do. The hypothetical > story was told with obvious purpose and you and I have differing views > regarding what that purpose was and the readership will have to come to > their own conclusion. Do not accuse the kettle of being black without proof, if there is the possibility that you could be the pot. -- > I wouldn't if there was even a remote possibility. > The bottom line is that the story had a header > and trailer to cover your devious intentions. The bottom line is that > accusations were made and/or implied hypothetically so you could not be > held accountable. You said above ... Mr. McNaa certainly has the > motive to smear certain (current and former) member of the Chicagoland > lowracer riding community. Mr. McNaa would also appear to have > access to the means and methods of creating the HRS blog and the > anonymous posts to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent. There is little doubt > that you have accused me of motive, means and methods. I accuse you of > distortion of the truth that was hidden behind a thinly veiled > hypothetical story. You are always hiding behind something. When did > you first get out from behind your mothers skirt? [YAWN] See above. My only goal here is to point out that accusations should not be made without proof. When someone continues with that morally unacceptable activity, it may be necessary to demonstrate to that person that he/she could just as well be the perpetrator of the crime, based on the evidence available. -- > You define PROOF differently that does the law and the court system, but a know-it-all knows no bounds and takes on all comers. You should heed the words of Dirty Harry ... A man's got to know his limitations. Keep your pants on Tom I said I'd get to that and I can assure you that I will. Your goal is obvious ... to cover the butts of your buddies. Sorry, but if your intent was to demonstrate that I could just as well be the perpetrator of the crime (thanks for calling it what it is), based on the evidence available, you failed miserably. See what I said above about why I would not author the HRS blog and to whom the circumstantial evidence points. You really are getting desperate. This is really lame. I expected better of you. If this keeps up, I may just lose interest and you wouldn't want for that to happen now would you? > > > That portion of your story > > > was a major departure from reality. Since I am now an HRS blog > > > inductee, a victim of parody and a "private" individual why have you > > > not denounced the "nameless" authors or do you seriously believe I am > > > the author of the HRS blog and Baccchetta and your associates are all > > > my hapless victims. > > The existence of the HRS blog does raise certain questions. What could > > have people associated with Bacchetta and BROL have done to provoke > > such a response? Do we assume that they are guilty of some grievous > > offense? Or alternatively, do we assume that the HRS blog author(s) > > is/are mentally ill and truly delusional, and believe in offenses from > > Bacchetta and BROL that did not really occur? Or a third possibility, > > the HRS blog author is using reverse psychology to gain support for > > Bacchetta and BROL [2]. Or could the HRS blog be a tool in a personal > > vendetta. The last possibility hardly stretches credibility, does it > > not? > > --> Someone, not myself has made this accusation? Who? Your pseudonym > > ... Johnny Sunset. From the questions above it is obvious that you > > have picked sides and your friendship with the accused has obscured you > > objectivity. Yes, the very existence of the blog raises some > > questions, but why is it that all of your questions are decidedly > > one-sided? Never mind. That was a rhetorical question. There could > > be many reasons for the existence of the blog, most of which go beyond > > the scope of this discussion. Better questions might be these. Is > > the direction that blog has taken commensurate with whatever imagined > > offense may or may not have occurred? Why is it that only a small > > minority has issues with both BROL and Bacchetta? Who is the common > > denominator in all this? Are all the moderated forums, their > > readership and moderators wrong to have consistently ousted these same > > few people?... > If a hypothetical moderated forum accepts advertising for a > hypothetical advertiser and said advertisers product is being > attacked... > On the other hand, if hypothetical individuals receiving financially > valuable consideration from a manufacturer promote the manufacturers > products on said forum... > Which side gets would be censored by the moderator(s) of the forum(s), > if the hypothetical censorship did indeed occur? > --> Please edit the above sentence for clarity. > There have been real accusations of the hypothetical scenarios listed > above. > --> Please ... anything but the hypothetical arena again. You failed > to address a single issue raised and you failed to answer a single > question, but that's par for the course. > > Is this not the reason why Monkey Island forum came into > > existence?... > Monkey Island's mission was to provide a place for the "idiots to > bark". > --> Because they were no longer welcome anywhere else specifically > because of their barking. I'll take that as a YES. The original Monkey Island came into existence so people could post opinions about performance recumbent without being censored if they denigrated the products or performance of others. Based on the public comments of the site webmaster, Monkey Island I was shut down when the conversation turned mostly to matters of insult. -- > So then they are even nasty to each other. No wonder they're called monkeys. I congratulate the moderator for doing the right thing. The second Monkey Island was intended to be a free for all. Why Monkey Island II was shut down is a matter for the forum owner to tell, if and when he so desires. -- > So, the second Monkey Island was little more than a continuation of what toppled the first one. Truth be told, I could care less why either one folded. > > The existence of the blog is merely a new wrinkle in an old > > lineage that can be traced back years in newsgroup archives. A blog is > > an arena where those who are maligned have no avenue for rebuttal. It > > should be obvious that the blog format was deliberately chosen for > > presentation of HRS subject matter simply because the blog is a > > cyber-soapbox from which an uncontested monologue can be disgorged with > > no conduit for dissension ... no opportunity for disagreement. Those > > involved prefer to demonstrate their immaturity and spew their hatred > > without concern for a dissenting voice. Cowards avoid confrontation. > > Of course, it is absurdly unlikely, but not impossible, that the HRS > > blog is the work of a group of monkeys randomly pounding on computer > > keyboards. ;) > > I will state one thing again that I said at the very beginning of the > > discussion - there is in all likelihood more going on here than meet > > the eye (of the uninvolved alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent reader). > > --> A fair statement for a change, but there is also much that is known > > from the discussion that has taken place in this regard. > Yes, certain people on the anti-Monkey side have revealed unpleasant > aspects of their personalities. > -> And a certain person on the pro-Monkey side has revealed telling > character deficiencies. [YAWN] So much for Mr. "High Road" Jim McNaa. -- > Say Goodnight Tommy. Jim McNaa   Date: 10 Dec 2005 23:13:01 From: Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic wrote: > Jim McNaa <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Tom, > > > > Another one of Tom's cyber-skirmish entrapment tradeks is exhibited > > here ... putting words into the mouth of his adversary. Contrary to > > Mr. Sherman's assertion, as previously explained, Mr. McNaa supplied > > the surname initials of those he suspects and Mr. Sherman mated them up > > with the initials of their first names ... how telling. What I admit, > > is that Tom was able to match the same initial that I could but would > > not have provided, however, this comes as no surpise to me. Tom, I > > think you should re-read what I said so that you are in sync with the > > readership who I'm reasonably certain found it less challenging to > > comprehend than you did. > > > > Jim McNaa > > > > > > Jim McNaa > > Which of the two (2) Jim McNaa's is writing here? -- > Both of us. It takes two of us to keep pace as we don't stay up all odd hours of the night ;^) > Anyone familiar with who rides lowracers in Chicagoland and who Mr. > McNaa does not get along with would come up with the same first > initials to match the "J" "A" and "G" that Mr. McNaa posted, so I am > not what his point here is. -- > Another smokescreen by Tom. It is telling how Tom consistently phrases things so as to betray his partiality. He could just as easily have said that they didn't t get along with me as to say that I don't get along with them. Mr. Sherman mentions riders of lowracers in Chicago as though I have something against the riding platform and all who ride it. I have gone on record that I am accepting of any bike in whatever form it takes. It should be noted that there are those that ride lowracers in the Chicagoland area that I have no issue with and/or with whom I have not become acquainted. As Mr. Sherman previously posted, "J" does not live in the Chicago area and I have never personally met "J", so it DOES NOT LOGICALLY FOLLOW that we don't get along. I've said before, that I hadn't been acquainted with "A" until he thrust himself into the heat of battle to come to the aid of "G", but I have never personally met "A" either, so I don't think that it is appropriate to say that we don't get along. Now, it is fair to say that I don't get along with "E" and "E" doesn't get along with me, but that is a very complex matter that I will not rehash again here. Tom wrote, and I quote,"...so, I am not what his point here is" and if I were to take him literally I would have to reply, but Tom, you most certainly are. I if I wrote that, Tom would respond ... please reformulate the question for clarity, unwilling to recognize the obvious omission of "sure", but I digress. Having spelled out several times what the point is, I'll not allow Tom to make me reinvent the wheel again. He knows very well what the point is. > Mr. McNaa is missing a couple of obvious potential candidates [1], > but he is too blinded by his hatred for Ed Gin to think clearly. -- > Mr. McNaa refuses to mention any other candidates that are not as obvious to him as they apparently are to Tom Sherman, but Mr. McNaa has contended all along that he believes that Tom knows far more about all this than he is willing to divulge. Mr. McNaa's feelings about Ed Gin do not obscure his thinking. Ed Gin and Jim McNaa parted company long before the lowracer, so it is reasonable to assume that Mr. McNaa is of other potential candidates simply because they were not members of the inner circle when he was. This is apparently a difficult concept for Mr. Sherman to grasp. > [1] And no, I will not mention names, since unlike some; I do not want > to cast suspicion on the possibly innocent. -- > I am a member of the possibly innocent and yet Tom has mentioned my name, cloaked by a hypothetical escape clause so that that he can conveniently say something and yet claim that you hadn't actually. I easily play that game, but shy? I figure you either have something to say or you don't. I see no point in saying things hypothetically so that I can then later deny that I said them and that is what has been done here no matter what spin Tom puts on it. Jim McNaa     Date: 18 Dec 2005 13:09:49 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! jimmyma...@yahoo.com wrote: > Mr. McNaa's concern is noted. Why did Mr. McNaa not spare the > readership this whole discussion by refraining from accusing others > while lacking proof? > > --> Because circumstantial evidence was sufficient and respected > members of the recumbent community came under attack. Mr. McNaa makes the error of stating OPINION AS FACT. Mr. McNaa has failed to show that the "circumstantial evidence was sufficient". > When someone states they will do something, and then they take a > different course of action than what they stated they would do, what is > it called? > > ---> When that course of action is a delay in taking the stated course > of action what is it called. Allow me to spell it out for you ... D E > L A Y. Hey, I know you want me to leave. When I do it will be when I > want to and on my own terms. I could care less what Mr. McNaa does (as far as posting to public forums is concerned). However, I do enjoy pointing out when he says one thing, then does another. > > With regard to my child-molester hypothesis and Tom's child-murder > > rebuttal: > > > > Please note that at this juncture, I was gracious enough to give Tom > > > the benefit of the doubt by answering the question posed in the > > > negative. Tom was not. He does not give anyone anything. It is not > > > his style to make a concession. > > > I was demonstrating by mimicry how ridiculous Mr. McNaa was being. > > > --> TRANSLATION: In mimicking Mr. McNaa who was mimicking Mr. > > Sherman, Tom demonstrated how ridiculous he can be and how right Mr. > > McNaa was with regard to his observations about Mr. Sherman's > > twisted logic. A nerve was obviously stuck. > > Really? [YAWN] Why would anyone take Mr. McNaa's accusations > seriously, since he has not shown any proof to back them up? > > --> Readers, could Tom have made the obvious response to this one any > easier? He's really slipping. Mr. Sherman has several times claimed > that a hypothetical accusation cannot be construed as an accusation > requiring proof, but the ILLOGICAL Mr. Sherman, in contradiction of his > own stated beliefs, expects me to offer proof of a hypothetical > accusation that was plainly stated to be nothing more than an exercise > demonstrating Mr. Sherman's twisted argumentative process. It should > be obvious that Mr. Sherman has a problem comprehending fundamental > concepts and in dealing with someone when they turn the tables on him. > My turn to [YAWN]. Mr. McNaa is being dishonest if he claims his posts were not an attempt to put the responsibility for the HRS blog on Ed Gin (and/or associates of Ed Gin). Mr. McNaa's motive for doing this is clear, since his hatred for Ed Gin is clear. One SUSPECTS that Mr. McNaa is resentful that he can not get Ed Gin's friends to abandon Ed Gin and come to him instead. Maybe Mr. McNaa should take a look at how he presents himself online to determine why this is so. > > NOTE: Readers, please note what I said above regarding doubt and > > concession, which Mr. Sherman was deliberately failed to address. > > He'll tell you that he only makes a concession when appropriate but > > will be unable to provide an example when this was ever deemed > > appropriate and he will be unable to explain away the issue regarding > > benefit of the doubt and his lack of graciousness. > > How gracious is it to accuse other WHILE LACKING PROOF OF THE > ACCUSATION? Why should I concede anything since Mr. McNaa has failed > to sustain his argument over who is responsible for the HRS blog? > > --> Readers, this is a typical Tom Sherman technique. Rather than > address the issue, he poses a diversionary question. The question of PROOF is not diversionary, but the basis for this whole discussion. Mr. McNaa is trying to divert the argument elsewhere, since HE LACKS DEFINITIVE PROOF OF THE HRS BLOG AUTHORSHIP. It is a falsehood on Mr. McNaa's part to claim I am the one being diversionary when I refuse to respond to Mr. McNaa's diversions and instead focus on the subject at hand. Since Mr. McNaa is being deliberately obtuse, I will repeat the question. WHERE IS THE PROOF OF HRS BLOG AUTHORSHIP? > I presume that he > meant to say HYPOTHETICAL accusation, and was not Mr. Sherman the first > one to employ this very technique? RHETORICAL! Mr. Sherman should > review what I said above regarding his beliefs in answer to his own > question (a hypothetical accusation is not an accusation requiring > proof). What I originally wrote was ... Do I have any reason to > believe that Mr. Sherman is a child molester? > NO... I do not. I merely endeavored to demonstrate just how easy it is > to employ Tom Sherman's style of tedious, hypothetical reasoning to > one's advantage regardless of how reasonable or fair it is to do so ... > and ... I was gracious enough to give Tom the benefit of the doubt by > answering the question posed in the negative. I regarded that as a > courtesy. Tom regarded that as a concession. Both concepts are > apparently alien to Mr. Sherman. I demonstrated what I set out to > demonstrate and as predicted, Mr. Sherman ... 1. could not offer an > excuse for not being gracious enough to extend me the same courtesy > that I extended to him, and 2. could not offer a single example of when > he ever made a concession, not just to me, but to anyone in an > argument. I rest my case. [YAWN] Is Mr. McNaa a child murderer? Most likely not, but of course this negative can not be logically proven unless we can fully document every instant of Mr. McNaa's life. > > > I couldn't be more pleased with Tom's response. It should be > > > obvious to all who read this that Tom's brand of logic is quite > > > simple to emulate and that Tom does not appreciate it when he is the > > > object of his own nonsense. I consider Tom's emulation of me > > > emulating him to be a compliment of sorts. > > > See above about use of mimicry. Duh! > > > --> See above (TRANSLATION) about use of mimicry. DUH!!! In mimicking > > me mimicking him, was Tom perhaps paying himself a left-handed > > compliment? You know what they say about imitation being the sincerest > > form of flattery. > > Logic has escaped Mr. McNaa here. > > --> Not only has logic has escaped Mr. Sherman here, but an ANSWER has > escaped him aw well and the readership still awaits an explanation that > they were deliberately deprived of. Let the readership post their requests for explanations. I doubt very many people can be found that would choose Mr. McNaa as their spokesman. No one has volunteered so far, nor has he any supporters beside Edward Dolan (enough said). > > to employ Mr. Sherman's tedious style and method of hypothetical > > reasoning to one's advantage regardless of how reasonable or fair it is > > to do so. It should be obvious to all, including Mr. Sherman that I > > succeeded in my demonstration. Readers don't be misled by Mr. > > Sherman's protests. He just isn't too happy when someone bests him at > > his own game. Tom, you are making this entirely too easy for me. I'm > > getting bored. Perhaps that's your objective ... to bore me into > > leaving. > > Really? Where has Mr. McNaa PROVED his accusations of the IDENTITY > of the HRS blog AUTHOR(S)? Do not be distracted by Mr. McNaa's > diversions from the main point of discussion - the fact remains that > Mr. McNaa accused three people of being responsible for the HRS > blog, but has yet to show any PROOF of his ACCUSATIONS. > > WHERE IS THE PROOF? > > --> I warned the readers not to be misled by Mr. Sherman's protests. > I'll not waste my time on his diversions in rehashing what has already > been discussed ad nauseum, so Mr. Sherman can rant an rave all he > wants. Mr. Sherman purposefully avoided the issue rather than concede > that my demonstration was successful, but as said before, Mr. Sherman, > like most egomaniacs, cannot and will not make a concession and > that's not a gratuitous insult. That's a fact. Mr. McNaa is the one attempting to divert attention from the basic premise - he accused Ed Gin and/or associates of Ed Gin as being the author(s) of the HRS blog. WHERE IS THE DEFINITIVE PROOF OF THE HRS BLOG AUTHORSHIP? WHERE IS THE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE? > > So Mr. McNaa's statements that he was leaving the discussion were > > FALSE. > > > --> Still more repletion? I refer you to my above comments in answer to > > your misstatement about me lying. HINT ... you'll find that located > > after my first --> > > Since Mr. McNaa seems to have trouble staying with the point of > discussion, I will repeat the question for his benefit. > > Mr. McNaa, WHERE IS THE PROOF THAT PEOPLE WITH THE INITIALS J, A AND > G ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE HRS BLOG? > > --> Since Mr. Sherman can't address certain issues to my or the readers > satisfaction, he is intent only on discussing something that has > already been thoroughly discussed and exhausted. Yes, the issue is exhausted because Mr. McNaa CAN NOT PRESENT DEFINITIVE PROOF OF THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE HRS BLOG. Therefore, he tries to divert the discussion to other things that are matters of opinion. > Tom and I have reached an impasse. Tom has his position and I have mine. He feels > that he is right and I feel that I am right. I am willing to agree to disagree and I am > unwilling to spare the readership. Mr. Sherman is not. ^^^^^^^^^^ So Mr. McNaa is continuing the discussion since he is UNWILLING to spare the readership of alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent? I, however, am WILLING to spare the readership the discussion as soon as Mr. McNaa admits HE LACKS DEFINITIVE PROOF OF THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE HRS BLOG and that his accusations towards Ed Gin and company are merely OPINION. > The world eagerly awaits the presentation by Mr. McNaa of the > definitive proof of HRS blog authorship. > > --> The world (read ARBR readers) eagerly awaits Mr. Sherman's silence. Other than Edward Dolan (enough said) I have not seen any requests for me to desist from the argument while allowing Mr. McNaa to present his OPINION AS FACT. > I hate to be accused of diverting Mr. Sherman; however, in the absence > of his ability to recognize that the targets of the HRS blog are not > "public figures", as defined by law, and in the absence of Mr. > Sherman's ability to recognize that direct-evidence is required as > proof, as required by law, and in the absence of Mr. Sherman's > inability to distinguish between parody and defamation, there is no > significance to anything more that the Mr. Sherman has to say in this > matter. There is no significance to anything Mr. McNaa has to say in this argument, since he presents OPINION (based on personal dislike) AS FACT, and CAN NOT PRODUCE DEFINITIVE PROOF OF THE HRS BLOG AUTHORSHIP. WHERE IS THE PROOF, Mr. McNaa? -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley       Date: 18 Dec 2005 21:45:37 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1134940189.629083.94790@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... [...] > Let the readership post their requests for explanations. I doubt very > many people can be found that would choose Mr. McNaa as their > spokesman. No one has volunteered so far, nor has he any supporters > beside[s] Edward Dolan (enough said). There is no way enough can ever be said about the Great Ed Dolan! Anyone who has been following any of this (not many I suspect) knows who the guilty parties are. They know because circumstantial evidence, while not scientific proof, is more than adequate for anyone but a mentally unbalanced person like Mr. Sherman. Are there not doctors of psychiatry in the Fox River Valley that you could resort to for a bit of help with your mental problem? Regards, Ed Dolan - Minnesota PS. Be sure you see a psychiatrist and not a psychologist. There is huge difference between the two. One will perhaps be able to help you while the other will just lead you further astray.     Date: 18 Dec 2005 12:28:48 From: Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! Mr. McNaa's concern is noted. Why did Mr. McNaa not spare the readership this whole discussion by refraining from accusing others while lacking proof? -- > Because circumstantial evidence was sufficient and respected members of the recumbent community came under attack. When someone states they will do something, and then they take a different course of action than what they stated they would do, what is it called? --- > When that course of action is a delay in taking the stated course of action what is it called. Allow me to spell it out for you ... D E L A Y. Hey, I know you want me to leave. When I do it will be when I want to and on my own terms. > With regard to my child-molester hypothesis and Tom's child-murder > rebuttal: > > Please note that at this juncture, I was gracious enough to give Tom > > the benefit of the doubt by answering the question posed in the > > negative. Tom was not. He does not give anyone anything. It is not > > his style to make a concession. > I was demonstrating by mimicry how ridiculous Mr. McNaa was being. > --> TRANSLATION: In mimicking Mr. McNaa who was mimicking Mr. > Sherman, Tom demonstrated how ridiculous he can be and how right Mr. > McNaa was with regard to his observations about Mr. Sherman's > twisted logic. A nerve was obviously stuck. Really? [YAWN] Why would anyone take Mr. McNaa's accusations seriously, since he has not shown any proof to back them up? -- > Readers, could Tom have made the obvious response to this one any easier? He's really slipping. Mr. Sherman has several times claimed that a hypothetical accusation cannot be construed as an accusation requiring proof, but the ILLOGICAL Mr. Sherman, in contradiction of his own stated beliefs, expects me to offer proof of a hypothetical accusation that was plainly stated to be nothing more than an exercise demonstrating Mr. Sherman's twisted argumentative process. It should be obvious that Mr. Sherman has a problem comprehending fundamental concepts and in dealing with someone when they turn the tables on him. My turn to [YAWN]. > NOTE: Readers, please note what I said above regarding doubt and > concession, which Mr. Sherman was deliberately failed to address. > He'll tell you that he only makes a concession when appropriate but > will be unable to provide an example when this was ever deemed > appropriate and he will be unable to explain away the issue regarding > benefit of the doubt and his lack of graciousness. How gracious is it to accuse other WHILE LACKING PROOF OF THE ACCUSATION? Why should I concede anything since Mr. McNaa has failed to sustain his argument over who is responsible for the HRS blog? -- > Readers, this is a typical Tom Sherman technique. Rather than address the issue, he poses a diversionary question. I presume that he meant to say HYPOTHETICAL accusation, and was not Mr. Sherman the first one to employ this very technique? RHETORICAL! Mr. Sherman should review what I said above regarding his beliefs in answer to his own question (a hypothetical accusation is not an accusation requiring proof). What I originally wrote was ... Do I have any reason to believe that Mr. Sherman is a child molester? NO... I do not. I merely endeavored to demonstrate just how easy it is to employ Tom Sherman's style of tedious, hypothetical reasoning to one's advantage regardless of how reasonable or fair it is to do so ... and ... I was gracious enough to give Tom the benefit of the doubt by answering the question posed in the negative. I regarded that as a courtesy. Tom regarded that as a concession. Both concepts are apparently alien to Mr. Sherman. I demonstrated what I set out to demonstrate and as predicted, Mr. Sherman ... 1. could not offer an excuse for not being gracious enough to extend me the same courtesy that I extended to him, and 2. could not offer a single example of when he ever made a concession, not just to me, but to anyone in an argument. I rest my case. > > I couldn't be more pleased with Tom's response. It should be > > obvious to all who read this that Tom's brand of logic is quite > > simple to emulate and that Tom does not appreciate it when he is the > > object of his own nonsense. I consider Tom's emulation of me > > emulating him to be a compliment of sorts. > See above about use of mimicry. Duh! > --> See above (TRANSLATION) about use of mimicry. DUH!!! In mimicking > me mimicking him, was Tom perhaps paying himself a left-handed > compliment? You know what they say about imitation being the sincerest > form of flattery. Logic has escaped Mr. McNaa here. -- > Not only has logic has escaped Mr. Sherman here, but an ANSWER has escaped him aw well and the readership still awaits an explanation that they were deliberately deprived of. > to employ Mr. Sherman's tedious style and method of hypothetical > reasoning to one's advantage regardless of how reasonable or fair it is > to do so. It should be obvious to all, including Mr. Sherman that I > succeeded in my demonstration. Readers don't be misled by Mr. > Sherman's protests. He just isn't too happy when someone bests him at > his own game. Tom, you are making this entirely too easy for me. I'm > getting bored. Perhaps that's your objective ... to bore me into > leaving. Really? Where has Mr. McNaa PROVED his accusations of the IDENTITY of the HRS blog AUTHOR(S)? Do not be distracted by Mr. McNaa's diversions from the main point of discussion - the fact remains that Mr. McNaa accused three people of being responsible for the HRS blog, but has yet to show any PROOF of his ACCUSATIONS. WHERE IS THE PROOF? -- > I warned the readers not to be misled by Mr. Sherman's protests. I'll not waste my time on his diversions in rehashing what has already been discussed ad nauseum, so Mr. Sherman can rant an rave all he wants. Mr. Sherman purposefully avoided the issue rather than concede that my demonstration was successful, but as said before, Mr. Sherman, like most egomaniacs, cannot and will not make a concession and that's not a gratuitous insult. That's a fact. > So Mr. McNaa's statements that he was leaving the discussion were > FALSE. > --> Still more repletion? I refer you to my above comments in answer to > your misstatement about me lying. HINT ... you'll find that located > after my first --> Since Mr. McNaa seems to have trouble staying with the point of discussion, I will repeat the question for his benefit. Mr. McNaa, WHERE IS THE PROOF THAT PEOPLE WITH THE INITIALS J, A AND G ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE HRS BLOG? -- > Since Mr. Sherman can't address certain issues to my or the readers satisfaction, he is intent only on discussing something that has already been thoroughly discussed and exhausted. Tom and I have reached an impasse. Tom has his position and I have mine. He feels that he is right and I feel that I am right. I am willing to agree to disagree and I am unwilling to spare the readership. Mr. Sherman is not. The world eagerly awaits the presentation by Mr. McNaa of the definitive proof of HRS blog authorship. -- > The world (read ARBR readers) eagerly awaits Mr. Sherman's silence. I hate to be accused of diverting Mr. Sherman; however, in the absence of his ability to recognize that the targets of the HRS blog are not "public figures", as defined by law, and in the absence of Mr. Sherman's ability to recognize that direct-evidence is required as proof, as required by law, and in the absence of Mr. Sherman's inability to distinguish between parody and defamation, there is no significance to anything more that the Mr. Sherman has to say in this matter. JimmyMac   Date: 10 Dec 2005 17:33:42 From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! Jim McNaa <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com > wrote: > Tom, > > Another one of Tom's cyber-skirmish entrapment tradeks is exhibited > here ... putting words into the mouth of his adversary. Contrary to > Mr. Sherman's assertion, as previously explained, Mr. McNaa supplied > the surname initials of those he suspects and Mr. Sherman mated them up > with the initials of their first names ... how telling. What I admit, > is that Tom was able to match the same initial that I could but would > not have provided, however, this comes as no surpise to me. Tom, I > think you should re-read what I said so that you are in sync with the > readership who I'm reasonably certain found it less challenging to > comprehend than you did. > > Jim McNaa > > > Jim McNaa Which of the two (2) Jim McNaa's is writing here? Anyone familiar with who rides lowracers in Chicagoland and who Mr. McNaa does not get along with would come up with the same first initials to match the "J" "A" and "G" that Mr. McNaa posted, so I am not what his point here is. Mr. McNaa is missing a couple of obvious potential candidates [1], but he is too blinded by his hatred for Ed Gin to think clearly. [1] And no, I will not mention names, since unlike some; I do not want to cast suspicion on the possibly innocent. -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley   Date: 10 Dec 2005 16:49:30 From: Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! Tom, Another one of Tom's cyber-skirmish entrapment tradeks is exhibited here ... putting words into the mouth of his adversary. Contrary to Mr. Sherman's assertion, as previously explained, Mr. McNaa supplied the surname initials of those he suspects and Mr. Sherman mated them up with the initials of their first names ... how telling. What I admit, is that Tom was able to match the same initial that I could but would not have provided, however, this comes as no surpise to me. Tom, I think you should re-read what I said so that you are in sync with the readership who I'm reasonably certain found it less challenging to comprehend than you did. Jim McNaa Jim McNaa     Date: 18 Dec 2005 10:20:58 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! jimmymac_4@yahoo.com wrote: > To spare the readership, I took the liberty to snip all that was > impertinent, which was almost all of it. Mr. McNaa's concern is noted. Why did Mr. McNaa not spare the readership this whole discussion by refraining from accusing others while lacking proof? > So Mr. McNaa LIED about leaving the discussion. > > --> Are you trying to shame me into leaving? When I abandon this > discussion, the readers will realize that I told the truth and in > accusing me of lying you will be recognized as the one having LIED. When someone states they will do something, and then they take a different course of action than what they stated they would do, what is it called? > With regard to my child-molester hypothesis and Tom's child-murder > rebuttal: > > > Please note that at this juncture, I was gracious enough to give Tom > > the benefit of the doubt by answering the question posed in the > > negative. Tom was not. He does not give anyone anything. It is not > > his style to make a concession. > > I was demonstrating by mimicry how ridiculous Mr. McNaa was being. > > --> TRANSLATION: In mimicking Mr. McNaa who was mimicking Mr. > Sherman, Tom demonstrated how ridiculous he can be and how right Mr. > McNaa was with regard to his observations about Mr. Sherman's > twisted logic. A nerve was obviously stuck. Really? [YAWN] Why would anyone take Mr. McNaa's accusations seriously, since he has not shown any proof to back them up? > NOTE: Readers, please note what I said above regarding doubt and > concession, which Mr. Sherman was deliberately failed to address. > He'll tell you that he only makes a concession when appropriate but > will be unable to provide an example when this was ever deemed > appropriate and he will be unable to explain away the issue regarding > benefit of the doubt and his lack of graciousness. How gracious is it to accuse other WHILE LACKING PROOF OF THE ACCUSATION? Why should I concede anything since Mr. McNaa has failed to sustain his argument over who is responsible for the HRS blog? > > I couldn't be more pleased with Tom's response. It should be > > obvious to all who read this that Tom's brand of logic is quite > > simple to emulate and that Tom does not appreciate it when he is the > > object of his own nonsense. I consider Tom's emulation of me > > emulating him to be a compliment of sorts. > > See above about use of mimicry. Duh! > > --> See above (TRANSLATION) about use of mimicry. DUH!!! In mimicking > me mimicking him was Tom perhaps paying himself a left-handed > compliment. You know what they say about imitation being the sincerest > form of flattery. Logic has escaped Mr. McNaa here. > >From the onset, it was my intention to demonstrate just how easy it is > to employ Mr. Sherman's tedious style and method of hypothetical > reasoning to one's advantage regardless of how reasonable or fair it is > to do so. It should be obvious to all, including Mr. Sherman that I > succeeded in my demonstration. Readers don't be misled by Mr. > Sherman's protests. He just isn't too happy when someone bests him at > his own game. Tom, you are making this entirely too easy for me. I'm > getting bored. Perhaps that's your objective ... to bore me into > leaving. Really? Where has Mr. McNaa PROVED his accusations of the IDENTITY of the HRS blog AUTHOR(S)? Do not be distracted by Mr. McNaa's diversions from the main point of discussion - the fact remains that Mr. McNaa accused three people of being responsible for the HRS blog, but has yet to show any PROOF of his ACCUSATIONS. WHERE IS THE PROOF? > So Mr. McNaa's statements that he was leaving the discussion were > FALSE. > > --> Still more repletion? I refer you to my above comments in answer to > your misstatement about me lying. HINT ... you'll find that located > after my first --> Since Mr. McNaa seems to have trouble staying with the point of discussion, I will repeat the question for his benefit. Mr. McNaa, WHERE IS THE PROOF THAT PEOPLE WITH THE INITIALS J, A AND G ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE HRS BLOG? The world eagerly awaits the presentation by Mr. McNaa of the definitive proof of HRS blog authorship. -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley       Date: 18 Dec 2005 21:19:44 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1134930058.297572.147420@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... [...] > When someone states they will do something, and then they take a > different course of action than what they stated they would do, what is > it called? It is called changing your mind. I do it all the time. I have already taken five (5) rather stormy final farewells to ARBR each time vowing never to return, but I always do because Mr. Sherman will piss me off by saying such incredibly stupid things. Such stupidity cannot go unchallenged and only I am up to the job. However, I am on now on the point of taking my 6th and final farewell. I may really mean it this time. Yea, you won't have Ed Dolan to kick around anymore! How good will that be? Regards, Ed Dolan - Minnesota       Date: 18 Dec 2005 19:27:50 From: Mike Rice Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! On 18 Dec 2005 10:20:58 -0800, "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote: <snip > > >Since Mr. McNaa seems to have trouble staying with the point of >discussion, I will repeat the question for his benefit. > >Mr. McNaa, WHERE IS THE PROOF THAT PEOPLE WITH THE INITIALS J, A AND >G ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE HRS BLOG? > >The world eagerly awaits the presentation by Mr. McNaa of the >definitive proof of HRS blog authorship. I imagine the issue will be sidestepped. Mr. Sherman will likely be accused of 'protecting his buddies' instead of defending the concept of presumed innocence. Mr. McNaa's appeals to the readership are noted, but I fear there is not much more than Mr. Dolan, myself, and perhaps oneor two others bothering to read this worked-over diatribe so long after anynew points have been made. Indiana Mike         Date: 21 Dec 2005 21:06:06 From: Jim Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! "Mike Rice" <jodymike@gte.net > wrote in message news:fhdbq19jsp3muu76qkncsd08ngko4ke2b0@4ax.com... > On 18 Dec 2005 10:20:58 -0800, "Johnny Sunset" > <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote: > <snip> >> >>Since Mr. McNaa seems to have trouble staying with the point of >>discussion, I will repeat the question for his benefit. >> >>Mr. McNaa, WHERE IS THE PROOF THAT PEOPLE WITH THE INITIALS J, A AND >>G ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE HRS BLOG? >> >>The world eagerly awaits the presentation by Mr. McNaa of the >>definitive proof of HRS blog authorship. > > I imagine the issue will be sidestepped. Mr. Sherman will likely be > accused of 'protecting his buddies' instead of defending the concept > of presumed innocence. > > Mr. McNaa's appeals to the readership are noted, but I fear there > is not much more than Mr. Dolan, myself, and perhaps oneor two others > bothering to read this worked-over diatribe so long after anynew > points have been made. > > Indiana Mike Is there a grassy knoll involved in all this? I'm just asking. Jim         Date: 18 Dec 2005 21:31:27 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! "Mike Rice" <jodymike@gte.net > wrote in message news:fhdbq19jsp3muu76qkncsd08ngko4ke2b0@4ax.com... > On 18 Dec 2005 10:20:58 -0800, "Johnny Sunset" > <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote: > <snip> >> >>Since Mr. McNaa seems to have trouble staying with the point of >>discussion, I will repeat the question for his benefit. >> >>Mr. McNaa, WHERE IS THE PROOF THAT PEOPLE WITH THE INITIALS J, A AND >>G ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE HRS BLOG? >> >>The world eagerly awaits the presentation by Mr. McNaa of the >>definitive proof of HRS blog authorship. > > I imagine the issue will be sidestepped. Mr. Sherman will likely be > accused of 'protecting his buddies' instead of defending the concept > of presumed innocence. > > Mr. McNaa's appeals to the readership are noted, but I fear there > is not much more than Mr. Dolan, myself, and perhaps one or two others > bothering to read this worked-over diatribe so long after any new > points have been made. > > Indiana Mike The main point of interest at this juncture is who is going to wear down who first. I fear Mr. Sherman can outlast anyone, even the Devil. He is indefatigable as we all surely know by now. Note how he just keeps harping over and over about no proof. Mr. Sherman has morphed into Lorenzo L. Love in these threads relating to the blogs. I am seriously thinking about going down to my dirt floor basement and putting a bullet through my head. I think that is the only escape that is left to us. Regards, Ed Dolan - Minnesota     Date: 18 Dec 2005 09:58:39 From: Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! To spare the readership, I took the liberty to snip all that was impertinent, which was almost all of it. So Mr. McNaa LIED about leaving the discussion. -- > Are you trying to shame me into leaving? When I abandon this discussion, the readers will realize that I told the truth and in accusing me of lying you will be recognized as the one having LIED. With regard to my child-molester hypothesis and Tom's child-murder rebuttal: > Please note that at this juncture, I was gracious enough to give Tom > the benefit of the doubt by answering the question posed in the > negative. Tom was not. He does not give anyone anything. It is not > his style to make a concession. I was demonstrating by mimicry how ridiculous Mr. McNaa was being. -- > TRANSLATION: In mimicking Mr. McNaa who was mimicking Mr. Sherman, Tom demonstrated how ridiculous he can be and how right Mr. McNaa was with regard to his observations about Mr. Sherman's twisted logic. A nerve was obviously stuck. NOTE: Readers, please note what I said above regarding doubt and concession, which Mr. Sherman was deliberately failed to address. He'll tell you that he only makes a concession when appropriate but will be unable to provide an example when this was ever deemed appropriate and he will be unable to explain away the issue regarding benefit of the doubt and his lack of graciousness. > I couldn't be more pleased with Tom's response. It should be > obvious to all who read this that Tom's brand of logic is quite > simple to emulate and that Tom does not appreciate it when he is the > object of his own nonsense. I consider Tom's emulation of me > emulating him to be a compliment of sorts. See above about use of mimicry. Duh! -- > See above (TRANSLATION) about use of mimicry. DUH!!! In mimicking me mimicking him was Tom perhaps paying himself a left-handed compliment. You know what they say about imitation being the sincerest form of flattery. >From the onset, it was my intention to demonstrate just how easy it is to employ Mr. Sherman's tedious style and method of hypothetical reasoning to one's advantage regardless of how reasonable or fair it is to do so. It should be obvious to all, including Mr. Sherman that I succeeded in my demonstration. Readers don't be misled by Mr. Sherman's protests. He just isn't too happy when someone bests him at his own game. Tom, you are making this entirely too easy for me. I'm getting bored. Perhaps that's your objective ... to bore me into leaving. So Mr. McNaa's statements that he was leaving the discussion were FALSE. -- > Still more repletion? I refer you to my above comments in answer to your misstatement about me lying. HINT ... you'll find that located after my first -- > JimmyMac   Date: 10 Dec 2005 13:56:10 From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! jimmymac_4@yahoo.com wrote: > Jim McNaa <jimmyma...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Tom, > > > And might these some be the same some of Johnny NoCom post and HRS blog > > fame ... a some, I mean SUM of 3 along with some disgruntled Monkey > > Islanders in a support role? I know you only deal in facts and the > > facts are that you are fighting a losing battle. Everyone knows who > > the common denominator is in all this. You carry on though. Talk your > > crap until you are blue in the face. I am convinced that most have now > > lumped you in with those responsible and have turned a deaf ear to you > > long ago. Once again ... thanks for the three initial of those who you > > never admitted to being on your list that happened to match those on > > mine. I'll consider that an Xmas gift. > > This is a misinterpretation on Mr. McNaa's part. I was listing the > initials of the three (3) people he was insinuating but refusing to > name in two (2) cases. [1] How many people regularly have associated > with Ed Gin with the last initials A and J - a rather small group, and > when you consider the bicycles A and J own, Mr. McNaa might as well > of used their full names, except he was not being forthright. > > [1] Well, maybe one and one-half (1-1/2) cases when you take Mr. > McNaa's comment about changing the last name of Alan Greenspan to > arrive nearer his claim of the "truth". > > Tom, > > Quite the contrary, this is a misinterpretation on Mr. Sherman's part. > Mr. McNaa did not provide the first initial specifically to be in > compliance with Mr. Sherman's insistence that no one should be named > without definitive proof and two initials are more telling that is just > one. I just hate to hear a grown man cry. Mr. Sherman, who breaks the > very rules that he expects others to conform to, supplied those > initials either because ... 1. He is exempt for his own rules, 2. He > blundered to which we all know he would never admit, or 3. Both of the > above. The initials of the surnames was provided to Tom solely for the > purpose of communication and was intentionally used because those > outside of the inner circle would not know to whom I was referring. > This might even reasonably be extended to addition of the first initial > volunteered by Tom because of the extensive use of pseudonyms. Mr. > Sherman has employed his favorite tactic of attempting to confuse the > issue and the readership. Being forthright has absolutely nothing at > all to do with this other than to set the stage for condemnation. > Well, let's see where this is headed. I was chastised for not being > forthright (using surname initials rather than full names) by Mr. > Sherman who also used initials rather than full names, so is Mr. > Sherman any less guilty of being forthright? Had I used full names, > Mr. Sherman would also have chastised me. This is a damned if you do > and damned if you don't scenario either way, but that's the way Tom > likes to play because he plays to win at all cost. Please note that I > only mentioned not three, but one person by surname initial with regard > to a particular bike. Now, I suppose, employing Mr. Sherman's line of > reasoning, I could say that in supplying the additional first initials, > considering the bicycles ridden by this small group associated with Ed > Gin, that Mr. Sherman might as well have used their full names, except > he was not being forthright, but I'll not emulate my adversary, but I > will point out how his flawed logic can be used against him. So Mr. McNaa basically admits to whom besides Ed Gin he is accusing of being involved with the HRS blog. Thank you. -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley   Date: 10 Dec 2005 13:52:57 From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! Jim McNaa <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com > wrote: I see Mr. McNaa is still using non-standard quoting format. It would be polite if he would use standard quoting so it would be clear who wrote what. > Tom, > > > > Sorry to disappoint, but your "story" did not strike a nerve. Actually > > > I found it fairly clever and even entertaining up to a point. Much of > > > what was said was quite telling with regard to what you really know > > > about all this.... > > > There are no coincidental similarities between Johnny Sunset's [Most > > Fun Bike in the Known Universe] story and real life that require > > private information to see (but some information, like the posts on the > > Monkey Island board is no longer be accessible to the public) [1]. > > > --> Reader, so not be deceived by the deliberately confusing, contrived > > wording. Note that Tom did not emphatically state that there are NO > > SIMILARITIES. The operative word here is the qualifier > > "coincidental". I wholeheartedly agree with Tom. The similarities are > > most certainly NOT COINCIDENTAL between his story and reality. The > > story was mostly true to what inspired it ... REALITY, a reality that > > both Tom and I are/were privy to. Cloaked in obscurities, the story > > was intentionally told in such a way that only those in inner circle > > would understand its vague references. As such, the story was rather > > factual up until Tom introduced the outlandish assertion that I was the > > author of the blog who sacrificed Bacchetta in order be able to > > implicate three specific individuals (who I have yet to name) as the > > responsible parties and convince the readership to turn on them (though > > unnamed remember). Tom, did you really expect anyone to buy that crap? > > As if this wasn't absurd enough, Tom went on to indicate that I > > inducted myself into the blog to trash myself to avoid suspicion as I > > carried out my vendetta against the real responsible parties that Tom > > portrayed as victims. You're devious, Tom. I'll give you that; but, > > this is the most far-fetched, twisted spin that you have yet put on all > > this in an effort to vindicate those responsible. Have you not yet > > heard the voice of failure whispering in your ear? As concerns your > > footnote, the usnet newsgroup archives has more than enough information > > because one individual in particular is infamous for cross posing his > > crap for all to see. Besides, I believe that I still have some of the > > Monkey Island banter archived because I thought it come in handy some > > day. > > Using a sock puppet blog to discredit others is not farfetched, > especially when one considers the posting habits of some of the > anti-Monkey crowd. > > --> I see, as usual, you entirely missed my point and that which you > may have understood you merely ignored. Am I surprised that you > ignored what I said? Not in the least because I am convinced that you > didn't have a reasonable response to offer... Why should I respond to blather? > As concerns the posting > habits of the Monkey crowd, anyone who has ever read their garbage > knows perfectly well that they are not a higher standard to which > others would care to aspire. As concerns far-fetched, I wasn't > referring to a blog as being an unlikely means of discrediting others, > but I'm not going to interpret what I did say above. As long as the > readership understood what you did not, that's good enough for me. By > the way, you have a lot of nerve even bringing up posting habits. No > on even comes close to the tasteless, vulgar and malicious posts of the > Monkey Island crowd. No, certain people on the anti-Monkey crowd are nasty, but appear nicer to the casual reader since they present the appearance of being polite. A turd presented on a plate with all the trappings in a 5-star restaurant is still a turd. > As for buying things, why should I buy the accusations made by the > anti-Monkey crowd, when they have yet to exhibit a shred of DEFINITIVE > PROOF of the HRS blog author(s) identities? Ever hear the expression, > "put up or shut up"? > > --> Put it on your Xmax list Tom, but it ain't happenin' I asked > several times what you would consider definitive proof and you always > go mute. I put that on my Xmas list and it ain't happein' either. Present evidence that indicates beyond a reasonable doubt the identity of the HRS blog poster(s). Such ISP records indicating the time of posting and origin of the posting computer, documentation of the physical location of the posting computer, documentation of who physically was present at the location of the posting computer at the time the post was made, email records sent to the posting computer from "contributors" to the blog, similar documentation (as above) proving who sent the emails, etc. This should not be hard for the Great Jim McNaa to produce. > > > If we had compared notes like I suggested, they would > > > have compared rather well as it seems.... > > > I can think of several people that dislike highracers, Bacchetta and > > BROL that have never owned a carbon fiber composite splitter plate > > lowracer. > > > --> And you still think that I can be diverted by introduction of > > irrelevant material. This has nothing to do with ownership of a carbon > > fiber composite splitter plate lowracer. It is not uncommon for you to > > deliberately pretend to misconstrue what is meant in order to avoid > > addressing something. This has become one of your ARBR tradeks. > > Let me make this real simple for you. I've said this countless times. > > You should be able to recite it in you sleep. If we were to compare > > notes, ALL 3 NAMES that I suspect would have matched. You needn't > > bother to deny it since you blundered into coughing up the matching > > fist initials to the ones I supplied for the JAG's surnames. For the > > second time, allow me to again extend my gratitude. > > See my other post to understand why the above is just blather. > > --> I guess you're mad that I keep thanking you for your gesture, but > you did sidestep the issue again with a one-liner. You're pretty > consitent that way. I know we've got a match. I don't need for you to > say so. Yes, my thoughts of who Mr. McNaa would accuse match that of who he is accusing. Duh! > > > Even with the hypothetical > > > disclaimer however, I am reasonably certain that you know that I am not > > > the author of the HRS blog and you should not have taken the liberty to > > > portray me (the protagonist) in that role.... > > > I KNOW nothing of the sort. I may have OPINIONS and BELIEFS on the > > matter, but I do not KNOW that Mr. McNaa is not the author of the > > HRS blog. I though my position on this had been clearly stated enough > > times for everyone to understand I am dealing with facts here, not > > opinion based on circumstantial evidence. Although, the phrase "doth > > protest too loudly" may have passed the minds of some in this > > circumstance. > > > --> Nice try. And what pray tell would you have me do? Protest your > > absurdity in a whispered tone? You claim not to have factual knowledge > > in this matter (doubtful) even though you authored a hypothetical tale > > that by your own admission has no coincidental similarities. You state > > that you have OPINIONS and BELIEFS, though characteristically qualified > > that with MAY, so tell me. NO. Tell us all. Is it your OPINION or > > your BELIEF that Jim McNaa authored the HRS blog. Inquiring minds > > want to know. You owe me that much since you are the only person to > > have even hypothetically indicated that possibility. > > Considering Mr. McNaa's reaction to the mention that the available > facts could not rule him out at this point certainly makes me wonder if > he doth protest too loudly. > > --> And the facts do not rule you out either, but I am willing to > concede that this is highly unlikely because the circumstantial > evidence does not implicate you any more than it does me. As concerns > protesting too loudly, I answered that immediately above. Please > reread. Perhaps this time it will not elude your poor powers of > perception. Mr. McNaa could have resisted the temptation to smear by posting unfounded accusations in the first place. If Mr. McNaa had done so, the question of whether he is the author of the HRS blog would never have arisen. The fact that Mr. McNaa jumped at the chance to discredit Ed Gin & Company is telling. Maybe Mr. McNaa should have left well enough alone, instead of jumping into a fight that did not involve him at the time. > Since we are dealing with motive and > circumstantial evidence, based on the attitudes exhibited in his posts, > Mr. McNaa certainly has the motive to smear certain (current and > former) member of the Chicagoland lowracer riding community. Mr. > McNaa would also appear to have access to the means and methods of > creating the HRS blog and the anonymous posts to > alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent. > > --> Slow down MR. ILLOGICAL! For the sake of argument, lets say I > accept your premise that based on the attitudes exhibited in his posts, > Mr. McNaa certainly has the motive to smear certain (current and > former) member of the Chicagoland lowracer riding community, how then > does is LOGICALLY follow that Mr. McNaa would also appear to have > access to the means and methods of creating the HRS blog and the > anonymous posts to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent. Well it doesn't now > does it?... By posting here, Mr. McNaa proves he has Internet and computer access - all that is needed to create the blog. By his past participation in certain discussion forums, Mr. McNaa would have obtained knowledge of the people, organizations and products parodied in the HRS blog. Mr. McNaa lives in the Chicagoland area, so he could obtain an ISP address from the same provider used by those he accuses of being behind the HRS blog. Mr. McNaa's having access to the means and methods is hardly a stretch. > And to think that you pride yourself in being logical and > defy anyone to identify where you have made a statement that is > illogical. Because one has a motive, this does not mean that they also > have the means and methods or even the willingness to act on said > motive. Means and methods imply the tools and the know how in addition > to the time and willingness to transform motive into action. You have > made an illogical quantum leap in logic. You assumptions are > unfounded. Where yours proof?... See above. The means and methods to create the HRS blog are hardly a challenge to meet. As for time and willingness, Mr. McNaa is demonstrating on this very forum he has the time and willingness to pursue his accusations against Ed Gin & Company to great lengths. As for proof, I have presented all that is necessary to show that IT IS POSSIBLE for Mr. McNaa to be the author of the HRS blog. I do not need proof beyond a reasonable doubt, because I AM NOT CATAGORICALLY STATING THAT MR. McNAA IS THE HRS BLOG AUTHOR. > If you want to learn more about blogs > and anonymous posting, talk to you JAG buddies because they are > certifiable experts. Mr. McNaa just can not stop with the unfounded accusations, can he? > Let me say this straight out ... I did not create > the HRS blog. I have gone on record in hundreds of post regarding how > I feel about bicycles. I will repeat in brief for all to understand. > I feel that we should be united by what we do and not divided by what > we do it on. I envision a cycling community devoid of platform > prejudice and platform pejoratives. I am in favor of unity through > diversity. And I have thought about buying a Bachetta Ti-Aero for > quite some time. Now do I sound like a person likely to author the > denigrating HRS blog?.... With his vindictive attitude on display numerous times towards Ed Gin & Company, who knows how far Mr. McNaa would take things? > Take your right hand and grab your left ear and > your left hand and grab your right ear and pull your head out of you > ass ... brain dead. Mr. McNaa can not win the argument on logic, so now he is resorting to insults. Is not this what he accuses others of doing? > Tell you what, Ed Gin once made a $10,000 offer > that I'm sure you are familiar with. I'll go him 10 fold better. If > you Tom Sherman or any member of the JAG alliance can prove that I am > the author of the HRS blog I will pay you $100,000.00 ... incentive > enough for you? I can just hear the wheels turning in the heads of the > Ed Gin's Monkey minions as to how they can possibly forge everything so > they can get their hands on the money. It would keep the monkeys in > bananas for the rest of their lives. Well Tom, you made the > hypothetical accusation. The money is on the table. Where's you PROOF[.] I do not need proof beyond what I have presented, since I am not claiming as FACT the authorship of the HRS blog, but instead merely pointing out that based on circumstantial evidence there are certainly other possibilities than the ones presented by Mr. McNaa as FACT. > Please note that this is not an accusation > (which would be immoral without reasonable proof) but merely a > statement of what is hypothetically possible. After all, it could turn > out that "Mojo" is really the Nobel Peace Prize committee. > > --> The usual Teflon disclaimer as though there were nothing really > intended by it. It was just a cerebral exercise, demonstrating of how > cleverly ridiculous he can be. He didn't mean any harm in it and it > was purely coincidental that his adversary was the focus of the > hypothetically absurd. I have "no dog in this fight" other than pointing out what I believe to be unacceptable behavior. Maybe certain people should not be so quick to point fingers when they lack conclusive evidence. > > It is interesting to note that someone who is willing to accuse without > > evidence is upset at the mere appearance of the shoe being on the other > > foot. There is a valuable lesson here, I believe to those who are > > willing to learn. > > > --> This is a deliberate falsehood. There is plenty of evidence, but > > it is circumstantial in nature. You want to discuss evidence, well > > where's yours? The proverbial shoe would only be on the other foot > > if there were evidence in support of your ludicrous assertion, but > > there is not. There is a valuable lesson to be learned here. The > > lesson is that Tom doesn't play fairly. He will take others to task > > for suggesting anything that is not fact substantiated by definitive > > proof, but at the same time exempts himself from his own standard. Now > > here comes the word that he is so fond of. Tom, where's your PROOF? > > At least others and I provided circumstantial evidence whereas you have > > provided nothing but an accusatory hypothesis ... inane conjecture ... > > reckless speculation, with not so much as a shred of evidence, even > > circumstantial in nature and herein lies the very vast difference that > > escaped you attention. So, how does the shoe feel on your foot? > > I have no need to post proof, since I have not made any accusations, > but merely stated possible motives and means. > > --> I don't expect you to ever hold yourself accountable for any > actions you take. That is a trait that you share with sociopaths. More gratuitous insults from Mr. McNaa. > You can artfully rationalize everything that you do. The hypothetical > story was told with obvious purpose and you and I have differing views > regarding what that purpose was and the readership will have to come to > their own conclusion. Do not accuse the kettle of being black without proof, if there is the possibility that you could be the pot. > The bottom line is that the story had a header > and trailer to cover your devious intentions. The bottom line is that > accusations were made and/or implied hypothetically so you could not be > held accountable. You said above ... Mr. McNaa certainly has the > motive to smear certain (current and former) member of the Chicagoland > lowracer riding community. Mr. McNaa would also appear to have > access to the means and methods of creating the HRS blog and the > anonymous posts to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent. There is little doubt > that you have accused me of motive, means and methods. I accuse you of > distortion of the truth that was hidden behind a thinly veiled > hypothetical story. You are always hiding behind something. When did > you first get out from behind your mothers skirt? [YAWN] See above. My only goal here is to point out that accusations should not be made without proof. When someone continues with that morally unacceptable activity, it may be necessary to demonstrate to that person that he/she could just as well be the perpetrator of the crime, based on the evidence available. > > > That portion of your story > > > was a major departure from reality. Since I am now an HRS blog > > > inductee, a victim of parody and a "private" individual why have you > > > not denounced the "nameless" authors or do you seriously believe I am > > > the author of the HRS blog and Baccchetta and your associates are all > > > my hapless victims. > > > The existence of the HRS blog does raise certain questions. What could > > have people associated with Bacchetta and BROL have done to provoke > > such a response? Do we assume that they are guilty of some grievous > > offense? Or alternatively, do we assume that the HRS blog author(s) > > is/are mentally ill and truly delusional, and believe in offenses from > > Bacchetta and BROL that did not really occur? Or a third possibility, > > the HRS blog author is using reverse psychology to gain support for > > Bacchetta and BROL [2]. Or could the HRS blog be a tool in a personal > > vendetta. The last possibility hardly stretches credibility, does it > > not? > > > --> Someone, not myself has made this accusation? Who? Your pseudonym > > ... Johnny Sunset. From the questions above it is obvious that you > > have picked sides and your friendship with the accused has obscured you > > objectivity. Yes, the very existence of the blog raises some > > questions, but why is it that all of your questions are decidedly > > one-sided? Never mind. That was a rhetorical question. There could > > be many reasons for the existence of the blog, most of which go beyond > > the scope of this discussion. Better questions might be these. Is > > the direction that blog has taken commensurate with whatever imagined > > offense may or may not have occurred? Why is it that only a small > > minority has issues with both BROL and Bacchetta? Who is the common > > denominator in all this? Are all the moderated forums, their > > readership and moderators wrong to have consistently ousted these same > > few people?... > > If a hypothetical moderated forum accepts advertising for a > hypothetical advertiser and said advertisers product is being > attacked... > > On the other hand, if hypothetical individuals receiving financially > valuable consideration from a manufacturer promote the manufacturers > products on said forum... > > Which side gets would be censored by the moderator(s) of the forum(s), > if the hypothetical censorship did indeed occur? > > --> Please edit the above sentence for clarity. > > There have been real accusations of the hypothetical scenarios listed > above. > > --> Please ... anything but the hypothetical arena again. You failed > to address a single issue raised and you failed to answer a single > question, but that's par for the course. > > > Is this not the reason why Monkey Island forum came into > > existence?... > > Monkey Island's mission was to provide a place for the "idiots to > bark". > > --> Because they were no longer welcome anywhere else specifically > because of their barking. I'll take that as a YES. The original Monkey Island came into existence so people could post opinions about performance recumbent without being censored if they denigrated the products or performance of others. Based on the public comments of the site webmaster, Monkey Island I was shut down when the conversation turned mostly to matters of insult. The second Monkey Island was intended to be a free for all. Why Monkey Island II was shut down is a matter for the forum owner to tell, if and when he so desires. > > The existence of the blog is merely a new wrinkle in an old > > lineage that can be traced back years in newsgroup archives. A blog is > > an arena where those who are maligned have no avenue for rebuttal. It > > should be obvious that the blog format was deliberately chosen for > > presentation of HRS subject matter simply because the blog is a > > cyber-soapbox from which an uncontested monologue can be disgorged with > > no conduit for dissension ... no opportunity for disagreement. Those > > involved prefer to demonstrate their immaturity and spew their hatred > > without concern for a dissenting voice. Cowards avoid confrontation. > > > Of course, it is absurdly unlikely, but not impossible, that the HRS > > blog is the work of a group of monkeys randomly pounding on computer > > keyboards. ;) > > > I will state one thing again that I said at the very beginning of the > > discussion - there is in all likelihood more going on here than meet > > the eye (of the uninvolved alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent reader). > > > --> A fair statement for a change, but there is also much that is known > > from the discussion that has taken place in this regard. > > Yes, certain people on the anti-Monkey side have revealed unpleasant > aspects of their personalities. > > -> And a certain person on the pro-Monkey side has revealed telling > character deficiencies. [YAWN] So much for Mr. "High Road" Jim McNaa. -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley     Date: 11 Dec 2005 03:09:21 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! "Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1134251577.908634.169070@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Jim McNaa <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com> wrote: > > I see Mr. McNaa is still using non-standard quoting format. It would > be polite if he would use standard quoting so it would be clear who > wrote what. I think Jim is using the Google web site and it can be confusing to post messages from there. I ended up unintentionally top posting when I last used Google! [...] > No, certain people on the anti-Monkey crowd are nasty, but appear nicer > to the casual reader since they present the appearance of being polite. > A turd presented on a plate with all the trappings in a 5-star > restaurant is still a turd. Mr. Sherman has apparently been unduly influenced by Wayne Leggitt, the ARBR poet of excrement. I think it would be highly appropriate to use this type of allusion with Wayne, but certainly not with Jim. It would also be EXTREMELY HIGHLY APPROPRIATE to use that allusion with your good buddy Ed Gin. [...] > Mr. McNaa can not win the argument on logic, so now he is resorting > to insults. Is not this what he accuses others of doing? You would not know logic if it jumped up and bit you in the elbow. Your defense of the indefensible puts you at odds with the entire newsgroup. I am amazed that you seemingly have no shame. The circumstantial evidence as to who is doing what is overwhelming and the only thing involved here is character assassination, not parody. Ah, if only it could happen to you. Your eyes would be opened in a New York minute! [...] > I have "no dog in this fight" other than pointing out what I believe to > be unacceptable behavior. This is as close to the truth of the matter as Mr. Sherman is ever going to get. I can accept that. After all, Mr. Sherman is not the criminal here. I am assuming his "unacceptable behavior" pertains to the arch criminal vandal troll and not to anyone else. [...] > The original Monkey Island came into existence so people could post > opinions about performance recumbent without being censored if they > denigrated the products or performance of others. Based on the public > comments of the site webmaster, Monkey Island I was shut down when the > conversation turned mostly to matters of insult. The second Monkey > Island was intended to be a free for all. Why Monkey Island II was shut > down is a matter for the forum owner to tell, if and when he so > desires. An interesting bit of history that I was unaware of because I do not go slumming to such sites. I just looked at it once briefly, and that was enough for me - but apparently not for Mr. Sherman. He likes the gutter no doubt. Did I not already say in a previous message of mine that he has no taste. Did Mr. Sherman find the graphics on that site to be perhaps amusing? [...] >> Yes, certain people on the anti-Monkey side have revealed unpleasant >> aspects of their personalities. >> >> -> And a certain person on the pro-Monkey side has revealed telling >> character deficiencies. > > [YAWN] So much for Mr. "High Road" Jim McNaa. Why bother to be high minded when confronted with Sherman obduracy. It is enough to drive a sane person stark raving mad. Everyone learns sooner or later when engaged with Mr. Sherman that it is going to be the low road in the final analysis. It is a characteristic of all liberals. Ed Dolan - Minnesota   Date: 09 Dec 2005 22:21:24 From: Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! Tom, > > Sorry to disappoint, but your "story" did not strike a nerve. Actually > > I found it fairly clever and even entertaining up to a point. Much of > > what was said was quite telling with regard to what you really know > > about all this.... > There are no coincidental similarities between Johnny Sunset's [Most > Fun Bike in the Known Universe] story and real life that require > private information to see (but some information, like the posts on the > Monkey Island board is no longer be accessible to the public) [1]. > --> Reader, so not be deceived by the deliberately confusing, contrived > wording. Note that Tom did not emphatically state that there are NO > SIMILARITIES. The operative word here is the qualifier > "coincidental". I wholeheartedly agree with Tom. The similarities are > most certainly NOT COINCIDENTAL between his story and reality. The > story was mostly true to what inspired it ... REALITY, a reality that > both Tom and I are/were privy to. Cloaked in obscurities, the story > was intentionally told in such a way that only those in inner circle > would understand its vague references. As such, the story was rather > factual up until Tom introduced the outlandish assertion that I was the > author of the blog who sacrificed Bacchetta in order be able to > implicate three specific individuals (who I have yet to name) as the > responsible parties and convince the readership to turn on them (though > unnamed remember). Tom, did you really expect anyone to buy that crap? > As if this wasn't absurd enough, Tom went on to indicate that I > inducted myself into the blog to trash myself to avoid suspicion as I > carried out my vendetta against the real responsible parties that Tom > portrayed as victims. You're devious, Tom. I'll give you that; but, > this is the most far-fetched, twisted spin that you have yet put on all > this in an effort to vindicate those responsible. Have you not yet > heard the voice of failure whispering in your ear? As concerns your > footnote, the usnet newsgroup archives has more than enough information > because one individual in particular is infamous for cross posing his > crap for all to see. Besides, I believe that I still have some of the > Monkey Island banter archived because I thought it come in handy some > day. Using a sock puppet blog to discredit others is not farfetched, especially when one considers the posting habits of some of the anti-Monkey crowd. -- > I see, as usual, you entirely missed my point and that which you may have understood you merely ignored. Am I surprised that you ignored what I said? Not in the least because I am convinced that you didn't have a reasonable response to offer. As concerns the posting habits of the Monkey crowd, anyone who has ever read their garbage knows perfectly well that they are not a higher standard to which others would care to aspire. As concerns far-fetched, I wasn't referring to a blog as being an unlikely means of discrediting others, but I'm not going to interpret what I did say above. As long as the readership understood what you did not, that's good enough for me. By the way, you have a lot of nerve even bringing up posting habits. No on even comes close to the tasteless, vulgar and malicious posts of the Monkey Island crowd. As for buying things, why should I buy the accusations made by the anti-Monkey crowd, when they have yet to exhibit a shred of DEFINITIVE PROOF of the HRS blog author(s) identities? Ever hear the expression, "put up or shut up"? -- > Put it on your Xmax list Tom, but it ain't happenin' I asked several times what you would consider definitive proof and you always go mute. I put that on my Xmas list and it ain't happein' either. > > If we had compared notes like I suggested, they would > > have compared rather well as it seems.... > I can think of several people that dislike highracers, Bacchetta and > BROL that have never owned a carbon fiber composite splitter plate > lowracer. > --> And you still think that I can be diverted by introduction of > irrelevant material. This has nothing to do with ownership of a carbon > fiber composite splitter plate lowracer. It is not uncommon for you to > deliberately pretend to misconstrue what is meant in order to avoid > addressing something. This has become one of your ARBR tradeks. > Let me make this real simple for you. I've said this countless times. > You should be able to recite it in you sleep. If we were to compare > notes, ALL 3 NAMES that I suspect would have matched. You needn't > bother to deny it since you blundered into coughing up the matching > fist initials to the ones I supplied for the JAG's surnames. For the > second time, allow me to again extend my gratitude. See my other post to understand why the above is just blather. -- > I guess you're mad that I keep thanking you for your gesture, but you did sidestep the issue again with a one-liner. You're pretty consitent that way. I know we've got a match. I don't need for you to say so. > > Even with the hypothetical > > disclaimer however, I am reasonably certain that you know that I am not > > the author of the HRS blog and you should not have taken the liberty to > > portray me (the protagonist) in that role.... > I KNOW nothing of the sort. I may have OPINIONS and BELIEFS on the > matter, but I do not KNOW that Mr. McNaa is not the author of the > HRS blog. I though my position on this had been clearly stated enough > times for everyone to understand I am dealing with facts here, not > opinion based on circumstantial evidence. Although, the phrase "doth > protest too loudly" may have passed the minds of some in this > circumstance. > --> Nice try. And what pray tell would you have me do? Protest your > absurdity in a whispered tone? You claim not to have factual knowledge > in this matter (doubtful) even though you authored a hypothetical tale > that by your own admission has no coincidental similarities. You state > that you have OPINIONS and BELIEFS, though characteristically qualified > that with MAY, so tell me. NO. Tell us all. Is it your OPINION or > your BELIEF that Jim McNaa authored the HRS blog. Inquiring minds > want to know. You owe me that much since you are the only person to > have even hypothetically indicated that possibility. Considering Mr. McNaa's reaction to the mention that the available facts could not rule him out at this point certainly makes me wonder if he doth protest too loudly. -- > And the facts do not rule you out either, but I am willing to concede that this is highly unlikely because the circumstantial evidence does not implicate you any more than it does me. As concerns protesting too loudly, I answered that immediately above. Please reread. Perhaps this time it will not elude your poor powers of perception. Since we are dealing with motive and circumstantial evidence, based on the attitudes exhibited in his posts, Mr. McNaa certainly has the motive to smear certain (current and former) member of the Chicagoland lowracer riding community. Mr. McNaa would also appear to have access to the means and methods of creating the HRS blog and the anonymous posts to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent. -- > Slow down MR. ILLOGICAL! For the sake of argument, lets say I accept your premise that based on the attitudes exhibited in his posts, Mr. McNaa certainly has the motive to smear certain (current and former) member of the Chicagoland lowracer riding community, how then does is LOGICALLY follow that Mr. McNaa would also appear to have access to the means and methods of creating the HRS blog and the anonymous posts to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent. Well it doesn't now does it? And to think that you pride yourself in being logical and defy anyone to identify where you have made a statement that is illogical. Because one has a motive, this does not mean that they also have the means and methods or even the willingness to act on said motive. Means and methods imply the tools and the know how in addition to the time and willingness to transform motive into action. You have made an illogical quantum leap in logic. You assumptions are unfounded. Where yours proof? If you want to learn more about blogs and anonymous posting, talk to you JAG buddies because they are certifiable experts. Let me say this straight out ... I did not create the HRS blog. I have gone on record in hundreds of post regarding how I feel about bicycles. I will repeat in brief for all to understand. I feel that we should be united by what we do and not divided by what we do it on. I envision a cycling community devoid of platform prejudice and platform pejoratives. I am in favor of unity through diversity. And I have thought about buying a Bachetta Ti-Aero for quite some time. Now do I sound like a person likely to author the denigrating HRS blog?. Take your right hand and grab your left ear and your left hand and grab your right ear and pull your head out of you ass ... brain dead. Tell you what, Ed Gin once made a $10,000 offer that I'm sure you are familiar with. I'll go him 10 fold better. If you Tom Sherman or any member of the JAG alliance can prove that I am the author of the HRS blog I will pay you $100,000.00 ... incentive enough for you? I can just hear the wheels turning in the heads of the Ed Gin's Monkey minions as to how they can possibly forge everything so they can get their hands on the money. It would keep the monkeys in bananas for the rest of their lives. Well Tom, you made the hypothetical accusation. The money is on the table. Where's you PROOF Please note that this is not an accusation (which would be immoral without reasonable proof) but merely a statement of what is hypothetically possible. After all, it could turn out that "Mojo" is really the Nobel Peace Prize committee. -- > The usual Teflon disclaimer as though there were nothing really intended by it. It was just a cerebral exercise, demonstrating of how cleverly ridiculous he can be. He didn't mean any harm in it and it was purely coincidental that his adversary was the focus of the hypothetically absurd. > It is interesting to note that someone who is willing to accuse without > evidence is upset at the mere appearance of the shoe being on the other > foot. There is a valuable lesson here, I believe to those who are > willing to learn. > --> This is a deliberate falsehood. There is plenty of evidence, but > it is circumstantial in nature. You want to discuss evidence, well > where's yours? The proverbial shoe would only be on the other foot > if there were evidence in support of your ludicrous assertion, but > there is not. There is a valuable lesson to be learned here. The > lesson is that Tom doesn't play fairly. He will take others to task > for suggesting anything that is not fact substantiated by definitive > proof, but at the same time exempts himself from his own standard. Now > here comes the word that he is so fond of. Tom, where's your PROOF? > At least others and I provided circumstantial evidence whereas you have > provided nothing but an accusatory hypothesis ... inane conjecture ... > reckless speculation, with not so much as a shred of evidence, even > circumstantial in nature and herein lies the very vast difference that > escaped you attention. So, how does the shoe feel on your foot? I have no need to post proof, since I have not made any accusations, but merely stated possible motives and means. -- > I don't expect you to ever hold yourself accountable for any actions you take. That is a trait that you share with sociopaths. You can artfully rationalize everything that you do. The hypothetical story was told with obvious purpose and you and I have differing views regarding what that purpose was and the readership will have to come to their own conclusion. The bottom line is that the story had a header and trailer to cover your devious intentions. The bottom line is that accusations were made and/or implied hypothetically so you could not be held accountable. You said above ... Mr. McNaa certainly has the motive to smear certain (current and former) member of the Chicagoland lowracer riding community. Mr. McNaa would also appear to have access to the means and methods of creating the HRS blog and the anonymous posts to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent. There is little doubt that you have accused me of motive, means and methods. I accuse you of distortion of the truth that was hidden behind a thinly veiled hypothetical story. You are always hiding behind something. When did you first get out from behind your mothers skirt? > > That portion of your story > > was a major departure from reality. Since I am now an HRS blog > > inductee, a victim of parody and a "private" individual why have you > > not denounced the "nameless" authors or do you seriously believe I am > > the author of the HRS blog and Baccchetta and your associates are all > > my hapless victims. > The existence of the HRS blog does raise certain questions. What could > have people associated with Bacchetta and BROL have done to provoke > such a response? Do we assume that they are guilty of some grievous > offense? Or alternatively, do we assume that the HRS blog author(s) > is/are mentally ill and truly delusional, and believe in offenses from > Bacchetta and BROL that did not really occur? Or a third possibility, > the HRS blog author is using reverse psychology to gain support for > Bacchetta and BROL [2]. Or could the HRS blog be a tool in a personal > vendetta. The last possibility hardly stretches credibility, does it > not? > --> Someone, not myself has made this accusation? Who? Your pseudonym > ... Johnny Sunset. From the questions above it is obvious that you > have picked sides and your friendship with the accused has obscured you > objectivity. Yes, the very existence of the blog raises some > questions, but why is it that all of your questions are decidedly > one-sided? Never mind. That was a rhetorical question. There could > be many reasons for the existence of the blog, most of which go beyond > the scope of this discussion. Better questions might be these. Is > the direction that blog has taken commensurate with whatever imagined > offense may or may not have occurred? Why is it that only a small > minority has issues with both BROL and Bacchetta? Who is the common > denominator in all this? Are all the moderated forums, their > readership and moderators wrong to have consistently ousted these same > few people?... If a hypothetical moderated forum accepts advertising for a hypothetical advertiser and said advertisers product is being attacked... On the other hand, if hypothetical individuals receiving financially valuable consideration from a manufacturer promote the manufacturers products on said forum... Which side gets would be censored by the moderator(s) of the forum(s), if the hypothetical censorship did indeed occur? -- > Please edit the above sentence for clarity. There have been real accusations of the hypothetical scenarios listed above. -- > Please ... anything but the hypothetical arena again. You failed to address a single issue raised and you failed to answer a single question, but that's par for the course. > Is this not the reason why Monkey Island forum came into > existence?... Monkey Island's mission was to provide a place for the "idiots to bark". -- > Because they were no longer welcome anywhere else specifically because of their barking. I'll take that as a YES. > The existence of the blog is merely a new wrinkle in an old > lineage that can be traced back years in newsgroup archives. A blog is > an arena where those who are maligned have no avenue for rebuttal. It > should be obvious that the blog format was deliberately chosen for > presentation of HRS subject matter simply because the blog is a > cyber-soapbox from which an uncontested monologue can be disgorged with > no conduit for dissension ... no opportunity for disagreement. Those > involved prefer to demonstrate their immaturity and spew their hatred > without concern for a dissenting voice. Cowards avoid confrontation. > Of course, it is absurdly unlikely, but not impossible, that the HRS > blog is the work of a group of monkeys randomly pounding on computer > keyboards. ;) > I will state one thing again that I said at the very beginning of the > discussion - there is in all likelihood more going on here than meet > the eye (of the uninvolved alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent reader). > --> A fair statement for a change, but there is also much that is known > from the discussion that has taken place in this regard. Yes, certain people on the anti-Monkey side have revealed unpleasant aspects of their personalities. - > And a certain person on the pro-Monkey side has revealed telling character deficiencies. Jim McNaa   Date: 09 Dec 2005 20:10:53 From: Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! Jim McNaa <jimmyma...@yahoo.com > wrote: > Tom, > And might these some be the same some of Johnny NoCom post and HRS blog > fame ... a some, I mean SUM of 3 along with some disgruntled Monkey > Islanders in a support role? I know you only deal in facts and the > facts are that you are fighting a losing battle. Everyone knows who > the common denominator is in all this. You carry on though. Talk your > crap until you are blue in the face. I am convinced that most have now > lumped you in with those responsible and have turned a deaf ear to you > long ago. Once again ... thanks for the three initial of those who you > never admitted to being on your list that happened to match those on > mine. I'll consider that an Xmas gift. This is a misinterpretation on Mr. McNaa's part. I was listing the initials of the three (3) people he was insinuating but refusing to name in two (2) cases. [1] How many people regularly have associated with Ed Gin with the last initials A and J - a rather small group, and when you consider the bicycles A and J own, Mr. McNaa might as well of used their full names, except he was not being forthright. [1] Well, maybe one and one-half (1-1/2) cases when you take Mr. McNaa's comment about changing the last name of Alan Greenspan to arrive nearer his claim of the "truth". Tom, Quite the contrary, this is a misinterpretation on Mr. Sherman's part. Mr. McNaa did not provide the first initial specifically to be in compliance with Mr. Sherman's insistence that no one should be named without definitive proof and two initials are more telling that is just one. I just hate to hear a grown man cry. Mr. Sherman, who breaks the very rules that he expects others to conform to, supplied those initials either because ... 1. He is exempt for his own rules, 2. He blundered to which we all know he would never admit, or 3. Both of the above. The initials of the surnames was provided to Tom solely for the purpose of communication and was intentionally used because those outside of the inner circle would not know to whom I was referring. This might even reasonably be extended to addition of the first initial volunteered by Tom because of the extensive use of pseudonyms. Mr. Sherman has employed his favorite tactic of attempting to confuse the issue and the readership. Being forthright has absolutely nothing at all to do with this other than to set the stage for condemnation. Well, let's see where this is headed. I was chastised for not being forthright (using surname initials rather than full names) by Mr. Sherman who also used initials rather than full names, so is Mr. Sherman any less guilty of being forthright? Had I used full names, Mr. Sherman would also have chastised me. This is a damned if you do and damned if you don't scenario either way, but that's the way Tom likes to play because he plays to win at all cost. Please note that I only mentioned not three, but one person by surname initial with regard to a particular bike. Now, I suppose, employing Mr. Sherman's line of reasoning, I could say that in supplying the additional first initials, considering the bicycles ridden by this small group associated with Ed Gin, that Mr. Sherman might as well have used their full names, except he was not being forthright, but I'll not emulate my adversary, but I will point out how his flawed logic can be used against him. Jim McNaa     Date: 17 Dec 2005 14:09:19 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! Jim McNaa <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com > wrote: > Readers, > > I thoroughly enjoyed this portion of a recent exchange. Who knows. > Maybe I will hang in there a bit longer as long as I am enjoying > myself. So Mr. McNaa LIED about leaving the discussion. > > Hypothetically speaking, Mr. Sherman could be a child molester. > > Hypothetically speaking, Mr. McNaa could be a child murderer. > > > Whereas there is no proof to support the contention that Mr. Sherman is > > a child molester, there is also no proof to support the contention that > > he is not. Consequently, in the absence of such proof, it cannot be > > said with any degree of certainty that Mr. Sherman is not a child > > molester. > > Neither can it be said with any degree of certainly that Mr. McNaa > is not a child murderer. Or someone who vandalizes the property of > others - no need to mention the old accusations in detail, is there? > > Is this a threat? Be my guest. Its yesterday's news, has been > rehashed countless time and is all archived. > > > In the interim, until Mr. Sherman can produce definitive proof that he > > is a child molester; the possibility that Mr. Sherman is a child > > molester must be maintained. > > Why would I provide definitive proof that I WAS a child molester (if I > was one)? Huh? > > Of course, I what I meant to say was ... In the interim, until Mr. > Sherman can produce definitive proof that he is NOT a child molester; > the possibility that Mr. Sherman is a child molester must be > maintained. > > In the interim, until Mr. McNaa can produce definitive proof that he > is not a child murderer; the possibility that Mr. McNaa is a child > murderer must be maintained. > > > Does anyone see just how ridiculous Mr. Sherman's emulated > > hypothetical "logic" can become? Do I have any reason to believe that > > Mr. Sherman is a child molester? > > Do I have any reason to believe that Mr. McNaa is a child murderer? > > Please note that at this juncture, I was gracious enough to give Tom > the benefit of the doubt by answering the question posed in the > negative. Tom was not. He does not give anyone anything. It is not > his style to make a concession. I was demonstrating by mimicry how ridiculous Mr. McNaa was being. > > NO... I do not. I merely endeavored to demonstrate just how easy it is > > to employ Tom Sherman's style of tedious, hypothetical reasoning to > > one's advantage regardless of how reasonable or fair it is to do so. > > I've said all along that Tom likes to play. He just doesn't like to > > play fairly. Because of this, I have simply lost interest. > > Lost interest = cut and run. > > Misinterpretatioin. Lost interest = lost interest ... nothing more ... > nothingless. I obviously am still "cutting" and have yet to run, > at least for the time being. So Mr. McNaa's statements that he was leaving the discussion were FALSE. > I couldn't be more pleased with Tom's response. It should be > obvious to all who read this that Tom's brand of logic is quite > simple to emulate and that Tom does not appreciate it when he is the > object of his own nonsense. I consider Tom's emulation of me > emulating him to be a compliment of sorts. See above about use of mimicry. Duh! -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley     Date: 17 Dec 2005 08:31:14 From: Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! Readers, I thoroughly enjoyed this portion of a recent exchange. Who knows. Maybe I will hang in there a bit longer as long as I am enjoying myself. > Hypothetically speaking, Mr. Sherman could be a child molester. Hypothetically speaking, Mr. McNaa could be a child murderer. > Whereas there is no proof to support the contention that Mr. Sherman is > a child molester, there is also no proof to support the contention that > he is not. Consequently, in the absence of such proof, it cannot be > said with any degree of certainty that Mr. Sherman is not a child > molester. Neither can it be said with any degree of certainly that Mr. McNaa is not a child murderer. Or someone who vandalizes the property of others - no need to mention the old accusations in detail, is there? Is this a threat? Be my guest. Its yesterday's news, has been rehashed countless time and is all archived. > In the interim, until Mr. Sherman can produce definitive proof that he > is a child molester; the possibility that Mr. Sherman is a child > molester must be maintained. Why would I provide definitive proof that I WAS a child molester (if I was one)? Huh? Of course, I what I meant to say was ... In the interim, until Mr. Sherman can produce definitive proof that he is NOT a child molester; the possibility that Mr. Sherman is a child molester must be maintained. In the interim, until Mr. McNaa can produce definitive proof that he is not a child murderer; the possibility that Mr. McNaa is a child murderer must be maintained. > Does anyone see just how ridiculous Mr. Sherman's emulated > hypothetical "logic" can become? Do I have any reason to believe that > Mr. Sherman is a child molester? Do I have any reason to believe that Mr. McNaa is a child murderer? Please note that at this juncture, I was gracious enough to give Tom the benefit of the doubt by answering the question posed in the negative. Tom was not. He does not give anyone anything. It is not his style to make a concession. > NO... I do not. I merely endeavored to demonstrate just how easy it is > to employ Tom Sherman's style of tedious, hypothetical reasoning to > one's advantage regardless of how reasonable or fair it is to do so. > I've said all along that Tom likes to play. He just doesn't like to > play fairly. Because of this, I have simply lost interest. Lost interest = cut and run. Misinterpretatioin. Lost interest = lost interest ... nothing more ... nothingless. I obviously am still "cutting" and have yet to run, at least for the time being. I couldn't be more pleased with Tom's response. It should be obvious to all who read this that Tom's brand of logic is quite simple to emulate and that Tom does not appreciate it when he is the object of his own nonsense. I consider Tom's emulation of me emulating him to be a compliment of sorts. JimmyMac   Date: 09 Dec 2005 18:32:50 From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! Jim McNaa <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com > wrote: > Tom, > > > Sorry to disappoint, but your "story" did not strike a nerve. Actually > > I found it fairly clever and even entertaining up to a point. Much of > > what was said was quite telling with regard to what you really know > > about all this.... > > There are no coincidental similarities between Johnny Sunset's [Most > Fun Bike in the Known Universe] story and real life that require > private information to see (but some information, like the posts on the > Monkey Island board is no longer be accessible to the public) [1]. > > --> Reader, so not be deceived by the deliberately confusing, contrived > wording. Note that Tom did not emphatically state that there are NO > SIMILARITIES. The operative word here is the qualifier > "coincidental". I wholeheartedly agree with Tom. The similarities are > most certainly NOT COINCIDENTAL between his story and reality. The > story was mostly true to what inspired it ... REALITY, a reality that > both Tom and I are/were privy to. Cloaked in obscurities, the story > was intentionally told in such a way that only those in inner circle > would understand its vague references. As such, the story was rather > factual up until Tom introduced the outlandish assertion that I was the > author of the blog who sacrificed Bacchetta in order be able to > implicate three specific individuals (who I have yet to name) as the > responsible parties and convince the readership to turn on them (though > unnamed remember). Tom, did you really expect anyone to buy that crap? > As if this wasn't absurd enough, Tom went on to indicate that I > inducted myself into the blog to trash myself to avoid suspicion as I > carried out my vendetta against the real responsible parties that Tom > portrayed as victims. You're devious, Tom. I'll give you that; but, > this is the most far-fetched, twisted spin that you have yet put on all > this in an effort to vindicate those responsible. Have you not yet > heard the voice of failure whispering in your ear? As concerns your > footnote, the usnet newsgroup archives has more than enough information > because one individual in particular is infamous for cross posing his > crap for all to see. Besides, I believe that I still have some of the > Monkey Island banter archived because I thought it come in handy some > day. Using a sock puppet blog to discredit others is not farfetched, especially when one considers the posting habits of some of the anti-Monkey crowd. As for buying things, why should I buy the accusations made by the anti-Monkey crowd, when they have yet to exhibit a shred of DEFINITIVE PROOF of the HRS blog author(s) identities? Ever hear the expression, "put up or shut up"? > > If we had compared notes like I suggested, they would > > have compared rather well as it seems.... > > I can think of several people that dislike highracers, Bacchetta and > BROL that have never owned a carbon fiber composite splitter plate > lowracer. > > --> And you still think that I can be diverted by introduction of > irrelevant material. This has nothing to do with ownership of a carbon > fiber composite splitter plate lowracer. It is not uncommon for you to > deliberately pretend to misconstrue what is meant in order to avoid > addressing something. This has become one of your ARBR tradeks. > Let me make this real simple for you. I've said this countless times. > You should be able to recite it in you sleep. If we were to compare > notes, ALL 3 NAMES that I suspect would have matched. You needn't > bother to deny it since you blundered into coughing up the matching > fist initials to the ones I supplied for the JAG's surnames. For the > second time, allow me top again extend my gratitude. See my other post to understand why the above is just blather. > > Even with the hypothetical > > disclaimer however, I am reasonably certain that you know that I am not > > the author of the HRS blog and you should not have taken the liberty to > > portray me (the protagonist) in that role.... > > I KNOW nothing of the sort. I may have OPINIONS and BELIEFS on the > matter, but I do not KNOW that Mr. McNaa is not the author of the > HRS blog. I though my position on this had been clearly stated enough > times for everyone to understand I am dealing with facts here, not > opinion based on circumstantial evidence. Although, the phrase "doth > protest too loudly" may have passed the minds of some in this > circumstance. > > --> Nice try. And what pray tell would you have me do? Protest your > absurdity in a whispered tone? You claim not to have factual knowledge > in this matter (doubtful) even though you authored a hypothetical tale > that by your own admission has no coincidental similarities. You state > that you have OPINIONS and BELIEFS, though characteristically qualified > that with MAY, so tell me. NO, tell us all. Is it your OPINION or > your BELIEF that Jim McNaa authored the HRS blog. Inquiring minds > want to know. You owe me that much since you are the only person to > have even hypothetically indicated that possibility. Considering Mr. McNaa's reaction to the mention that the available facts could not rule him out at this point certainly makes me wonder if he doth protest too loudly. Since we are dealing with motive and circumstantial evidence, based on the attitudes exhibited in his posts, Mr. McNaa certainly has the motive to smear certain (current and former) member of the Chicagoland lowracer riding community. Mr. McNaa would also appear to have access to the means and methods of creating the HRS blog and the anonymous posts to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent. Please note that this is not an accusation (which would be immoral without reasonable proof) but merely a statement of what is hypothetically possible. After all, it could turn out that "Mojo" is really the Nobel Peace Prize committee. > It is interesting to note that someone who is willing to accuse without > evidence is upset at the mere appearance of the shoe being on the other > foot. There is a valuable lesson here, I believe to those who are > willing to learn. > > --> This is a deliberate falsehood. There is plenty of evidence, but > it is circumstantial in nature. You want to discuss evidence, well > where's yours? The proverbial shoe would only be on the other foot > if there were evidence in support of your ludicrous assertion, but > there is not. There is a valuable lesson to be learned here. The > lesson is that Tom doesn't play fairly. He will take others to task > for suggesting anything that is not fact substantiated by definitive > proof, but at the same time exempts himself from his own standard. Now > here comes the word that he is so fond of. Tom, where's your PROOF? > At least I and others provided circumstantial evidence whereas you have > provided nothing but an accusatory hypothesis ... inane conjecture ... > reckless speculation, with not so much as a shred of evidence, even > circumstantial in nature and herein lies the very vast difference that > escaped you attention. So, how does the shoe feel on your foot? I have no need to post proof, since I have not made any accusations, but merely stated possible motives and means. > > That portion of your story > > was a major departure from reality. Since I am now an HRS blog > > inductee, a victim of parody and a "private" individual why have you > > not denounced the "nameless" authors or do you seriously believe I am > > the author fo the HRS blog and Baccchetta and your associates are all > > my hapless victims. > > The existence of the HRS blog does raise certain questions. What could > have people associated with Bacchetta and BROL have done to provoke > such a response? Do we assume that they are guilty of some grievous > offense? Or alternatively, do we assume that the HRS blog author(s) > is/are mentally ill and truly delusional, and believe in offenses from > Bacchetta and BROL that did not really occur? Or a third possibility, > the HRS blog author is using reverse psychology to gain support for > Bacchetta and BROL [2]. Or could the HRS blog be a tool in a personal > vendetta. The last possibility hardly stretches credibility, does it > not? > > --> Someone, not myself has made this accusation? Who? Your pseudonym > ... Johnny Sunset. From the questions above it is obvious that you > have picked sides and your friendship with the accused has obscured you > objectivity. Yes, the very existence of the blog raises some > questions, but why is it that all of your questions are decidedly > one-sided? Never mind. That was a rhetorical question. There could > be many reasons for the existence of the blog, most of which go beyond > the scope of this discussion. A better questions might be these. Is > the direction that blog has taken commensurate with whatever imagined > offense may or may not have occurred? Why is it that only a small > minority have issues with both BROL and Bacchetta? Who is the common > denominator in all this? Are all the moderated forums, their > readership and moderators wrong to have consistently ousted these same > few people?... If a hypothetical moderated forum accepts advertising for a hypothetical advertiser and said advertisers product is being attacked... On the other hand, if hypothetical individuals receiving financially valuable consideration from a manufacturer promote the manufacturers products on said forum... Which side gets would be censored by the moderator(s) of the forum(s), if the hypothetical censorship did indeed occur? There have been real accusations of the hypothetical scenarios listed above. > Is this not the reason why Monkey Island forum came into > existence?... Monkey Island's mission was to provide a place for the "idiots to bark". > The existence of the blog is merely a new wrinkle in an old > lineage that can be traced back years in newsgroup archives. A blog is > an arena where those who are maligned have no avenue for rebuttal. It > should be obvious that the blog format was deliberately chosen for > presentation of HRS subject matter simply because the blog is a > cyber-soapbox from which an uncontested monologue can be disgorged with > no conduit for dissension ... no opportunity for disagreement. Those > involved prefer to demonstrate their immaturity and spew their hatred > without concern for a dissenting voice. Cowards avoid confrontation. > > Of course, it is absurdly unlikely, but not impossible, that the HRS > blog is the work of a group of monkeys randomly pounding on computer > keyboards. ;) > > I will state one thing again that I said at the very beginning of the > discussion - there is in all likelihood more going on here than meet > the eye (of the uninvolved alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent reader). > > --> A fair statement for a change, but there is also much that is known > from the discussion that has taken place in this regard. Yes, certain people on the anti-Monkey side have revealed unpleasant aspects of their personalities. -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley   Date: 09 Dec 2005 18:09:49 From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! Jim McNaa <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com > wrote: > Tom, > > And might these some be the same some of Johnny NoCom post and HRS blog > fame a some, I mean SUM of 3 along with some disgruntled Monkey > Islanders in a support role? I know you only deal in facts and the > facts are that you are fighting a losing battle. Everyone knows who > the common denominator is in all this. You carry on though. Talk your > crap until you are blue in the face. I am convinced that most have now > lumped you in with those responsible and have turned a deaf ear to you > long ago. Once again ... thanks for the three initial of those who you > never admitted to being on your list that happened to match those on > mine. I'll consider that a Xmas gift. This is a misinterpretation on Mr. McNaa's part. I was listing the initials of the three (3) people he was insinuating but refusing to name in two (2) cases. [1] How many people regularly have associated with Ed Gin with the last initials A and J - a rather small group, and when you consider the bicycles A and J own, Mr. McNaa might as well of used their full names, except he was not being forthright. [1] Well, maybe one and one-half (1-1/2) cases when you take Mr. McNaa's comment about changing the last name of Alan Greenspan to arrive nearer his claim of the "truth". -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley   Date: 09 Dec 2005 17:01:13 From: Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! Tom, > Sorry to disappoint, but your "story" did not strike a nerve. Actually > I found it fairly clever and even entertaining up to a point. Much of > what was said was quite telling with regard to what you really know > about all this.... There are no coincidental similarities between Johnny Sunset's [Most Fun Bike in the Known Universe] story and real life that require private information to see (but some information, like the posts on the Monkey Island board is no longer be accessible to the public) [1]. -- > Reader, so not be deceived by the deliberately confusing, contrived wording. Note that Tom did not emphatically state that there are NO SIMILARITIES. The operative word here is the qualifier "coincidental". I wholeheartedly agree with Tom. The similarities are most certainly NOT COINCIDENTAL between his story and reality. The story was mostly true to what inspired it ... REALITY, a reality that both Tom and I are/were privy to. Cloaked in obscurities, the story was intentionally told in such a way that only those in inner circle would understand its vague references. As such, the story was rather factual up until Tom introduced the outlandish assertion that I was the author of the blog who sacrificed Bacchetta in order be able to implicate three specific individuals (who I have yet to name) as the responsible parties and convince the readership to turn on them (though unnamed remember). Tom, did you really expect anyone to buy that crap? As if this wasn't absurd enough, Tom went on to indicate that I inducted myself into the blog to trash myself to avoid suspicion as I carried out my vendetta against the real responsible parties that Tom portrayed as victims. You're devious, Tom. I'll give you that; but, this is the most far-fetched, twisted spin that you have yet put on all this in an effort to vindicate those responsible. Have you not yet heard the voice of failure whispering in your ear? As concerns your footnote, the usnet newsgroup archives has more than enough information because one individual in particular is infamous for cross posing his crap for all to see. Besides, I believe that I still have some of the Monkey Island banter archived because I thought it come in handy some day. > If we had compared notes like I suggested, they would > have compared rather well as it seems.... I can think of several people that dislike highracers, Bacchetta and BROL that have never owned a carbon fiber composite splitter plate lowracer. -- > And you still think that I can be diverted by introduction of irrelevant material. This has nothing to do with ownership of a carbon fiber composite splitter plate lowracer. It is not uncommon for you to deliberately pretend to misconstrue what is meant in order to avoid addressing something. This has become one of your ARBR tradeks. Let me make this real simple for you. I've said this countless times. You should be able to recite it in you sleep. If we were to compare notes, ALL 3 NAMES that I suspect would have matched. You needn't bother to deny it since you blundered into coughing up the matching fist initials to the ones I supplied for the JAG's surnames. For the second time, allow me top again extend my gratitude. > Even with the hypothetical > disclaimer however, I am reasonably certain that you know that I am not > the author of the HRS blog and you should not have taken the liberty to > portray me (the protagonist) in that role.... I KNOW nothing of the sort. I may have OPINIONS and BELIEFS on the matter, but I do not KNOW that Mr. McNaa is not the author of the HRS blog. I though my position on this had been clearly stated enough times for everyone to understand I am dealing with facts here, not opinion based on circumstantial evidence. Although, the phrase "doth protest too loudly" may have passed the minds of some in this circumstance. -- > Nice try. And what pray tell would you have me do? Protest your absurdity in a whispered tone? You claim not to have factual knowledge in this matter (doubtful) even though you authored a hypothetical tale that by your own admission has no coincidental similarities. You state that you have OPINIONS and BELIEFS, though characteristically qualified that with MAY, so tell me. NO, tell us all. Is it your OPINION or your BELIEF that Jim McNaa authored the HRS blog. Inquiring minds want to know. You owe me that much since you are the only person to have even hypothetically indicated that possibility. It is interesting to note that someone who is willing to accuse without evidence is upset at the mere appearance of the shoe being on the other foot. There is a valuable lesson here, I believe to those who are willing to learn. -- > This is a deliberate falsehood. There is plenty of evidence, but it is circumstantial in nature. You want to discuss evidence, well where's yours? The proverbial shoe would only be on the other foot if there were evidence in support of your ludicrous assertion, but there is not. There is a valuable lesson to be learned here. The lesson is that Tom doesn't play fairly. He will take others to task for suggesting anything that is not fact substantiated by definitive proof, but at the same time exempts himself from his own standard. Now here comes the word that he is so fond of. Tom, where's your PROOF? At least I and others provided circumstantial evidence whereas you have provided nothing but an accusatory hypothesis ... inane conjecture ... reckless speculation, with not so much as a shred of evidence, even circumstantial in nature and herein lies the very vast difference that escaped you attention. So, how does the shoe feel on your foot? > That portion of your story > was a major departure from reality. Since I am now an HRS blog > inductee, a victim of parody and a "private" individual why have you > not denounced the "nameless" authors or do you seriously believe I am > the author fo the HRS blog and Baccchetta and your associates are all > my hapless victims. The existence of the HRS blog does raise certain questions. What could have people associated with Bacchetta and BROL have done to provoke such a response? Do we assume that they are guilty of some grievous offense? Or alternatively, do we assume that the HRS blog author(s) is/are mentally ill and truly delusional, and believe in offenses from Bacchetta and BROL that did not really occur? Or a third possibility, the HRS blog author is using reverse psychology to gain support for Bacchetta and BROL [2]. Or could the HRS blog be a tool in a personal vendetta. The last possibility hardly stretches credibility, does it not? -- > Someone, not myself has made this accusation? Who? Your pseudonym ... Johnny Sunset. From the questions above it is obvious that you have picked sides and your friendship with the accused has obscured you objectivity. Yes, the very existence of the blog raises some questions, but why is it that all of your questions are decidedly one-sided? Never mind. That was a rhetorical question. There could be many reasons for the existence of the blog, most of which go beyond the scope of this discussion. A better questions might be these. Is the direction that blog has taken commensurate with whatever imagined offense may or may not have occurred? Why is it that only a small minority have issues with both BROL and Bacchetta? Who is the common denominator in all this? Are all the moderated forums, their readership and moderators wrong to have consistently ousted these same few people? Is this not the reason why Monkey Island forum came into existence? The existence of the blog is merely a new wrinkle in an old lineage that can be traced back years in newsgroup archives. A blog is an arena where those who are maligned have no avenue for rebuttal. It should be obvious that the blog format was deliberately chosen for presentation of HRS subject matter simply because the blog is a cyber-soapbox from which an uncontested monologue can be disgorged with no conduit for dissension ... no opportunity for disagreement. Those involved prefer to demonstrate their immaturity and spew their hatred without concern for a dissenting voice. Cowards avoid confrontation. Of course, it is absurdly unlikely, but not impossible, that the HRS blog is the work of a group of monkeys randomly pounding on computer keyboards. ;) I will state one thing again that I said at the very beginning of the discussion - there is in all likelihood more going on here than meet the eye (of the uninvolved alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent reader). -- > A fair statement for a change, but there is also much that is known from the discussion that has taken place in this regard. [1] Or to myself, except for what I remember. [2] Someone (not myself) has made this allegation. Jim McNaa   Date: 09 Dec 2005 15:52:40 From: Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! Tom, And might these some be the same some of Johnny NoCom post and HRS blog fame a some, I mean SUM of 3 along with some disgruntled Monkey Islanders in a support role? I know you only deal in facts and the facts are that you are fighting a losing battle. Everyone knows who the common denominator is in all this. You carry on though. Talk your crap until you are blue in the face. I am convinced that most have now lumped you in with those responsible and have turned a deaf ear to you long ago. Once again ... thanks for the three initial of those who you never admitted to being on your list that happened to match those on mine. I'll consider that a Xmas gift. Jim Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic wrote: > Edward Dolan wrote: > > "Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:1134116384.436370.249880@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > [...] > > > I can think of several people that dislike highracers, Bacchetta and > > > BROL that have never owned a carbon fiber composite splitter plate > > > lowracer. > > > > I am not into any of this blog stuff, but I would like your take on why > > others do not like BROL. I have of course stated my opinion many times that > > I just do not like to be scrutinized by a moderator (editor), but other than > > that, what is wrong with BROL? I never go there but even if I did I can't > > imagine what might be happening there that others would dislike it so. > > Some have accused the BROL moderators and/or editors of showing > favoritism in various ways towards their advertisers [1] and in > particular Bacchetta. Others have made claims in favoritism in how > discussions are moderated. These accusations have been posted on > several public forums (some of which may not have available archives). > > [1] This goes with the territory for any publication that accepts > advertising for products it reviews, regardless of how impartial the > editors attempt to be. > -- > Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley     Date: 16 Dec 2005 17:39:40 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! Jim McNaa <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com > wrote: > Tom, > > I'll not be goaded by your recent responses. I already stated that I > intend to waste no more time on you, however, the post below got lost > in the shuffle of multiple postings and was not responded to, so I > reposted it here. I think you will find the hypothetical notion that > you could be a child-molester portrayed in your your own style an > method of twisted reasoning to be enlightening assuming that I've not > overestimated your insightfullness. Whatever, you say Mr. McNaa. Can we take your statements of leaving the discussion as seriously as EdDolan's intentions of not posting to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent again? > > You see little circumstantial evidence because your friendship has > > obscured your objectivity. You see only what you want to see, but I > > don't recall that anyone ever fingered ED, maybe Ed Dolan, but I'm not > > positive. I said that I suspected his collaboration. I said that I > > suspected someone else in the JAG Alliance as the author.... > > Mr. McNaa is putting words into my mouth. I never denied the > circumstantial evidence, but have merely pointed out that it does NOT > AMOUNT TO PROOF. > > --> Mr. McNaa has simply pointed out that Mr. Sherman deliberately > lied when he stated that Mr. McNaa accused Ed Gin as the HRS blog > author. Mr. Sherman's highly touted comprehension skills are failing > him once again. Mr. McNaa didn't put words in Mr. Sherman's mouth. > Mr. McNaa made an observation. Clarification is impossible when > your adversary can neither read nor think clearly. Mr. McNaa made it perfectly clear who he was accusing. [YAWN] > > Now you > > stated that Ed Gin contacted Johnny NoCom who is not Ed Gin but whose > > known preferences in bicycles are a reasonable match for the HRS blog, > > but Johnny NoCom is not the HRS blog author and we have Ed Gin's word > > on that and your word that Ed Gin is not Johnny NoCom. Thanks for > > clearing that all up for us. > > Ed Gin wrote (in part) "I've contacted the multiiple parties who > AUTHORED the [Johnny NoCom] posts the last 4 months..." > <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent/msg/bebf518...>. > This information is publicly archived. > > --> What's your point? If you'd part you hair on the other side of > your head and you'll cover it up. When are you going to come to the > conclusion that the more you run your mouth the more everyone realizes > that you know more than you are willing to let on. Maybe I am just better at interpreting the publicly available evidence. > > I see you've run out of material and now recycling the same old > > grist through the mill. The ridiculous notion that I could possibly be > > the blog author has been beaten to death and even the dead horse has > > begun to complain. > > When someone is being deliberately obtuse, repetition is required. ;) > > --> You of vestigial intellect, must I be repetitious and again extend > my offer of $100,000? > > > A blog would demand way too much time. I would be facing a learning > > curve, since I've never done one and because it is graphics intensive. > > It is a bit easier when the task can be shared especially when two of > > those whom I suspect have a know expertise in that area, but do we > > really need anymore circumstantial evidence? A blog would be > > unsuitable for my purposes. It is a cowardly conduit because it is a > > monologue devoid of combat with your adversary and there is just no > > sport in that. > > The objections about a blog taking too much time and effort are comical > from someone who is willing to spend so much time posting to this and > related threads. ;) > > --> I'll not be doing this for much longer either for much the same > reason. I have devoted entirely too much of my time to Mr. Sherman who > is unworthy. Gratuitous insults from Mr. McNaa, since he can not challenge the main point of discussion - where is the DEFINITIVE PROOF OF THE HRS BLOG AUTHORSHIP? > As for the other objections, we would have to assume that Mr. McNaa > is neither cowardly nor unsportsmanlike. We really have no knowledge on > these points others than an analysis of Mr. McNaa's posts and > hearsay. While it may be true that Mr. McNaa is neither cowardly nor > unsportsmanlike, those qualities remain unproven (certainly in the > context of this forum) so Mr. McNaa's argument fails to convince. > > --> Mr. McNaa issued a simple statement of fact not subject to > debate. What followed was a reply in the form of mental masturbation > and linguistic gymnastic. Mr. Sherman is unwilling to take anything at > face value, preferring to twist and distort anything and everything > that is said. I could just as easily say that Mr. Sherman prides > himself in his comprehension skills and considers himself to be > logical. Whereas it could be said that Mr. Sherman is intelligent and > logical, it could also be said that Mr. Sherman is not intelligent and > not logical. Lacking proof to establish either statement to be either > true or false. Consequently, we must rely on analysis of the posts > made here by Mr. Sherman to arrive at a conclusion. Mr. McNaa did > that quite some time ago and there is every reason to believe that the > readership has done so as well. And it seems that the people that know Mr. McNaa have come to their own conclusions (and they are not pleasant). > > As Tom points has pointed out, I've had issues with certain > > individuals, two to be exact and one in particular. Now, if I were to > > author a blog, is it not logical to assume what my focus would be? > > Now, ask yourself, what is the focus of the HRS blog?... > > The unexpected nature of the Spanish Inquisition? > > --> BROL, Bacchetta, Rich Pinto, etc. Or maybe it is just coincidence that the names, products and organizations mentioned above by Mr. McNaa resemble those on the HRS blog? > > Don't cheat by > > looking at the title. I have gone on record to indicate that I have no > > issues with any form that a bicycle takes (including the NoCom), or > > with any Bacchetta employee or with BROL or its moderator. Now, ask > > yourself just what individuals have issues that the HRS blog happens to > > focus on? If you need a point of reference, look through the archives > > of the multitude of posts in various forums. There's no mystery here > > folks. You'll find parallels to the material in the HRS blog, but > > you'll not find me associated with any of it, although what you will > > discover will leave little doubt in your mind as to who the probable > > candidates are. Tom claims that I could easily copy the style of > > previous anonymous anti-Bachetta/BROL posts. Then again, in another > > post he boasted that he could do the same. Tom continues to confuse what > > could be done and what has been done and by whom. > > The above is irrelevant to my arguments. I am arguing what is > HYPOTHETICALLY POSSIBLE and WHAT IS PROVEN. The above does nothing to > contradict my position. > > --> The above is most relative to your arguments. There would not be > an HRS blog unless first there was motive. Whereas it cannot be proven > from any posts made by me that I share the issues that are the focus of > the HRS blog and its author(s), the same cannot be said of the > "accused" who's many archived posts stand in testimony to their motive. > Let me make this real simple for you, Tom. Archived posts indicate > who does and who does not have motive. Nowhere will any be found that > indicate that I have motive. Can the suspects say the same? There are plenty of archived posts indicating Mr. McNaa's feelings towards a certain person with the initials EG. This is plenty of evidence for motive. > > Tom the offer for $100,000 still stands. Prove that I am the author > > and collect your $100,000. You can't can you? Well then just go about > > your business. Rave and rant to your hearts content ...lunatic! > > The worthless offer, repeated yet again (Mr. McNaa is poor by his > own admission, yet has $100,000.00 in liquid assets?) followed by a > gratuitous insult. > > --> Mr. Sherman is evidently challenged by the vernacular. First he > asserted that if I Mr. McNaa can afford a residence, he can afford > DSL then Mr. Sherman makes Mr. McNaa out to be poor. One would thin > that Mr. Sherman take a position that he should adhere to it. Tom. I > don't have to contradict you because you contradict yourself. Must you > deliberately misconstrue everything? You only hear what you want to > hear, understand only what you want to understand, taking things > literally or figuratively as your whim or fancy suits you. When Mr. > McNaa said ... poor Mr. McNaa has a dial-up connection, did > anyone here understand that to mean to mean that Mr. McNaa was > poverty stricken like the unperceptive Mr. Sherman? Mr. Sherman is > apparently challenged by the vernacular. Mr. Sherman likes to use the > word proof. Mr. McNaa can easily provide proof that he has liquid > assets sufficient to cover the offer and is willing to produce such > evidence if Mr. Sherman will match Mr. McNaa's offer in a winner > take all. This can all be drawn up ... legal and binding. If I am > proven to be the author of the HRS blog, Mr. Sherman will be $100,000 > richer. If I am not proven to be the author of the HRS blog, I will be > $100,000 richer. Depending upon Mr. Sherman's level of confidence or > lack thereof, Mr. McNaa is willing to adjust these stakes up or down > accordingly. Will Mr. Sherman accept or will Mr. Sherman continue to > run his mouth rather than put his money where his mouth is? This offers is based on stupid illogic and twisting what I wrote. If this is the best Mr. McNaa can do, he is to be pitied. The onus is on Mr. McNaa to provide proof since he is the accuser. Can Mr. McNaa prove it is theoretically impossible for him to be the HRS blogger? I think not, and his attempts to argue differently have failed miserably. > -- > Tom Sherman - Deceased Equine Flagellator > > --> You mean to tell me, I've been arguing with a dead guy? > > I have had my fill of Tom Sherman's hypothetical poppycock. And I have had my fill of Mr. McNaa ACCUSING WITHOUT PROOF. > Hypothetically speaking, Mr. Sherman could be a child molester. Hypothetically speaking, Mr. McNaa could be a child murderer. > Whereas there is no proof to support the contention that Mr. Sherman is > a child molester, there is also no proof to support the contention that > he is not. Consequently, in the absence of such proof, it cannot be > said with any degree of certainty that Mr. Sherman is not a child > molester. Neither can it be said with any degree of certainly that Mr. McNaa is not a child murderer. Or someone who vandalizes the property of others - no need to mention the old accusations in detail, is there? > In the interim, until Mr. Sherman can produce definitive > proof that he is a child molester, that possibility must be maintained. Why would I provide definitive proof that I WAS a child molester (if I was one)? Huh? In the interim, until Mr. McNaa can produce definitive proof that he is not a child murderer; the possibility that Mr. McNaa is a child murderer must be maintained. > Does anyone see just how ridiculous Mr. Sherman's emulated > hypothetical "logic" can become? Do I have any reason to believe that > Mr. Sherman is a child molester? Do I have any reason to believe that Mr. McNaa is a child murderer? > NO... I do not. I merely endeavored to demonstrate just how easy it is > to employ Tom Sherman's style of tedious, hypothetical reasoning to > one's advantage regardless of how reasonable or fair it is to do so. > I've said all along that Tom likes to play. He just doesn't like to > play fairly. Because of this, I have simply lost interest. Lost interest = cut and run. -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley       Date: 16 Dec 2005 23:30:20 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1134783580.842191.285110@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > Jim McNaa <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Tom, >> >> I'll not be goaded by your recent responses. I already stated that I >> intend to waste no more time on you, however, the post below got lost >> in the shuffle of multiple postings and was not responded to, so I >> reposted it here. I think you will find the hypothetical notion that >> you could be a child-molester portrayed in your your own style an >> method of twisted reasoning to be enlightening assuming that I've not >> overestimated your insightfullness. > > Whatever, you say Mr. McNaa. Can we take your statements of leaving > the discussion as seriously as EdDolan's intentions of not posting to > alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent again? I am preparing a 6th and final farewell to ARBR. It is going to be a humdinger! [...] >> -- >> Tom Sherman - Deceased Equine Flagellator >> >> --> You mean to tell me, I've been arguing with a dead guy? >> >> I have had my fill of Tom Sherman's hypothetical poppycock. > > And I have had my fill of Mr. McNaa ACCUSING WITHOUT PROOF. > >> Hypothetically speaking, Mr. Sherman could be a child molester. > > Hypothetically speaking, Mr. McNaa could be a child murderer. [...] All that is known for sure at this point is that Ed Dolan is a Great Saint. He is known as Saint Edward the Great and belongs to his own very exclusive Order of the Perpetual Sorrows which is located in Worthington, Minnesota. Regards, Ed Dolan - Minnesota   Date: 09 Dec 2005 02:25:47 From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! Edward Dolan wrote: > "Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1134116384.436370.249880@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > [...] > > I can think of several people that dislike highracers, Bacchetta and > > BROL that have never owned a carbon fiber composite splitter plate > > lowracer. > > I am not into any of this blog stuff, but I would like your take on why > others do not like BROL. I have of course stated my opinion many times that > I just do not like to be scrutinized by a moderator (editor), but other than > that, what is wrong with BROL? I never go there but even if I did I can't > imagine what might be happening there that others would dislike it so. Some have accused the BROL moderators and/or editors of showing favoritism in various ways towards their advertisers [1] and in particular Bacchetta. Others have made claims in favoritism in how discussions are moderated. These accusations have been posted on several public forums (some of which may not have available archives). [1] This goes with the territory for any publication that accepts advertising for products it reviews, regardless of how impartial the editors attempt to be. -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley   Date: 09 Dec 2005 00:19:44 From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! Jim McNaa <jimmyma...@yahoo.com > wrote: > Tom, > > Sorry to disappoint, but your "story" did not strike a nerve, Actually > I found it fairly clever and even entertaining up to a point. Much of > what was said was quite telling with regard to what you really know > about all this.... There are no coincidental similarities between Johnny Sunset's [Most Fun Bike in the Known Universe] story and real life that require private information to see (but some information, like the posts on the Monkey Island board is no longer be accessible to the public) [1]. > If we had compared notes like I suggested, they would > have compared rather well as it seems.... I can think of several people that dislike highracers, Bacchetta and BROL that have never owned a carbon fiber composite splitter plate lowracer. > Even with the hypothetical > disclaimer however, I am reasonalby certain that you know that I am not > the author of the HRS blog and you should not have taken the liberty to > portray me (the protagonist) in that role.... I KNOW nothing of the sort. I may have OPINIONS and BELIEFS on the matter, but I do not KNOW that Mr. McNaa is not the author of the HRS blog. I though my position on this had been clearly stated enough times for everyone to understand I am dealing with facts here, not opinion based on circumstantial evidence. Although, the phrase "doth protest too loudly" may have passed the minds of some in this circumstance. It is interesting to note that someone who is willing to accuse without evidence is upset at the mere appearance of the shoe being on the other foot. There is a valuable lesson here, I believe to those who are willing to learn. > That portion of your story > was a major departure from reality. Since I am now an HRS blog > inductee, a victim of parody and a "private" individual why have you > not denounced the "nameless" authors or do you seriously believe I am > the author fo the HRS blog and Baccchetta and your associates are all > my hapless victims. The existence of the HRS blog does raise certain questions. What could have people associated with Bacchetta and BROL have done to provoke such a response? Do we assume that they are guilty of some grievous offense? Or alternatively, do we assume that the HRS blog author(s) is/are mentally ill and truly delusional, and believe in offenses from Bacchetta and BROL that did not really occur? Or a third possibility, the HRS blog author is using reverse psychology to gain support for Bacchetta and BROL [2]. Or could the HRS blog be a tool in a personal vendetta. The last possibility hardly stretches credibility, does it not? Of course, it is absurdly unlikely, but not impossible, that the HRS blog is the work of a group of monkeys randomly pounding on computer keyboards. ;) I will state one thing again that I said at the very beginning of the discussion - there is in all likelihood more going on here than meet the eye (of the uninvolved alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent reader). [1] Or to myself, except for what I remember. [2] Someone (not myself) has made this allegation. -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley     Date: 09 Dec 2005 03:06:40 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! "Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1134116384.436370.249880@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... [...] > I can think of several people that dislike highracers, Bacchetta and > BROL that have never owned a carbon fiber composite splitter plate > lowracer. I am not into any of this blog stuff, but I would like your take on why others do not like BROL. I have of course stated my opinion many times that I just do not like to be scrutinized by a moderator (editor), but other than that, what is wrong with BROL? I never go there but even if I did I can't imagine what might be happening there that others would dislike it so. Regards, Ed Dolan - Minnesota       Date: 15 Dec 2005 19:25:00 From: Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! Tom, I'll not be goaded by your recent responses. I already stated that I intend to waste no more time on you, however, the post below got lost in the shuffle of multiple postings and was not responded to, so I reposted it here. I think you will find the hypothetical notion that you could be a child-molester portrayed in your your own style an method of twisted reasoning to be enlightening assuming that I've not overestimated your insightfullness. > You see little circumstantial evidence because your friendship has > obscured your objectivity. You see only what you want to see, but I > don't recall that anyone ever fingered ED, maybe Ed Dolan, but I'm not > positive. I said that I suspected his collaboration. I said that I > suspected someone else in the JAG Alliance as the author.... Mr. McNaa is putting words into my mouth. I never denied the circumstantial evidence, but have merely pointed out that it does NOT AMOUNT TO PROOF. -- > Mr. McNaa has simply pointed out that Mr. Sherman deliberately lied when he stated that Mr. McNaa accused Ed Gin as the HRS blog author. Mr. Sherman's highly touted comprehension skills are failing him once again. Mr. McNaa didn't put words in Mr. Sherman's mouth. Mr. McNaa made an observation. Clarification is impossible when your adversary can neither read nor think clearly. > Now you > stated that Ed Gin contacted Johnny NoCom who is not Ed Gin but whose > known preferences in bicycles are a reasonable match for the HRS blog, > but Johnny NoCom is not the HRS blog author and we have Ed Gin's word > on that and your word that Ed Gin is not Johnny NoCom. Thanks for > clearing that all up for us. Ed Gin wrote (in part) "I've contacted the multiiple parties who AUTHORED the [Johnny NoCom] posts the last 4 months..." <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent/msg/bebf518... >. This information is publicly archived. -- > What's your point? If you'd part you hair on the other side of your head and you'll cover it up. When are you going to come to the conclusion that the more you run your mouth the more everyone realizes that you know more than you are willing to let on. > I see you've run out of material and now recycling the same old > grist through the mill. The ridiculous notion that I could possibly be > the blog author has been beaten to death and even the dead horse has > begun to complain. When someone is being deliberately obtuse, repetition is required. ;) -- > You of vestigial intellect, must I be repetitious and again extend my offer of $100,000? > A blog would demand way too much time. I would be facing a learning > curve, since I've never done one and because it is graphics intensive. > It is a bit easier when the task can be shared especially when two of > those whom I suspect have a know expertise in that area, but do we > really need anymore circumstantial evidence? A blog would be > unsuitable for my purposes. It is a cowardly conduit because it is a > monologue devoid of combat with your adversary and there is just no > sport in that. The objections about a blog taking too much time and effort are comical from someone who is willing to spend so much time posting to this and related threads. ;) -- > I'll not be doing this for much longer either for much the same reason. I have devoted entirely too much of my time to Mr. Sherman who is unworthy. As for the other objections, we would have to assume that Mr. McNaa is neither cowardly nor unsportsmanlike. We really have no knowledge on these points others than an analysis of Mr. McNaa's posts and hearsay. While it may be true that Mr. McNaa is neither cowardly nor unsportsmanlike, those qualities remain unproven (certainly in the context of this forum) so Mr. McNaa's argument fails to convince. -- > Mr. McNaa issued a simple statement of fact not subject to debate. What followed was a reply in the form of mental masturbation and linguistic gymnastic. Mr. Sherman is unwilling to take anything at face value, preferring to twist and distort anything and everything that is said. I could just as easily say that Mr. Sherman prides himself in his comprehension skills and considers himself to be logical. Whereas it could be said that Mr. Sherman is intelligent and logical, it could also be said that Mr. Sherman is not intelligent and not logical. Lacking proof to establish either statement to be either true or false. Consequently, we must rely on analysis of the posts made here by Mr. Sherman to arrive at a conclusion. Mr. McNaa did that quite some time ago and there is every reason to believe that the readership has done so as well. > As Tom points has pointed out, I've had issues with certain > individuals, two to be exact and one in particular. Now, if I were to > author a blog, is it not logical to assume what my focus would be? > Now, ask yourself, what is the focus of the HRS blog?... The unexpected nature of the Spanish Inquisition? -- > BROL, Bacchetta, Rich Pinto, etc. > Don't cheat by > looking at the title. I have gone on record to indicate that I have no > issues with any form that a bicycle takes (including the NoCom), or > with any Bacchetta employee or with BROL or its moderator. Now, ask > yourself just what individuals have issues that the HRS blog happens to > focus on? If you need a point of reference, look through the archives > of the multitude of posts in various forums. There's no mystery here > folks. You'll find parallels to the material in the HRS blog, but > you'll not find me associated with any of it, although what you will > discover will leave little doubt in your mind as to who the probable > candidates are. Tom claims that I could easily copy the style of > previous anonymous anti-Bachetta/BROL posts. Then again, in another > post he boasted that he could do the same. Tom continues to confuse what > could be done and what has been done and by whom. The above is irrelevant to my arguments. I am arguing what is HYPOTHETICALLY POSSIBLE and WHAT IS PROVEN. The above does nothing to contradict my position. -- > The above is most relative to your arguments. There would not be an HRS blog unless first there was motive. Whereas it cannot be proven from any posts made by me that I share the issues that are the focus of the HRS blog and its author(s), the same cannot be said of the "accused" who's many archived posts stand in testimony to their motive. Let me make this real simple for you, Tom. Archived posts indicate who does and who does not have motive. Nowhere will any be found that indicate that I have motive. Can the suspects say the same? > Tom the offer for $100,000 still stands. Prove that I am the author > and collect your $100,000. You can't can you? Well then just go about > your business. Rave and rant to your hearts content ...lunatic! The worthless offer, repeated yet again (Mr. McNaa is poor by his own admission, yet has $100,000.00 in liquid assets?) followed by a gratuitous insult. -- > Mr. Sherman is evidently challenged by the vernacular. First he asserted that if I Mr. McNaa can afford a residence, he can afford DSL then Mr. Sherman makes Mr. McNaa out to be poor. One would thin that Mr. Sherman take a position that he should adhere to it. Tom. I don't have to contradict you because you contradict yourself. Must you deliberately misconstrue everything? You only hear what you want to hear, understand only what you want to understand, taking things literally or figuratively as your whim or fancy suits you. When Mr. McNaa said ... poor Mr. McNaa has a dial-up connection, did anyone here understand that to mean to mean that Mr. McNaa was poverty stricken like the unperceptive Mr. Sherman? Mr. Sherman is apparently challenged by the vernacular. Mr. Sherman likes to use the word proof. Mr. McNaa can easily provide proof that he has liquid assets sufficient to cover the offer and is willing to produce such evidence if Mr. Sherman will match Mr. McNaa's offer in a winner take all. This can all be drawn up ... legal and binding. If I am proven to be the author of the HRS blog, Mr. Sherman will be $100,000 richer. If I am not proven to be the author of the HRS blog, I will be $100,000 richer. Depending upon Mr. Sherman's level of confidence or lack thereof, Mr. McNaa is willing to adjust these stakes up or down accordingly. Will Mr. Sherman accept or will Mr. Sherman continue to run his mouth rather than put his money where his mouth is? -- Tom Sherman - Deceased Equine Flagellator -- > You mean to tell me, I've been arguing with a dead guy? I have had my fill of Tom Sherman's hypothetical poppycock. Hypothetically speaking, Mr. Sherman could be a child molester. Whereas there is no proof to support the contention that Mr. Sherman is a child molester, there is also no proof to support the contention that he is not. Consequently, in the absence of such proof, it cannot be said with any degree of certainty that Mr. Sherman is not a child molester. In the interim, until Mr. Sherman can produce definitive proof that he is a child molester, that possibility must be maintained. Does anyone see just how ridiculous Mr. Sherman's emulated hypothetical "logic" can become? Do I have any reason to believe that Mr. Sherman is a child molester? NO... I do not. I merely endeavored to demonstrate just how easy it is to employ Tom Sherman's style of tedious, hypothetical reasoning to one's advantage regardless of how reasonable or fair it is to do so. I've said all along that Tom likes to play. He just doesn't like to play fairly. Because of this, I have simply lost interest. Jim McNaa > You see little circumstantial evidence because your friendship has > obscured your objectivity. You see only what you want to see, but I > don't recall that anyone ever fingered ED, maybe Ed Dolan, but I'm not > positive. I said that I suspected his collaboration. I said that I > suspected someone else in the JAG Alliance as the author.... Mr. McNaa is putting words into my mouth. I never denied the circumstantial evidence, but have merely pointed out that it does NOT AMOUNT TO PROOF. -- > Mr. McNaa has simply pointed out that Mr. Sherman deliberately lied when he stated that Mr. McNaa accused Ed Gin as the HRS blog author. Mr. Sherman's highly touted comprehension skills are failing him once again. Mr. McNaa didn't put words in Mr. Sherman's mouth. Mr. McNaa made an observation. Clarification is impossible when your adversary can neither read nor think clearly. > Now you > stated that Ed Gin contacted Johnny NoCom who is not Ed Gin but whose > known preferences in bicycles are a reasonable match for the HRS blog, > but Johnny NoCom is not the HRS blog author and we have Ed Gin's word > on that and your word that Ed Gin is not Johnny NoCom. Thanks for > clearing that all up for us. Ed Gin wrote (in part) "I've contacted the multiiple parties who AUTHORED the [Johnny NoCom] posts the last 4 months..." <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent/msg/bebf518... >. This information is publicly archived. -- > What's your point? If you'd part you hair on the other side of your head and you'll cover it up. When are you going to come to the conclusion that the more you run your mouth the more everyone realizes that you know more than you are willing to let on. > I see you've run out of material and now recycling the same old > grist through the mill. The ridiculous notion that I could possibly be > the blog author has been beaten to death and even the dead horse has > begun to complain. When someone is being deliberately obtuse, repetition is required. ;) -- > You of vestigial intellect, must I be repetitious and again extend my offer of $100,000? > A blog would demand way too much time. I would be facing a learning > curve, since I've never done one and because it is graphics intensive. > It is a bit easier when the task can be shared especially when two of > those whom I suspect have a know expertise in that area, but do we > really need anymore circumstantial evidence? A blog would be > unsuitable for my purposes. It is a cowardly conduit because it is a > monologue devoid of combat with your adversary and there is just no > sport in that. The objections about a blog taking too much time and effort are comical from someone who is willing to spend so much time posting to this and related threads. ;) -- > I'll not be doing this for much longer either for much the same reason. I have devoted entirely too much of my time to Mr. Sherman who is unworthy. As for the other objections, we would have to assume that Mr. McNaa is neither cowardly nor unsportsmanlike. We really have no knowledge on these points others than an analysis of Mr. McNaa's posts and hearsay. While it may be true that Mr. McNaa is neither cowardly nor unsportsmanlike, those qualities remain unproven (certainly in the context of this forum) so Mr. McNaa's argument fails to convince. -- > Mr. McNaa issued a simple statement of fact not subject to debate. What followed was a reply in the form of mental masturbation and linguistic gymnastic. Mr. Sherman is unwilling to take anything at face value, preferring to twist and distort anything and everything that is said. I could just as easily say that Mr. Sherman prides himself in his comprehension skills and considers himself to be logical. Whereas it could be said that Mr. Sherman is intelligent and logical, it could also be said that Mr. Sherman is not intelligent and not logical. Lacking proof to establish either statement to be either true or false. Consequently, we must rely on analysis of the posts made here by Mr. Sherman to arrive at a conclusion. Mr. McNaa did that quite some time ago and there is every reason to believe that the readership has done so as well. > As Tom points has pointed out, I've had issues with certain > individuals, two to be exact and one in particular. Now, if I were to > author a blog, is it not logical to assume what my focus would be? > Now, ask yourself, what is the focus of the HRS blog?... The unexpected nature of the Spanish Inquisition? -- > BROL, Bacchetta, Rich Pinto, etc. > Don't cheat by > looking at the title. I have gone on record to indicate that I have no > issues with any form that a bicycle takes (including the NoCom), or > with any Bacchetta employee or with BROL or its moderator. Now, ask > yourself just what individuals have issues that the HRS blog happens to > focus on? If you need a point of reference, look through the archives > of the multitude of posts in various forums. There's no mystery here > folks. You'll find parallels to the material in the HRS blog, but > you'll not find me associated with any of it, although what you will > discover will leave little doubt in your mind as to who the probable > candidates are. Tom claims that I could easily copy the style of > previous anonymous anti-Bachetta/BROL posts. Then again, in another > post he boasted that he could do the same. Tom continues to confuse what > could be done and what has been done and by whom. The above is irrelevant to my arguments. I am arguing what is HYPOTHETICALLY POSSIBLE and WHAT IS PROVEN. The above does nothing to contradict my position. -- > The above is most relative to your arguments. There would not be an HRS blog unless first there was motive. Whereas it cannot be proven from any posts made by me that I share the issues that are the focus of the HRS blog and its author(s), the same cannot be said of the "accused" who's many archived posts stand in testimony to their motive. Let me make this real simple for you, Tom. Archived posts indicate who does and who does not have motive. Nowhere will any be found that indicate that I have motive. Can the suspects say the same? > Tom the offer for $100,000 still stands. Prove that I am the author > and collect your $100,000. You can't can you? Well then just go about > your business. Rave and rant to your hearts content ...lunatic! The worthless offer, repeated yet again (Mr. McNaa is poor by his own admission, yet has $100,000.00 in liquid assets?) followed by a gratuitous insult. -- > Mr. Sherman is evidently challenged by the vernacular. First he asserted that if I Mr. McNaa can afford a residence, he can afford DSL then Mr. Sherman makes Mr. McNaa out to be poor. One would thin that Mr. Sherman take a position that he should adhere to it. Tom. I don't have to contradict you because you contradict yourself. Must you deliberately misconstrue everything? You only hear what you want to hear, understand only what you want to understand, taking things literally or figuratively as your whim or fancy suits you. When Mr. McNaa said ... poor Mr. McNaa has a dial-up connection, did anyone here understand that to mean to mean that Mr. McNaa was poverty stricken like the unperceptive Mr. Sherman? Mr. Sherman is apparently challenged by the vernacular. Mr. Sherman likes to use the word proof. Mr. McNaa can easily provide proof that he has liquid assets sufficient to cover the offer and is willing to produce such evidence if Mr. Sherman will match Mr. McNaa's offer in a winner take all. This can all be drawn up ... legal and binding. If I am proven to be the author of the HRS blog, Mr. Sherman will be $100,000 richer. If I am not proven to be the author of the HRS blog, I will be $100,000 richer. Depending upon Mr. Sherman's level of confidence or lack thereof, Mr. McNaa is willing to adjust these stakes up or down accordingly. Will Mr. Sherman accept or will Mr. Sherman continue to run his mouth rather than put his money where his mouth is? -- Tom Sherman - Deceased Equine Flagellator -- > You mean to tell me, I've been arguing with a dead guy? I have had my fill of Tom Sherman's hypothetical poppycock. Hypothetically speaking, Mr. Sherman could be a child molester. Whereas there is no proof to support the contention that Mr. Sherman is a child molester, there is also no proof to support the contention that he is not. Consequently, in the absence of such proof, it cannot be said with any degree of certainty that Mr. Sherman is not a child molester. In the interim, until Mr. Sherman can produce definitive proof that he is a child molester, that possibility must be maintained. Does anyone see just how ridiculous Mr. Sherman's emulated hypothetical "logic" can become? Do I have any reason to believe that Mr. Sherman is a child molester? NO... I do not. I merely endeavored to demonstrate just how easy it is to employ Tom Sherman's style of tedious, hypothetical reasoning to one's advantage regardless of how reasonable or fair it is to do so. I've said all along that Tom likes to play. He just doesn't like to play fairly. Because of this, I have simply lost interest. Jim McNaa       Date: 15 Dec 2005 18:01:35 From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! Jim McNaa <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com > wrote: > Tom, > > > Why does Mr. McNaa continue to insist on attacking certain? > > individuals as being responsible for the HRS blog when he is not the > > priy target? Mr. McNaa was not even mentioned in the HRS blog > > until he started directing accusation towards others without having any PROOF. > > --> Do you really think that I'm upset about being inducted into the > blog? I fully anticipated and expected the dunderheads to do exactly > that. I would have been disappointed if they hadn't acted accordingly. > I consider my induction into the HRS blog to be confirmation of those > whom I suspect and validation of their culpability. I have all the > PROOF that I need. Circumstantial evidence is PROOF. It is just not > PROOF that you deem acceptable, but that's not my problem. That's your > problem. Quit crying and deal with it. Why have I persisted? Well, > because I am convinced of who is responsible, dead set against what > they are doing and determined not to allow someone who is more of a > magician than a logician deter me. I see Mr. McNaa is still confused about what constitutes logical proof. > > --> Circumstantial evidence is an acceptable form of proof in a court > > of law. I guess maybe I came to someone's defense just the same as you > > have even though you allege that you have no dog in this fight. > > > Was Mr. McNaa looking for a fight with me before this issue of the > > HRS blog came up - if so the timing is an amusing coincidence? And if > > Mr. McNaa was looking to pick a fight, what does that say about him? > > > --> I see, without a smiley to serve as a cue card, you are unable to > > recognize humor. Lighten up, Tommy boy. For what it is worth in > > another post you wrote that you specifically were looking for a public > > fight, so I ask in turn what does this say about you. > > I like to argue about issues, not to denigrate others. The difference > ought to be obvious. > > --> Oh, it is obvious. You don't denigrate others. You defend those > who denigrate others. Readers, what does this say about Mr. Sherman? > If we have not been arguing about issues here, then would you please > explain to me just what it is that we have been doing? I am defending the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Mr. McNaa, by his arguments shows that he believes in guilty until proven innocent. > > The fact is that Mr. McNaa can not prove that he is not the author > > Of the HRS blog unless he proves another person (or persons) to be the > > author (or authors). Therefore, based on Mr. McNaa's criteria of > > basing guilt on circumstantial evidence and not proof, he becomes a > > probable candidate since his motive of wanting to discredit Ed Gin & > > Company is well documented. > > > --> WARNING ... WARNING Illogical Diversionary Tactics immediately > > above. You get more convoluted with each post. The fact is that no > > one (including Tom) has established that they are not the author of the > > HRS blog by Tom's own standard of proof, however it DOES NOT LOGICALLY > > FOLLOW that all who have not done so (including myself and the real > > authors) can realistically be considered probable (meaning likely or > > plausible candidates) in the absence of sufficient evidence in whatever > > form it takes including the circumstantial. Tom, do you really > > consider yourself to be a rational, logical person? The question > > remains, just where does the existing circumstantial evidence point? > > Please note that Tom has rapidly promoted me from a "hypothetical" to a > > "probable" candidate. Note also that it can just as easily be said > > that Tom has motive to discredit me because I am discrediting his > > buddies, but ask him and he will tell you that he has no dog in this > > fight, but I am sure you have noticed that Tom tends to bend the truth > > a might. Ask yourself this as well. If Mr. McNaa has reason to > > discredit Ed Gin & Company, wouldn't he author a blog focused upon > > those he desired to discredit rather than on Bacchetta? Just how much > > more ridiculous can Mr. Sherman get? To think that this man prides > > himself in his ability to think logically. Truth be told this is > > getting just too easy, but the repletion is becoming tedious. It is > > frustrating dealing with a blockhead. I'm getting bored with it all > > and may very well pull the plug soon. > > If I wanted to discredit Mr. McNaa, I could start a blog denigrating > Ed Gin. For the subject matter I would research all of Mr. McNaa's > old archived accusations against Ed Gin. Then, I would post messages to > public forum's accusing Mr. McNaa of authoring the blog, and the > circumstantial evidence would point to Mr. McNaa. See how easy this > is? > > --> You mean you'd go to all that trouble for me? I'm touched. Well, > don't sing it. Bring it. What's holding you back? Go for it. Easy > you say? It would entail a substantial amount of time and effort, but > I'm sure you know of a few experienced people who would be willing to > lend a helping hand. The way I see it, you missed your opportunity > when you announced how easily you could accomplish this. In any such > event, you wouldn't want to be the number one suspect. Besides, you're > probably too late. Your buddies might already be working on that > project. Fear not though. If this were to come to pass and if > someone were to identify you know who as the most likely culprits, you > can always step forward and assume the role of spokesperson in their > defense. You appear to be quite comfortable in that role. I do not think Mr. McNaa needs any help in establishing what his personality and beliefs are. > While I really do not suspect Mr. McNaa very highly of being the HRS > blog author, > > --> Now you did that on purpose. Are you trying to shock your > adversary to death with such a forthright admission? Regardless, I > appreciate your honesty, but you shouldn't suspect me at all. There is > not even a remote shred of circumstantial evidence to support the > possibility. But plenty of opportunity and motive, as I have pointed out. > it is funny the way he gets all wound up when his own > tactics of ACCUSING WITHOUT PROOF are turned against him (the whole > point of the Johnny Sunset story). Mr. McNaa has established his > double standard for all of alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent to see, so the > story served its purpose well. > > --> Equivocation. What's even more funny is the delight that you take > in mental masturbation and linguistic gymnastics. Oh, to be in favor of plodding prose, like Jim McNaa. > > So Mr. McNaa had a falling out with Ed Gin. Why not sleeping dogs > > lie [1]? > > > --> Mr. McNaa would HYPOTHETICALLY take that under advisement if > > perhaps it had come from another source. > > Mr. McNaa should have come to that conclusion before becoming > involved. In all likelihood, the HRS blog would never have mentioned > him if he had not ACCUSED OTHERS WHILE LACKING PROOF. > > --> Being included in the HRS blog doesn't trouble me. As I have > previously indicated, the author(s) of the blog would not have > responded in this matter if they were not the suspects in question. > Their response lends credence to the notion that they are and I thank > them profusely for tipping their hand. Again, Mr. McNaa presents hypothesis as proven fact. [YAWN] > > Without invading Mr. McNaa's privacy, we can not know what ISP > > services he does and does not have. If he can afford a place of > > residence, he can likely afford SBC DSL, since the overall cost is less > > than $20/month. > > > --> As usual. Drivel without substance. Affording a place of > > residence and being able to afford SBC DSL is not the issue at hand, > > but as long as you brought it up. My dialup connection works rather > > well for me as long as I don't have to do BIG downloads. Several > > broadband users have reked how well my internet connection works. I > > have taken great pains to teak my hardware and software to optimal > > performance. Up until a few years ago, SBC would not even sell me a > > DLS connection because I was beyond the recommended distance for the > > local telephone switching station. It has since changed its mind and > > neighbors of mine who have SBC DSL are experiencing abysmal > > performance. One down the street often has no connectivity for days at > > a time. As the price continues to drop, if I go broadband I will > > likely go with cable.... > > And support a monopoly? No thanks. > > --> In a feeble attempt at diversion, you deliberately missed my again. > I don't have SBC DSL for reasons of my own choosing, so I do not have > the same provider as the HRS blog author(s) and this is easily verified > as factual. Mr. McNaa has failed to convince that he could not have access to a Chicagoland SBC DSL account. > > You ask that I invade Ed Gin's privacy to obtain > > his ISP (as part an parcel of you required proof)... > > Assuming facts not in evidence again, I see. No one has proved Ed Gin > is responsible for the HRS blog like Mr. McNaa's statement implies. > This is getting to be a bad habit on Mr. McNaa's part. > > --> You are putting words in my mouth. The only assumption and > implication made here was made by Mr. Sherman. The facts in evidence > are that Mr. Sherman requested certain data as part and parcel of what > he would accept as proof, ISP number being one component, but that > could entail invasion of privacy. Mr. Sherman expressed having a > problem with that but had little difficulty expecting the same of > Mr.McNaa. I trust that clears things up for the imperceptible Mr. > Sherman. Mr. Sherman has repeated, and incorrectly, stated that I > have accused or implied that Ed Gin is the author of the HRS blog, but > he has failed to cite a single reference when and where Mr. McNaa > did this. This is becoming a bad habit on the part of Mr. Sherman's > part. I have repeatedly stated that I suspect someone else. How many > times must I repeat that before it sinks into that thick skull of > yours, dullard? You earned that gratuitous insult. Is anyone convinced that Mr. McNaa was not targeting Ed Gin? Sheesh! > > but are concerned > > about invading my privacy to obtain mine. There's something wrong with > > this picture. If someone is really interested, I could certainly > > provide the information in a verifiable form that would leave no doubt > > that I do not share an ISP used by the HRS blog culpable, but then I > > couldn't play out my $1000,000 hand now could I? > > The reward has increased to $1 million dollars? > > And I though you said you like to argue about issues. Predictably, > rather than address the issues, Mr. Sherman points out a typo. As for > the dollar amount, I could just as easily offer that amount fully > confident that I would never have to pay up, but I'll tell you what. > The current offer stands at $100,000. The stakes can either be raised > or lowered depending upon Mr. Sherman's level of confidence or lack > thereof. So what's it going to be? Are you going to put your money > where your mouth is or are you just going to keep running your mouth? By his own admission, Mr. McNaa is "poor", so obviously he does not have $100,000.00 in liquid assets, so his offer is worthless (for this and other reasons previously discussed). > Hypothetically speaking, Mr. McNaa could have SBC DSL at a secondary > address or be using the service of an acquaintance. How does one prove > a negative, anyhow? > > --> Mr. Sherman has an overactive imagination. Please note how Mr. > Sherman makes it impossible to meet his standard of proof. When Mr. > McNaa offers to prove who his ISP is, Mr. Sherman engages in a shell > game to simply introduce a secondary ISP at a secondary location. > Hypothetical ... hypothetical. Hypothetically speaking, Mr. Sherman > could be intelligent and logical, but..... Readers, remember I asked, > just how ridiculous will Mr. Sherman become? Well, I think you have to > agree the question has been answered. I will now extend my offer of > $100,000 to include Mr. Sherman's latest ruse. Please note that one > moment Mr. Sherman says that he really does not suspect Mr. McNaa > very highly of being the HRS blog author and the next he says that Mr. > McNaa could have SBC DSL at a secondary address or be using the > service of an acquaintance. Mr. Sherman has just finished painting a > revealing self-portrait of contradiction. There are ten of thousands (or more) Chicagoland residences with SBC DSL service. It would take constant surveillance of Mr. McNaa to prove he was not using one of them, so his contention of showing proof is ridiculous in practical terms. [YAWN] > > > Mr. McNaa's having access to the means and methods is hardly a > > > stretch. > > > > --> No, but what is a stretch is the unproven assumptions that ... 1. > > > Mr. McNaa has an internet account with the same provider as those > > > "accused" and 2. Mr. McNaa is a viable candidate to author the HRS > > > blog. He has gone on record that he has neither the time nor the > > > desire to do any such thing. How long will Mr. Sherman pursue this > > > inane diversion? Stay tuned as he fails to establish PROOF for either > > > unfounded allegation. #1 or #2. Hey, Mr. McNaa has said that he'd > > > even make it worth Mr. Sherman's while by extending that generous offer > > > of $100.000.00 to these two unsubstantiated allegations as well. You > > > know what is amusing in all this. If Mr. McNaa were to say crap > > > like this, Tommy boy would be on him like stink on shit, but as Mr. > > > McNaa so rightly pointed out in the past; Tom doesn't play by the > > > same set of rules that he expects his opposition to play by. That's > > > not very fair of him, now is it? > > > If Mr. McNaa has time to argue with me at length about his unfounded > > accusations, he should have time to create a simple blog. As for > > desire, his posts (recent and less recent) indicate a great desire to > > damage Ed Gin. The protests are not convincing. > > > --> Unfounded? I refer you to the mounting circumstantial evidence > > that you refuse to acknowledge. Mr. McNaa has made time to argue > > with you about much more than what you consider unfounded accusations. > > Since you like the term motive, ask yourself who has a motive to > > trash Bacchetta? FOG's? ;) > > Rhetorical question. From your previous posts, your > > own written words answer the question. If present and past posts > > indicate a great desire to damage Ed Gin, but are not convincing then > > what's all the fuss over Tom? This is as much about my desire not to > > see the reputation of Bacchetta, its bikes and the company damaged by a > > few malcontents with a grudge, but you don't recognize that. You call > > that acceptable parody of public figures. As defined by law, you are > > WRONG on this account, so you have more that just me to argue with in > > this matter. > > Bacchetta principals should stop insulting people ... > > --> Bacchetta principals? Who? Are you trying to turn the tables here > Tom? Oh that's right. The HRS blog isn't insulting. It's merely > parody and, for the most part acceptable parody, according to Mr. > Sherman, but insults .... now, that's where Mr.Sheman draws the line. Can you deny that a Bacchetta principal and at least two (2) "Killer B's" have insulted me in this very forum? The evidence is in the Google Group archives for all to see. > What a hypocrite ... not a gratuitous insult ... just an observation > and a conclusion readily drawn. The HRS blog has a specific objective > ... to denigrate. 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 merited and will be > haunted by. Remembered for the significant role that he played will be > their spokesperson and defender ... Tom Sherman. I am proud to defend the concept of INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, even though is has become an unpopular concept among the ruling classes and their misguided supporters in the 21st Century USA. -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley         Date: 16 Dec 2005 04:26:40 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! "Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1134696895.716798.38380@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Jim McNaa <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Tom, >> >> > Why does Mr. McNaa continue to insist on attacking certain? >> > individuals as being responsible for the HRS blog when he is not the >> > priy target? Mr. McNaa was not even mentioned in the HRS blog >> > until he started directing accusation towards others without having any >> > PROOF. >> >> --> Do you really think that I'm upset about being inducted into the >> blog? I fully anticipated and expected the dunderheads to do exactly >> that. I would have been disappointed if they hadn't acted accordingly. >> I consider my induction into the HRS blog to be confirmation of those >> whom I suspect and validation of their culpability. I have all the >> PROOF that I need. Circumstantial evidence is PROOF. It is just not >> PROOF that you deem acceptable, but that's not my problem. That's your >> problem. Quit crying and deal with it. Why have I persisted? Well, >> because I am convinced of who is responsible, dead set against what >> they are doing and determined not to allow someone who is more of a >> magician than a logician deter me. > > I see Mr. McNaa is still confused about what constitutes logical > proof. I see Mr. Sherman is still confused about what circumstantial evidence is all about. And he does not have a clue about logic, but who does. Unless you have taken college course in logic it is just a word that you appeal to to make yourself sound ster than you are. >> > --> Circumstantial evidence is an acceptable form of proof in a court >> > of law. I guess maybe I came to someone's defense just the same as you >> > have even though you allege that you have no dog in this fight. >> >> > Was Mr. McNaa looking for a fight with me before this issue of the >> > HRS blog came up - if so the timing is an amusing coincidence? And if >> > Mr. McNaa was looking to pick a fight, what does that say about him? >> >> > --> I see, without a smiley to serve as a cue card, you are unable to >> > recognize humor. Lighten up, Tommy boy. For what it is worth in >> > another post you wrote that you specifically were looking for a public >> > fight, so I ask in turn what does this say about you. >> >> I like to argue about issues, not to denigrate others. The difference >> ought to be obvious. >> >> --> Oh, it is obvious. You don't denigrate others. You defend those >> who denigrate others. Readers, what does this say about Mr. Sherman? >> If we have not been arguing about issues here, then would you please >> explain to me just what it is that we have been doing? > > I am defending the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Mr. > McNaa, by his arguments shows that he believes in guilty until > proven innocent. Mr. Sherman is defending his good buddy Ed Gin, the criminal vandal troll who wrecked this newsgroup last winter, and that is all he is doing. >> > The fact is that Mr. McNaa can not prove that he is not the author >> > Of the HRS blog unless he proves another person (or persons) to be the >> > author (or authors). Therefore, based on Mr. McNaa's criteria of >> > basing guilt on circumstantial evidence and not proof, he becomes a >> > probable candidate since his motive of wanting to discredit Ed Gin & >> > Company is well documented. >> >> > --> WARNING ... WARNING Illogical Diversionary Tactics immediately >> > above. You get more convoluted with each post. The fact is that no >> > one (including Tom) has established that they are not the author of the >> > HRS blog by Tom's own standard of proof, however it DOES NOT LOGICALLY >> > FOLLOW that all who have not done so (including myself and the real >> > authors) can realistically be considered probable (meaning likely or >> > plausible candidates) in the absence of sufficient evidence in whatever >> > form it takes including the circumstantial. Tom, do you really >> > consider yourself to be a rational, logical person? The question >> > remains, just where does the existing circumstantial evidence point? >> > Please note that Tom has rapidly promoted me from a "hypothetical" to a >> > "probable" candidate. Note also that it can just as easily be said >> > that Tom has motive to discredit me because I am discrediting his >> > buddies, but ask him and he will tell you that he has no dog in this >> > fight, but I am sure you have noticed that Tom tends to bend the truth >> > a might. Ask yourself this as well. If Mr. McNaa has reason to >> > discredit Ed Gin & Company, wouldn't he author a blog focused upon >> > those he desired to discredit rather than on Bacchetta? Just how much >> > more ridiculous can Mr. Sherman get? To think that this man prides >> > himself in his ability to think logically. Truth be told this is >> > getting just too easy, but the repletion is becoming tedious. It is >> > frustrating dealing with a blockhead. I'm getting bored with it all >> > and may very well pull the plug soon. >> >> If I wanted to discredit Mr. McNaa, I could start a blog denigrating >> Ed Gin. For the subject matter I would research all of Mr. McNaa's >> old archived accusations against Ed Gin. Then, I would post messages to >> public forum's accusing Mr. McNaa of authoring the blog, and the >> circumstantial evidence would point to Mr. McNaa. See how easy this >> is? >> >> --> You mean you'd go to all that trouble for me? I'm touched. Well, >> don't sing it. Bring it. What's holding you back? Go for it. Easy >> you say? It would entail a substantial amount of time and effort, but >> I'm sure you know of a few experienced people who would be willing to >> lend a helping hand. The way I see it, you missed your opportunity >> when you announced how easily you could accomplish this. In any such >> event, you wouldn't want to be the number one suspect. Besides, you're >> probably too late. Your buddies might already be working on that >> project. Fear not though. If this were to come to pass and if >> someone were to identify you know who as the most likely culprits, you >> can always step forward and assume the role of spokesperson in their >> defense. You appear to be quite comfortable in that role. > > I do not think Mr. McNaa needs any help in establishing what his > personality and beliefs are. Mr. McNaa has never once yet acted like a criminal vandal troll. That honor is reserved for your good buddy, Ed Gin. >> While I really do not suspect Mr. McNaa very highly of being the HRS >> blog author, >> >> --> Now you did that on purpose. Are you trying to shock your >> adversary to death with such a forthright admission? Regardless, I >> appreciate your honesty, but you shouldn't suspect me at all. There is >> not even a remote shred of circumstantial evidence to support the >> possibility. > > But plenty of opportunity and motive, as I have pointed out. Mr. Sherman is being absurd. But that is how he often deals with an issue when he can't deal with it any other way. All I want to know is who killed this newsgroup last winter. It was not me, it was not Sherman and it was not McNaa. Was it your good buddy Ed Gin maybe? >> it is funny the way he gets all wound up when his own >> tactics of ACCUSING WITHOUT PROOF are turned against him (the whole >> point of the Johnny Sunset story). Mr. McNaa has established his >> double standard for all of alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent to see, so the >> story served its purpose well. >> >> --> Equivocation. What's even more funny is the delight that you take >> in mental masturbation and linguistic gymnastics. > > Oh, to be in favor of plodding prose, like Jim McNaa. > >> > So Mr. McNaa had a falling out with Ed Gin. Why not sleeping dogs >> > lie [1]? >> >> > --> Mr. McNaa would HYPOTHETICALLY take that under advisement if >> > perhaps it had come from another source. >> >> Mr. McNaa should have come to that conclusion before becoming >> involved. In all likelihood, the HRS blog would never have mentioned >> him if he had not ACCUSED OTHERS WHILE LACKING PROOF. >> >> --> Being included in the HRS blog doesn't trouble me. As I have >> previously indicated, the author(s) of the blog would not have >> responded in this matter if they were not the suspects in question. >> Their response lends credence to the notion that they are and I thank >> them profusely for tipping their hand. > > Again, Mr. McNaa presents hypothesis as proven fact. [YAWN] The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. Only Mr. Sherman is blind. >> > Without invading Mr. McNaa's privacy, we can not know what ISP >> > services he does and does not have. If he can afford a place of >> > residence, he can likely afford SBC DSL, since the overall cost is less >> > than $20/month. >> >> > --> As usual. Drivel without substance. Affording a place of >> > residence and being able to afford SBC DSL is not the issue at hand, >> > but as long as you brought it up. My dialup connection works rather >> > well for me as long as I don't have to do BIG downloads. Several >> > broadband users have reked how well my internet connection works. I >> > have taken great pains to teak my hardware and software to optimal >> > performance. Up until a few years ago, SBC would not even sell me a >> > DLS connection because I was beyond the recommended distance for the >> > local telephone switching station. It has since changed its mind and >> > neighbors of mine who have SBC DSL are experiencing abysmal >> > performance. One down the street often has no connectivity for days at >> > a time. As the price continues to drop, if I go broadband I will >> > likely go with cable.... >> >> And support a monopoly? No thanks. Who cares about that? All I ever want is the least cost way of doing something. >> --> In a feeble attempt at diversion, you deliberately missed my again. >> I don't have SBC DSL for reasons of my own choosing, so I do not have >> the same provider as the HRS blog author(s) and this is easily verified >> as factual. > > Mr. McNaa has failed to convince that he could not have access to a > Chicagoland SBC DSL account. > >> > You ask that I invade Ed Gin's privacy to obtain >> > his ISP (as part an parcel of you required proof)... >> >> Assuming facts not in evidence again, I see. No one has proved Ed Gin >> is responsible for the HRS blog like Mr. McNaa's statement implies. >> This is getting to be a bad habit on Mr. McNaa's part. >> >> --> You are putting words in my mouth. The only assumption and >> implication made here was made by Mr. Sherman. The facts in evidence >> are that Mr. Sherman requested certain data as part and parcel of what >> he would accept as proof, ISP number being one component, but that >> could entail invasion of privacy. Mr. Sherman expressed having a >> problem with that but had little difficulty expecting the same of >> Mr.McNaa. I trust that clears things up for the imperceptible Mr. >> Sherman. Mr. Sherman has repeated, and incorrectly, stated that I >> have accused or implied that Ed Gin is the author of the HRS blog, but >> he has failed to cite a single reference when and where Mr. McNaa >> did this. This is becoming a bad habit on the part of Mr. Sherman's >> part. I have repeatedly stated that I suspect someone else. How many >> times must I repeat that before it sinks into that thick skull of >> yours, dullard? You earned that gratuitous insult. > > Is anyone convinced that Mr. McNaa was not targeting Ed Gin? Sheesh! I don't know what is happening on the blogs nor do I care, but I sure do know what happened here on ARBR last winter. There was only one criminal vandal troll here and it was your good buddy Ed Gin. >> > but are concerned >> > about invading my privacy to obtain mine. There's something wrong with >> > this picture. If someone is really interested, I could certainly >> > provide the information in a verifiable form that would leave no doubt >> > that I do not share an ISP used by the HRS blog culpable, but then I >> > couldn't play out my $1000,000 hand now could I? >> >> The reward has increased to $1 million dollars? [YAWN!] >> And I though you said you like to argue about issues. Predictably, >> rather than address the issues, Mr. Sherman points out a typo. As for >> the dollar amount, I could just as easily offer that amount fully >> confident that I would never have to pay up, but I'll tell you what. >> The current offer stands at $100,000. The stakes can either be raised >> or lowered depending upon Mr. Sherman's level of confidence or lack >> thereof. So what's it going to be? Are you going to put your money >> where your mouth is or are you just going to keep running your mouth? > > By his own admission, Mr. McNaa is "poor", so obviously he does not > have $100,000.00 in liquid assets, so his offer is worthless (for this > and other reasons previously discussed). [YAWN!] >> Hypothetically speaking, Mr. McNaa could have SBC DSL at a secondary >> address or be using the service of an acquaintance. How does one prove >> a negative, anyhow? [YAWN!] >> --> Mr. Sherman has an overactive imagination. Please note how Mr. >> Sherman makes it impossible to meet his standard of proof. When Mr. >> McNaa offers to prove who his ISP is, Mr. Sherman engages in a shell >> game to simply introduce a secondary ISP at a secondary location. >> Hypothetical ... hypothetical. Hypothetically speaking, Mr. Sherman >> could be intelligent and logical, but..... Readers, remember I asked, >> just how ridiculous will Mr. Sherman become? Well, I think you have to >> agree the question has been answered. I will now extend my offer of >> $100,000 to include Mr. Sherman's latest ruse. Please note that one >> moment Mr. Sherman says that he really does not suspect Mr. McNaa >> very highly of being the HRS blog author and the next he says that Mr. >> McNaa could have SBC DSL at a secondary address or be using the >> service of an acquaintance. Mr. Sherman has just finished painting a >> revealing self-portrait of contradiction. > > There are ten of thousands (or more) Chicagoland residences with SBC > DSL service. It would take constant surveillance of Mr. McNaa to > prove he was not using one of them, so his contention of showing proof > is ridiculous in practical terms. [YAWN] [YAWN!] >> > > Mr. McNaa's having access to the means and methods is hardly a >> > > stretch. >> >> > > --> No, but what is a stretch is the unproven assumptions that ... 1. >> > > Mr. McNaa has an internet account with the same provider as those >> > > "accused" and 2. Mr. McNaa is a viable candidate to author the HRS >> > > blog. He has gone on record that he has neither the time nor the >> > > desire to do any such thing. How long will Mr. Sherman pursue this >> > > inane diversion? Stay tuned as he fails to establish PROOF for >> > > either >> > > unfounded allegation. #1 or #2. Hey, Mr. McNaa has said that >> > > he'd >> > > even make it worth Mr. Sherman's while by extending that generous >> > > offer >> > > of $100.000.00 to these two unsubstantiated allegations as well. You >> > > know what is amusing in all this. If Mr. McNaa were to say crap >> > > like this, Tommy boy would be on him like stink on shit, but as Mr. >> > > McNaa so rightly pointed out in the past; Tom doesn't play by the >> > > same set of rules that he expects his opposition to play by. That's >> > > not very fair of him, now is it? >> >> > If Mr. McNaa has time to argue with me at length about his unfounded >> > accusations, he should have time to create a simple blog. As for >> > desire, his posts (recent and less recent) indicate a great desire to >> > damage Ed Gin. The protests are not convincing. >> >> > --> Unfounded? I refer you to the mounting circumstantial evidence >> > that you refuse to acknowledge. Mr. McNaa has made time to argue >> > with you about much more than what you consider unfounded accusations. >> > Since you like the term motive, ask yourself who has a motive to >> > trash Bacchetta? > > FOG's? ;) Translation, please? >> > Rhetorical question. From your previous posts, your >> > own written words answer the question. If present and past posts >> > indicate a great desire to damage Ed Gin, but are not convincing then >> > what's all the fuss over Tom? This is as much about my desire not to >> > see the reputation of Bacchetta, its bikes and the company damaged by a >> > few malcontents with a grudge, but you don't recognize that. You call >> > that acceptable parody of public figures. As defined by law, you are >> > WRONG on this account, so you have more that just me to argue with in >> > this matter. >> >> Bacchetta principals should stop insulting people ... >> >> --> Bacchetta principals? Who? Are you trying to turn the tables here >> Tom? Oh that's right. The HRS blog isn't insulting. It's merely >> parody and, for the most part acceptable parody, according to Mr. >> Sherman, but insults .... now, that's where Mr.Sheman draws the line. > > Can you deny that a Bacchetta principal and at least two (2) "Killer > B's" have insulted me in this very forum? The evidence is in the Google > Group archives for all to see. I am thinking about going back full time to doing nothing but insulting you. I can feel my evil genius getting the best of me. Dark rainbows are forming all around me. Help! Indiana Mike! >> What a hypocrite ... not a gratuitous insult ... just an observation >> and a conclusion readily drawn. The HRS blog has a specific objective >> ... to denigrate. 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 merited and will be >> haunted by. Remembered for the significant role that he played will be >> their spokesperson and defender ... Tom Sherman. > > I am proud to defend the concept of INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, even > though is has become an unpopular concept among the ruling classes and > their misguided supporters in the 21st Century USA. EVERYONE IS GUILTY (of something) - PERIOD! I say off with their heads! And may the Devil take the hindmost! Regards, Ed Dolan - Minnesota           Date: 16 Dec 2005 20:20:15 From: Mike Rice Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 04:26:40 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote: >> >> FOG's? ;) > >Translation, please? Fat Old Guys. Most commonly used term at the blog in question. According to the propaganda FOG's are the main source for customers of the attacked product line. >>> Tom? Oh that's right. The HRS blog isn't insulting. It's merely >>> parody and, for the most part acceptable parody, according to Mr. >>> Sherman, but insults .... now, that's where Mr.Sheman draws the line. >> >> Can you deny that a Bacchetta principal and at least two (2) "Killer >> B's" have insulted me in this very forum? The evidence is in the Google >> Group archives for all to see. > >I am thinking about going back full time to doing nothing but insulting you. >I can feel my evil genius getting the best of me. Dark rainbows are forming >all around me. Help! Indiana Mike! If you're expecting me to join in the insulting of Mr. Sherman you will have a long wait (1). Ed Gin's posts were a pain, buit so were a lot of yours in those days. I'm afraid I probably contributed to some of the threads that drove off some folks. I'm pretty sure it was your outrageous over-reaction and insults that drove off Larry Varney, and who knows how many others. The criminal vandal troll will certainly never apologize for his behavior, but I believe you may have come to regret some of the vino induced behaviour you have occasionally displayed here in the past. Of coarse I do realize that the Great Ed Dolan is the very model of perfection, etc., yada yada yada, so I know your 'Help!' above is merely an example of your current finess approach to your favorite hobby. > >>> What a hypocrite ... not a gratuitous insult ... just an observation >>> and a conclusion readily drawn. The HRS blog has a specific objective >>> ... to denigrate. 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 merited and will be >>> haunted by. Remembered for the significant role that he played will be >>> their spokesperson and defender ... Tom Sherman. >> >> I am proud to defend the concept of INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, even >> though is has become an unpopular concept among the ruling classes and >> their misguided supporters in the 21st Century USA. > >EVERYONE IS GUILTY (of something) - PERIOD! I say off with their heads! And >may the Devil take the hindmost! >Regards, > >Ed Dolan - Minnesota After all the instructional messages aimed at Wayne Logo you are disappionting me here. I didn't think Ed Dolan would be into necropheliac satanic anal sex. Indiana Mike (1) Although having used that talking horse epitath in the past I hereby suggest whenever one sees the name "Mr. Sherman" one ask one's self "Where's Peabody?"             Date: 16 Dec 2005 23:12:11 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! "Mike Rice" <jodymike@gte.net > wrote in message news:ar66q15t4ksgtlai7in20dlsh7ktmdd8j1@4ax.com... > On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 04:26:40 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> > wrote: > > >>> >>> FOG's? ;) >> >>Translation, please? > > Fat Old Guys. Most commonly used term at the blog in question. > According to the propaganda FOG's are the main source for customers of > the attacked product line. Hells, Bells! FOG's are the main source for 95% of ALL recumbents sold. What else is new? >>>> Tom? Oh that's right. The HRS blog isn't insulting. It's merely >>>> parody and, for the most part acceptable parody, according to Mr. >>>> Sherman, but insults .... now, that's where Mr.Sheman draws the line. >>> >>> Can you deny that a Bacchetta principal and at least two (2) "Killer >>> B's" have insulted me in this very forum? The evidence is in the Google >>> Group archives for all to see. >> >>I am thinking about going back full time to doing nothing but insulting >>you. >>I can feel my evil genius getting the best of me. Dark rainbows are >>forming >>all around me. Help! Indiana Mike! > > If you're expecting me to join in the insulting of Mr. Sherman you > will have a long wait (1). I can handle Mr. Sherman just fine all by myself, thank you very much! Ed Gin's posts were a pain, buit so were a > lot of yours in those days. Gin's posts and mine are not comparable in any way, except at the end when I was just thowing his posts back in his face. Try at least to be fair. I'm afraid I probably contributed to some > of the threads that drove off some folks. No, you are the soul of gentleness and not mean and viscous like Ed Dolan and Tom Sherman. You could never drive off anyone from this newsgroup. That takes talent! I'm pretty sure it was your > outrageous over-reaction and insults that drove off Larry Varney, and > who knows how many others. The criminal vandal troll will certainly > never apologize for his behavior, but I believe you may have come to > regret some of the vino induced behaviour you have occasionally > displayed here in the past. No, Varney was an old coot and he deserved everything he ever got from me. However, you are most certainly right about Ed Gin. He is nothing but a criminal vandal troll (and crazy besides) and anyone who wastes any time and effort on him is incredibly stupid. He single handedly destroyed this newsgroup last winter. Don't believe me? Go back and have look at the Google statistics for 2005 and you will see that the great falling off was in ch after what took place in February. The newsgroup has never recovered from that assault. Regards, Ed Dolan - Minnesota       Date: 15 Dec 2005 17:15:03 From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! Jim McNaa <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com > wrote: > Readers, > > Sorry for the inadvertent multiple posts. Google is again returning > server error messages. It coud be that posts are successful even when > the error message indicates otherwise. I find this alone reason enough > to call it quits. Operator error is most likely the case, since others posting through the Google Groups interface do not have the same problem. -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley         Date: 16 Dec 2005 04:40:06 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! "Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1134695703.595018.64760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > > Jim McNaa <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Readers, >> >> Sorry for the inadvertent multiple posts. Google is again returning >> server error messages. It coud be that posts are successful even when >> the error message indicates otherwise. I find this alone reason enough >> to call it quits. > > Operator error is most likely the case, since others posting through > the Google Groups interface do not have the same problem. > -- > Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley Tom, I had many difficulties in the old days when I was using Google Groups exclusively. One thing I have learned in my brief career on the computer is never to pretend to know what is causing what on someone else's computer. Hells Bells, I do not even have a clue most of the time what is causing my computer to keep going belly up. If I may be so bold as to say so, I think the computer and the Internet are seriously flawed technologies. However, in the end it won't matter as it will all be taken over by the same people who ruined radio and TV. Screw them all the way to Hell and back! Books and magazines have never presented any technological problem for me. Maybe that is why I prefer them to all other technologies. I maintain that the invention of the printing press was the greatest invention ever. It made it possible for there to be lots of intelligent people in society. Can as much said for the radio, the TV, the computer and the Internet? Regards, Ed Dolan - Minnesota   Date: 08 Dec 2005 23:48:35 From: Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! Tom, Sorry to disappoint, but your "story" did not strike a nerve, Actually I found it fairly clever and even entertaining up to a point. Much of what was said was quite telling with regard to what you really know about all this. If we had compared notes like I suggested, they would have compared rather well as it seems. Even with the hypothetical disclaimer however, I am reasonalby certain that you know that I am not the author of the HRS blog and you should not have taken the liberty to portray me (the protagonist) in that role. That portion of your story was a major departure from reality. Since I am now an HRS blog inductee, a victim of parody and a "private" individual why have you not denounced the "nameless" authors or do you seriously believe I am the author fo the HRS blog and Baccchetta and your associates are all my hapless victims. Jim     Date: 15 Dec 2005 08:22:52 From: Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! Readers, Sorry for the inadvertent multiple posts. Google is again returning server error messages. It coud be that posts are successful even when the error message indicates otherwise. I find this alone reason enough to call it quits. Jim McNaa       Date: 18 Dec 2005 21:13:33 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! Edward Dolan wrote: > ... > I am seriously thinking about going down to my dirt floor basement and > putting a bullet through my head.... HE SHOOTS! HE SCORES! -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley       Date: 18 Dec 2005 12:12:26 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! Mike Rice wrote: > On 18 Dec 2005 10:20:58 -0800, "Johnny Sunset" > <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote: > <snip> > > > >Since Mr. McNaa seems to have trouble staying with the point of > >discussion, I will repeat the question for his benefit. > > > >Mr. McNaa, WHERE IS THE PROOF THAT PEOPLE WITH THE INITIALS J, A AND > >G ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE HRS BLOG? > > > >The world eagerly awaits the presentation by Mr. McNaa of the > >definitive proof of HRS blog authorship. > > I imagine the issue will be sidestepped. Mr. Sherman will likely be > accused of 'protecting his buddies' instead of defending the concept > of presumed innocence. > > Mr. McNaa's appeals to the readership are noted, but I fear there > is not much more than Mr. Dolan, myself, and perhaps oneor two others > bothering to read this worked-over diatribe so long after anynew > points have been made. We can settle this right now. Mr. McNaa can present DEFINITIVE PROOF (not a hypothesis and some weak circumstantial evidence) of the authorship of the HRS blog, or he can admit he really does not know, and therefore should not be presenting the accusation. All the rest is an attempt to divert attention from the main point. This is as simple as Lorenzo (not Leonard) L. Love asking if someone would pay full retail price for a BigHa. -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley     Date: 15 Dec 2005 07:36:40 From: Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! Tom, > You see little circumstantial evidence because your friendship has > obscured your objectivity. You see only what you want to see, but I > don't recall that anyone ever fingered ED, maybe Ed Dolan, but I'm not > positive. I said that I suspected his collaboration. I said that I > suspected someone else in the JAG Alliance as the author.... Mr. McNaa is putting words into my mouth. I never denied the circumstantial evidence, but have merely pointed out that it does NOT AMOUNT TO PROOF. -- > Mr. McNaa has simply pointed out that Mr. Sherman deliberately lied when he stated that Mr. McNaa accused Ed Gin as the HRS blog author. Mr. Sherman's highly touted comprehension skills are failing him once again. Mr. McNaa didn't put words in Mr. Sherman's mouth. Mr. McNaa made an observation. Clarification is impossible when your adversary can neither read nor think clearly. > Now you > stated that Ed Gin contacted Johnny NoCom who is not Ed Gin but whose > known preferences in bicycles are a reasonable match for the HRS blog, > but Johnny NoCom is not the HRS blog author and we have Ed Gin's word > on that and your word that Ed Gin is not Johnny NoCom. Thanks for > clearing that all up for us. Ed Gin wrote (in part) "I've contacted the multiiple parties who AUTHORED the [Johnny NoCom] posts the last 4 months..." <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent/msg/bebf518... >. This information is publicly archived. -- > What's your point? If you'd part you hair on the other side of your head and you'll cover it up. When are you going to come to the conclusion that the more you run your mouth the more everyone realizes that you know more than you are willing to let on. > I see you've run out of material and now recycling the same old > grist through the mill. The ridiculous notion that I could possibly be > the blog author has been beaten to death and even the dead horse has > begun to complain. When someone is being deliberately obtuse, repetition is required. ;) -- > You of vestigial intellect, must I be repetitious and again extend my offer of $100,000? > A blog would demand way too much time. I would be facing a learning > curve, since I've never done one and because it is graphics intensive. > It is a bit easier when the task can be shared especially when two of > those whom I suspect have a know expertise in that area, but do we > really need anymore circumstantial evidence? A blog would be > unsuitable for my purposes. It is a cowardly conduit because it is a > monologue devoid of combat with your adversary and there is just no > sport in that. The objections about a blog taking too much time and effort are comical from someone who is willing to spend so much time posting to this and related threads. ;) -- > I'll not be doing this for much longer either for much the same reason. I have devoted entirely too much of my time to Mr. Sherman who is unworthy. As for the other objections, we would have to assume that Mr. McNaa is neither cowardly nor unsportsmanlike. We really have no knowledge on these points others than an analysis of Mr. McNaa's posts and hearsay. While it may be true that Mr. McNaa is neither cowardly nor unsportsmanlike, those qualities remain unproven (certainly in the context of this forum) so Mr. McNaa's argument fails to convince. -- > Mr. McNaa issued a simple statement of fact not subject to debate. What followed was a reply in the form of mental masturbation and linguistic gymnastic. Mr. Sherman is unwilling to take anything at face value, preferring to twist and distort anything and everything that is said. I could just as easily say that Mr. Sherman prides himself in his comprehension skills and considers himself to be logical. Whereas it could be said that Mr. Sherman is intelligent and logical, it could also be said that Mr. Sherman is not intelligent and not logical. Lacking proof to establish either statement to be either true or false. Consequently, we must rely on analysis of the posts made here by Mr. Sherman to arrive at a conclusion. Mr. McNaa did that quite some time ago and there is every reason to believe that the readership has done so as well. > As Tom points has pointed out, I've had issues with certain > individuals, two to be exact and one in particular. Now, if I were to > author a blog, is it not logical to assume what my focus would be? > Now, ask yourself, what is the focus of the HRS blog?... The unexpected nature of the Spanish Inquisition? -- > BROL, Bacchetta, Rich Pinto, etc. > Don't cheat by > looking at the title. I have gone on record to indicate that I have no > issues with any form that a bicycle takes (including the NoCom), or > with any Bacchetta employee or with BROL or its moderator. Now, ask > yourself just what individuals have issues that the HRS blog happens to > focus on? If you need a point of reference, look through the archives > of the multitude of posts in various forums. There's no mystery here > folks. You'll find parallels to the material in the HRS blog, but > you'll not find me associated with any of it, although what you will > discover will leave little doubt in your mind as to who the probable > candidates are. Tom claims that I could easily copy the style of > previous anonymous anti-Bachetta/BROL posts. Then again, in another > post he boasted that he could do the same. Tom continues to confuse what > could be done and what has been done and by whom. The above is irrelevant to my arguments. I am arguing what is HYPOTHETICALLY POSSIBLE and WHAT IS PROVEN. The above does nothing to contradict my position. -- > The above is most relative to your arguments. There would not be an HRS blog unless first there was motive. Whereas it cannot be proven from any posts made by me that I share the issues that are the focus of the HRS blog and its author(s), the same cannot be said of the "accused" who's many archived posts stand in testimony to their motive. Let me make this real simple for you, Tom. Archived posts indicate who does and who does not have motive. Nowhere will any be found that indicate that I have motive. Can the suspects say the same? > Tom the offer for $100,000 still stands. Prove that I am the author > and collect your $100,000. You can't can you? Well then just go about > your business. Rave and rant to your hearts content ...lunatic! The worthless offer, repeated yet again (Mr. McNaa is poor by his own admission, yet has $100,000.00 in liquid assets?) followed by a gratuitous insult. -- > Mr. Sherman is evidently challenged by the vernacular. First he asserted that if I Mr. McNaa can afford a residence, he can afford DSL then Mr. Sherman makes Mr. McNaa out to be poor. One would thin that Mr. Sherman take a position that he should adhere to it. Tom. I don't have to contradict you because you contradict yourself. Must you deliberately misconstrue everything? You only hear what you want to hear, understand only what you want to understand, taking things literally or figuratively as your whim or fancy suits you. When Mr. McNaa said ... poor Mr. McNaa has a dial-up connection, did anyone here understand that to mean to mean that Mr. McNaa was poverty stricken like the unperceptive Mr. Sherman? Mr. Sherman is apparently challenged by the vernacular. Mr. Sherman likes to use the word proof. Mr. McNaa can easily provide proof that he has liquid assets sufficient to cover the offer and is willing to produce such evidence if Mr. Sherman will match Mr. McNaa's offer in a winner take all. This can all be drawn up ... legal and binding. If I am proven to be the author of the HRS blog, Mr. Sherman will be $100,000 richer. If I am not proven to be the author of the HRS blog, I will be $100,000 richer. Depending upon Mr. Sherman's level of confidence or lack thereof, Mr. McNaa is willing to adjust these stakes up or down accordingly. Will Mr. Sherman accept or will Mr. Sherman continue to run his mouth rather than put his money where his mouth is? -- Tom Sherman - Deceased Equine Flagellator -- > You mean to tell me, I've been arguing with a dead guy? I have had my fill of Tom Sherman's hypothetical poppycock. Hypothetically speaking, Mr. Sherman could be a child molester. Whereas there is no proof to support the contention that Mr. Sherman is a child molester, there is also no proof to support the contention that he is not. Consequently, in the absence of such proof, it cannot be said with any degree of certainty that Mr. Sherman is not a child molester. In the interim, until Mr. Sherman can produce definitive proof that he is a child molester, that possibility must be maintained. Does anyone see just how ridiculous Mr. Sherman's emulated hypothetical "logic" can become? Do I have any reason to believe that Mr. Sherman is a child molester? NO... I do not. I merely endeavored to demonstrate just how easy it is to employ Tom Sherman's style of tedious, hypothetical reasoning to one's advantage regardless of how reasonable or fair it is to do so. I've said all along that Tom likes to play. He just doesn't like to play fairly. Because of this, I have simply lost interest. Jim McNaa     Date: 15 Dec 2005 07:03:00 From: Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! Tom, > Why does Mr. McNaa continue to insist on attacking certain? > individuals as being responsible for the HRS blog when he is not the > priy target? Mr. McNaa was not even mentioned in the HRS blog > until he started directing accusation towards others without having any PROOF. -- > Do you really think that I'm upset about being inducted into the blog? I fully anticipated and expected the dunderheads to do exactly that. I would have been disappointed if they hadn't acted accordingly. I consider my induction into the HRS blog to be confirmation of those whom I suspect and validation of their culpability. I have all the PROOF that I need. Circumstantial evidence is PROOF. It is just not PROOF that you deem acceptable, but that's not my problem. That's your problem. Quit crying and deal with it. Why have I persisted? Well, because I am convinced of who is responsible, dead set against what they are doing and determined not to allow someone who is more of a magician than a logician deter me. > --> Circumstantial evidence is an acceptable form of proof in a court > of law. I guess maybe I came to someone's defense just the same as you > have even though you allege that you have no dog in this fight. > Was Mr. McNaa looking for a fight with me before this issue of the > HRS blog came up - if so the timing is an amusing coincidence? And if > Mr. McNaa was looking to pick a fight, what does that say about him? > --> I see, without a smiley to serve as a cue card, you are unable to > recognize humor. Lighten up, Tommy boy. For what it is worth in > another post you wrote that you specifically were looking for a public > fight, so I ask in turn what does this say about you. I like to argue about issues, not to denigrate others. The difference ought to be obvious. -- > Oh, it is obvious. You don't denigrate others. You defend those who denigrate others. Readers, what does this say about Mr. Sherman? If we have not been arguing about issues here, then would you please explain to me just what it is that we have been doing? > The fact is that Mr. McNaa can not prove that he is not the author > Of the HRS blog unless he proves another person (or persons) to be the > author (or authors). Therefore, based on Mr. McNaa's criteria of > basing guilt on circumstantial evidence and not proof, he becomes a > probable candidate since his motive of wanting to discredit Ed Gin & > Company is well documented. > --> WARNING ... WARNING Illogical Diversionary Tactics immediately > above. You get more convoluted with each post. The fact is that no > one (including Tom) has established that they are not the author of the > HRS blog by Tom's own standard of proof, however it DOES NOT LOGICALLY > FOLLOW that all who have not done so (including myself and the real > authors) can realistically be considered probable (meaning likely or > plausible candidates) in the absence of sufficient evidence in whatever > form it takes including the circumstantial. Tom, do you really > consider yourself to be a rational, logical person? The question > remains, just where does the existing circumstantial evidence point? > Please note that Tom has rapidly promoted me from a "hypothetical" to a > "probable" candidate. Note also that it can just as easily be said > that Tom has motive to discredit me because I am discrediting his > buddies, but ask him and he will tell you that he has no dog in this > fight, but I am sure you have noticed that Tom tends to bend the truth > a might. Ask yourself this as well. If Mr. McNaa has reason to > discredit Ed Gin & Company, wouldn't he author a blog focused upon > those he desired to discredit rather than on Bacchetta? Just how much > more ridiculous can Mr. Sherman get? To think that this man prides > himself in his ability to think logically. Truth be told this is > getting just too easy, but the repletion is becoming tedious. It is > frustrating dealing with a blockhead. I'm getting bored with it all > and may very well pull the plug soon. If I wanted to discredit Mr. McNaa, I could start a blog denigrating Ed Gin. For the subject matter I would research all of Mr. McNaa's old archived accusations against Ed Gin. Then, I would post messages to public forum's accusing Mr. McNaa of authoring the blog, and the circumstantial evidence would point to Mr. McNaa. See how easy this is? -- > You mean you'd go to all that trouble for me? I'm touched. Well, don't sing it. Bring it. What's holding you back? Go for it. Easy you say? It would entail a substantial amount of time and effort, but I'm sure you know of a few experienced people who would be willing to lend a helping hand. The way I see it, you missed your opportunity when you announced how easily you could accomplish this. In any such event, you wouldn't want to be the number one suspect. Besides, you're probably too late. Your buddies might already be working on that project. Fear not though. If this were to come to pass and if someone were to identify you know who as the most likely culprits, you can always step forward and assume the role of spokesperson in their defense. You appear to be quite comfortable in that role. While I really do not suspect Mr. McNaa very highly of being the HRS blog author, -- > Now you did that on purpose. Are you trying to shock your adversary to death with such a forthright admission? Regardless, I appreciate your honesty, but you shouldn't suspect me at all. There is not even a remote shred of circumstantial evidence to support the possibility. it is funny the way he gets all wound up when his own tactics of ACCUSING WITHOUT PROOF are turned against him (the whole point of the Johnny Sunset story). Mr. McNaa has established his double standard for all of alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent to see, so the story served its purpose well. -- > Equivocation. What's even more funny is the delight that you take in mental masturbation and linguistic gymnastics. > So Mr. McNaa had a falling out with Ed Gin. Why not sleeping dogs > lie [1]? > --> Mr. McNaa would HYPOTHETICALLY take that under advisement if > perhaps it had come from another source. Mr. McNaa should have come to that conclusion before becoming involved. In all likelihood, the HRS blog would never have mentioned him if he had not ACCUSED OTHERS WHILE LACKING PROOF. -- > Being included in the HRS blog doesn't trouble me. As I have previously indicated, the author(s) of the blog would not have responded in this matter if they were not the suspects in question. Their response lends credence to the notion that they are and I thank them profusely for tipping their hand. > Without invading Mr. McNaa's privacy, we can not know what ISP > services he does and does not have. If he can afford a place of > residence, he can likely afford SBC DSL, since the overall cost is less > than $20/month. > --> As usual. Drivel without substance. Affording a place of > residence and being able to afford SBC DSL is not the issue at hand, > but as long as you brought it up. My dialup connection works rather > well for me as long as I don't have to do BIG downloads. Several > broadband users have reked how well my internet connection works. I > have taken great pains to teak my hardware and software to optimal > performance. Up until a few years ago, SBC would not even sell me a > DLS connection because I was beyond the recommended distance for the > local telephone switching station. It has since changed its mind and > neighbors of mine who have SBC DSL are experiencing abysmal > performance. One down the street often has no connectivity for days at > a time. As the price continues to drop, if I go broadband I will > likely go with cable.... And support a monopoly? No thanks. -- > In a feeble attempt at diversion, you deliberately missed my again. I don't have SBC DSL for reasons of my own choosing, so I do not have the same provider as the HRS blog author(s) and this is easily verified as factual. > You ask that I invade Ed Gin's privacy to obtain > his ISP (as part an parcel of you required proof)... Assuming facts not in evidence again, I see. No one has proved Ed Gin is responsible for the HRS blog like Mr. McNaa's statement implies. This is getting to be a bad habit on Mr. McNaa's part. -- > You are putting words in my mouth. The only assumption and implication made here was made by Mr. Sherman. The facts in evidence are that Mr. Sherman requested certain data as part and parcel of what he would accept as proof, ISP number being one component, but that could entail invasion of privacy. Mr. Sherman expressed having a problem with that but had little difficulty expecting the same of Mr.McNaa. I trust that clears things up for the imperceptible Mr. Sherman. Mr. Sherman has repeated, and incorrectly, stated that I have accused or implied that Ed Gin is the author of the HRS blog, but he has failed to cite a single reference when and where Mr. McNaa did this. This is becoming a bad habit on the part of Mr. Sherman's part. I have repeatedly stated that I suspect someone else. How many times must I repeat that before it sinks into that thick skull of yours, dullard? You earned that gratuitous insult. > but are concerned > about invading my privacy to obtain mine. There's something wrong with > this picture. If someone is really interested, I could certainly > provide the information in a verifiable form that would leave no doubt > that I do not share an ISP used by the HRS blog culpable, but then I > couldn't play out my $1000,000 hand now could I? The reward has increased to $1 million dollars? And I though you said you like to argue about issues. Predictably, rather than address the issues, Mr. Sherman points out a typo. As for the dollar amount, I could just as easily offer that amount fully confident that I would never have to pay up, but I'll tell you what. The current offer stands at $100,000. The stakes can either be raised or lowered depending upon Mr. Sherman's level of confidence or lack thereof. So what's it going to be? Are you going to put your money where your mouth is or are you just going to keep running your mouth? Hypothetically speaking, Mr. McNaa could have SBC DSL at a secondary address or be using the service of an acquaintance. How does one prove a negative, anyhow? -- > Mr. Sherman has an overactive imagination. Please note how Mr. Sherman makes it impossible to meet his standard of proof. When Mr. McNaa offers to prove who his ISP is, Mr. Sherman engages in a shell game to simply introduce a secondary ISP at a secondary location. Hypothetical ... hypothetical. Hypothetically speaking, Mr. Sherman could be intelligent and logical, but..... Readers, remember I asked, just how ridiculous will Mr. Sherman become? Well, I think you have to agree the question has been answered. I will now extend my offer of $100,000 to include Mr. Sherman's latest ruse. Please note that one moment Mr. Sherman says that he really does not suspect Mr. McNaa very highly of being the HRS blog author and the next he says that Mr. McNaa could have SBC DSL at a secondary address or be using the service of an acquaintance. Mr. Sherman has just finished painting a revealing self-portrait of contradiction. > > Mr. McNaa's having access to the means and methods is hardly a > > stretch. > > --> No, but what is a stretch is the unproven assumptions that ... 1. > > Mr. McNaa has an internet account with the same provider as those > > "accused" and 2. Mr. McNaa is a viable candidate to author the HRS > > blog. He has gone on record that he has neither the time nor the > > desire to do any such thing. How long will Mr. Sherman pursue this > > inane diversion? Stay tuned as he fails to establish PROOF for either > > unfounded allegation. #1 or #2. Hey, Mr. McNaa has said that he'd > > even make it worth Mr. Sherman's while by extending that generous offer > > of $100.000.00 to these two unsubstantiated allegations as well. You > > know what is amusing in all this. If Mr. McNaa were to say crap > > like this, Tommy boy would be on him like stink on shit, but as Mr. > > McNaa so rightly pointed out in the past; Tom doesn't play by the > > same set of rules that he expects his opposition to play by. That's > > not very fair of him, now is it? > If Mr. McNaa has time to argue with me at length about his unfounded > accusations, he should have time to create a simple blog. As for > desire, his posts (recent and less recent) indicate a great desire to > damage Ed Gin. The protests are not convincing. > --> Unfounded? I refer you to the mounting circumstantial evidence > that you refuse to acknowledge. Mr. McNaa has made time to argue > with you about much more than what you consider unfounded accusations. > Since you like the term motive, ask yourself who has a motive to > trash Bacchetta? Rhetorical question. From your previous posts, your > own written words answer the question. If present and past posts > indicate a great desire to damage Ed Gin, but are not convincing then > what's all the fuss over Tom? This is as much about my desire not to > see the reputation of Bacchetta, its bikes and the company damaged by a > few malcontents with a grudge, but you don't recognize that. You call > that acceptable parody of public figures. As defined by law, you are > WRONG on this account, so you have more that just me to argue with in > this matter. Bacchetta principals should stop insulting people ... -- > Bacchetta principals? Who? Are you trying to turn the tables here Tom? Oh that's right. The HRS blog isn't insulting. It's merely parody and, for the most part acceptable parody, according to Mr. Sherman, but insults .... now, that's where Mr.Sheman draws the line. What a hypocrite ... not a gratuitous insult ... just an observation and a conclusion readily drawn. The HRS blog has a specific objective ... to denigrate. 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 merited and will be haunted by. Remembered for the significant role that he played will be their spokesperson and defender ... Tom Sherman. Jim McNaa     Date: 15 Dec 2005 07:02:59 From: Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! Tom, > Why does Mr. McNaa continue to insist on attacking certain? > individuals as being responsible for the HRS blog when he is not the > priy target? Mr. McNaa was not even mentioned in the HRS blog > until he started directing accusation towards others without having any PROOF. -- > Do you really think that I'm upset about being inducted into the blog? I fully anticipated and expected the dunderheads to do exactly that. I would have been disappointed if they hadn't acted accordingly. I consider my induction into the HRS blog to be confirmation of those whom I suspect and validation of their culpability. I have all the PROOF that I need. Circumstantial evidence is PROOF. It is just not PROOF that you deem acceptable, but that's not my problem. That's your problem. Quit crying and deal with it. Why have I persisted? Well, because I am convinced of who is responsible, dead set against what they are doing and determined not to allow someone who is more of a magician than a logician deter me. > --> Circumstantial evidence is an acceptable form of proof in a court > of law. I guess maybe I came to someone's defense just the same as you > have even though you allege that you have no dog in this fight. > Was Mr. McNaa looking for a fight with me before this issue of the > HRS blog came up - if so the timing is an amusing coincidence? And if > Mr. McNaa was looking to pick a fight, what does that say about him? > --> I see, without a smiley to serve as a cue card, you are unable to > recognize humor. Lighten up, Tommy boy. For what it is worth in > another post you wrote that you specifically were looking for a public > fight, so I ask in turn what does this say about you. I like to argue about issues, not to denigrate others. The difference ought to be obvious. -- > Oh, it is obvious. You don't denigrate others. You defend those who denigrate others. Readers, what does this say about Mr. Sherman? If we have not been arguing about issues here, then would you please explain to me just what it is that we have been doing? > The fact is that Mr. McNaa can not prove that he is not the author > Of the HRS blog unless he proves another person (or persons) to be the > author (or authors). Therefore, based on Mr. McNaa's criteria of > basing guilt on circumstantial evidence and not proof, he becomes a > probable candidate since his motive of wanting to discredit Ed Gin & > Company is well documented. > --> WARNING ... WARNING Illogical Diversionary Tactics immediately > above. You get more convoluted with each post. The fact is that no > one (including Tom) has established that they are not the author of the > HRS blog by Tom's own standard of proof, however it DOES NOT LOGICALLY > FOLLOW that all who have not done so (including myself and the real > authors) can realistically be considered probable (meaning likely or > plausible candidates) in the absence of sufficient evidence in whatever > form it takes including the circumstantial. Tom, do you really > consider yourself to be a rational, logical person? The question > remains, just where does the existing circumstantial evidence point? > Please note that Tom has rapidly promoted me from a "hypothetical" to a > "probable" candidate. Note also that it can just as easily be said > that Tom has motive to discredit me because I am discrediting his > buddies, but ask him and he will tell you that he has no dog in this > fight, but I am sure you have noticed that Tom tends to bend the truth > a might. Ask yourself this as well. If Mr. McNaa has reason to > discredit Ed Gin & Company, wouldn't he author a blog focused upon > those he desired to discredit rather than on Bacchetta? Just how much > more ridiculous can Mr. Sherman get? To think that this man prides > himself in his ability to think logically. Truth be told this is > getting just too easy, but the repletion is becoming tedious. It is > frustrating dealing with a blockhead. I'm getting bored with it all > and may very well pull the plug soon. If I wanted to discredit Mr. McNaa, I could start a blog denigrating Ed Gin. For the subject matter I would research all of Mr. McNaa's old archived accusations against Ed Gin. Then, I would post messages to public forum's accusing Mr. McNaa of authoring the blog, and the circumstantial evidence would point to Mr. McNaa. See how easy this is? -- > You mean you'd go to all that trouble for me? I'm touched. Well, don't sing it. Bring it. What's holding you back? Go for it. Easy you say? It would entail a substantial amount of time and effort, but I'm sure you know of a few experienced people who would be willing to lend a helping hand. The way I see it, you missed your opportunity when you announced how easily you could accomplish this. In any such event, you wouldn't want to be the number one suspect. Besides, you're probably too late. Your buddies might already be working on that project. Fear not though. If this were to come to pass and if someone were to identify you know who as the most likely culprits, you can always step forward and assume the role of spokesperson in their defense. You appear to be quite comfortable in that role. While I really do not suspect Mr. McNaa very highly of being the HRS blog author, -- > Now you did that on purpose. Are you trying to shock your adversary to death with such a forthright admission? Regardless, I appreciate your honesty, but you shouldn't suspect me at all. There is not even a remote shred of circumstantial evidence to support the possibility. it is funny the way he gets all wound up when his own tactics of ACCUSING WITHOUT PROOF are turned against him (the whole point of the Johnny Sunset story). Mr. McNaa has established his double standard for all of alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent to see, so the story served its purpose well. -- > Equivocation. What's even more funny is the delight that you take in mental masturbation and linguistic gymnastics. > So Mr. McNaa had a falling out with Ed Gin. Why not sleeping dogs > lie [1]? > --> Mr. McNaa would HYPOTHETICALLY take that under advisement if > perhaps it had come from another source. Mr. McNaa should have come to that conclusion before becoming involved. In all likelihood, the HRS blog would never have mentioned him if he had not ACCUSED OTHERS WHILE LACKING PROOF. -- > Being included in the HRS blog doesn't trouble me. As I have previously indicated, the author(s) of the blog would not have responded in this matter if they were not the suspects in question. Their response lends credence to the notion that they are and I thank them profusely for tipping their hand. > Without invading Mr. McNaa's privacy, we can not know what ISP > services he does and does not have. If he can afford a place of > residence, he can likely afford SBC DSL, since the overall cost is less > than $20/month. > --> As usual. Drivel without substance. Affording a place of > residence and being able to afford SBC DSL is not the issue at hand, > but as long as you brought it up. My dialup connection works rather > well for me as long as I don't have to do BIG downloads. Several > broadband users have reked how well my internet connection works. I > have taken great pains to teak my hardware and software to optimal > performance. Up until a few years ago, SBC would not even sell me a > DLS connection because I was beyond the recommended distance for the > local telephone switching station. It has since changed its mind and > neighbors of mine who have SBC DSL are experiencing abysmal > performance. One down the street often has no connectivity for days at > a time. As the price continues to drop, if I go broadband I will > likely go with cable.... And support a monopoly? No thanks. -- > In a feeble attempt at diversion, you deliberately missed my again. I don't have SBC DSL for reasons of my own choosing, so I do not have the same provider as the HRS blog author(s) and this is easily verified as factual. > You ask that I invade Ed Gin's privacy to obtain > his ISP (as part an parcel of you required proof)... Assuming facts not in evidence again, I see. No one has proved Ed Gin is responsible for the HRS blog like Mr. McNaa's statement implies. This is getting to be a bad habit on Mr. McNaa's part. -- > You are putting words in my mouth. The only assumption and implication made here was made by Mr. Sherman. The facts in evidence are that Mr. Sherman requested certain data as part and parcel of what he would accept as proof, ISP number being one component, but that could entail invasion of privacy. Mr. Sherman expressed having a problem with that but had little difficulty expecting the same of Mr.McNaa. I trust that clears things up for the imperceptible Mr. Sherman. Mr. Sherman has repeated, and incorrectly, stated that I have accused or implied that Ed Gin is the author of the HRS blog, but he has failed to cite a single reference when and where Mr. McNaa did this. This is becoming a bad habit on the part of Mr. Sherman's part. I have repeatedly stated that I suspect someone else. How many times must I repeat that before it sinks into that thick skull of yours, dullard? You earned that gratuitous insult. > but are concerned > about invading my privacy to obtain mine. There's something wrong with > this picture. If someone is really interested, I could certainly > provide the information in a verifiable form that would leave no doubt > that I do not share an ISP used by the HRS blog culpable, but then I > couldn't play out my $1000,000 hand now could I? The reward has increased to $1 million dollars? And I though you said you like to argue about issues. Predictably, rather than address the issues, Mr. Sherman points out a typo. As for the dollar amount, I could just as easily offer that amount fully confident that I would never have to pay up, but I'll tell you what. The current offer stands at $100,000. The stakes can either be raised or lowered depending upon Mr. Sherman's level of confidence or lack thereof. So what's it going to be? Are you going to put your money where your mouth is or are you just going to keep running your mouth? Hypothetically speaking, Mr. McNaa could have SBC DSL at a secondary address or be using the service of an acquaintance. How does one prove a negative, anyhow? -- > Mr. Sherman has an overactive imagination. Please note how Mr. Sherman makes it impossible to meet his standard of proof. When Mr. McNaa offers to prove who his ISP is, Mr. Sherman engages in a shell game to simply introduce a secondary ISP at a secondary location. Hypothetical ... hypothetical. Hypothetically speaking, Mr. Sherman could be intelligent and logical, but..... Readers, remember I asked, just how ridiculous will Mr. Sherman become? Well, I think you have to agree the question has been answered. I will now extend my offer of $100,000 to include Mr. Sherman's latest ruse. Please note that one moment Mr. Sherman says that he really does not suspect Mr. McNaa very highly of being the HRS blog author and the next he says that Mr. McNaa could have SBC DSL at a secondary address or be using the service of an acquaintance. Mr. Sherman has just finished painting a revealing self-portrait of contradiction. > > Mr. McNaa's having access to the means and methods is hardly a > > stretch. > > --> No, but what is a stretch is the unproven assumptions that ... 1. > > Mr. McNaa has an internet account with the same provider as those > > "accused" and 2. Mr. McNaa is a viable candidate to author the HRS > > blog. He has gone on record that he has neither the time nor the > > desire to do any such thing. How long will Mr. Sherman pursue this > > inane diversion? Stay tuned as he fails to establish PROOF for either > > unfounded allegation. #1 or #2. Hey, Mr. McNaa has said that he'd > > even make it worth Mr. Sherman's while by extending that generous offer > > of $100.000.00 to these two unsubstantiated allegations as well. You > > know what is amusing in all this. If Mr. McNaa were to say crap > > like this, Tommy boy would be on him like stink on shit, but as Mr. > > McNaa so rightly pointed out in the past; Tom doesn't play by the > > same set of rules that he expects his opposition to play by. That's > > not very fair of him, now is it? > If Mr. McNaa has time to argue with me at length about his unfounded > accusations, he should have time to create a simple blog. As for > desire, his posts (recent and less recent) indicate a great desire to > damage Ed Gin. The protests are not convincing. > --> Unfounded? I refer you to the mounting circumstantial evidence > that you refuse to acknowledge. Mr. McNaa has made time to argue > with you about much more than what you consider unfounded accusations. > Since you like the term motive, ask yourself who has a motive to > trash Bacchetta? Rhetorical question. From your previous posts, your > own written words answer the question. If present and past posts > indicate a great desire to damage Ed Gin, but are not convincing then > what's all the fuss over Tom? This is as much about my desire not to > see the reputation of Bacchetta, its bikes and the company damaged by a > few malcontents with a grudge, but you don't recognize that. You call > that acceptable parody of public figures. As defined by law, you are > WRONG on this account, so you have more that just me to argue with in > this matter. Bacchetta principals should stop insulting people ... -- > Bacchetta principals? Who? Are you trying to turn the tables here Tom? Oh that's right. The HRS blog isn't insulting. It's merely parody and, for the most part acceptable parody, according to Mr. Sherman, but insults .... now, that's where Mr.Sheman draws the line. What a hypocrite ... not a gratuitous insult ... just an observation and a conclusion readily drawn. The HRS blog has a specific objective ... to denigrate. 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 merited and will be haunted by. Remembered for the significant role that he played will be their spokesperson and defender ... Tom Sherman. Jim McNaa     Date: 15 Dec 2005 06:06:02 From: Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! Tom, > Why does Mr. McNaa continue to insist on attacking certain? > individuals as being responsible for the HRS blog when he is not the > priy target? Mr. McNaa was not even mentioned in the HRS blog > until he started directing accusation towards others without having any PROOF. -- > Do you really think that I'm upset about being inducted into the blog? I fully anticipated and expected the dunderheads to do exactly that. I would have been disappointed if they hadn't acted accordingly. I consider my induction into the HRS blog to be confirmation of those whom I suspect and validation of their culpability. I have all the PROOF that I need. Circumstantial evidence is PROOF. It is just not PROOF that you deem acceptable, but that's not my problem. That's your problem. Quit crying and deal with it. Why have I persisted? Well, because I am convinced of who is responsible, dead set against what they are doing and determined not to allow someone who is more of a magician than a logician deter me. > --> Circumstantial evidence is an acceptable form of proof in a court > of law. I guess maybe I came to someone's defense just the same as you > have even though you allege that you have no dog in this fight. > Was Mr. McNaa looking for a fight with me before this issue of the > HRS blog came up - if so the timing is an amusing coincidence? And if > Mr. McNaa was looking to pick a fight, what does that say about him? > --> I see, without a smiley to serve as a cue card, you are unable to > recognize humor. Lighten up, Tommy boy. For what it is worth in > another post you wrote that you specifically were looking for a public > fight, so I ask in turn what does this say about you. I like to argue about issues, not to denigrate others. The difference ought to be obvious. -- > Oh, it is obvious. You don't denigrate others. You defend those who denigrate others. Readers, what does this say about Mr. Sherman? If we have not been arguing about issues here, then would you please explain to me just what it is that we have been doing? > The fact is that Mr. McNaa can not prove that he is not the author > Of the HRS blog unless he proves another person (or persons) to be the > author (or authors). Therefore, based on Mr. McNaa's criteria of > basing guilt on circumstantial evidence and not proof, he becomes a > probable candidate since his motive of wanting to discredit Ed Gin & > Company is well documented. > --> WARNING ... WARNING Illogical Diversionary Tactics immediately > above. You get more convoluted with each post. The fact is that no > one (including Tom) has established that they are not the author of the > HRS blog by Tom's own standard of proof, however it DOES NOT LOGICALLY > FOLLOW that all who have not done so (including myself and the real > authors) can realistically be considered probable (meaning likely or > plausible candidates) in the absence of sufficient evidence in whatever > form it takes including the circumstantial. Tom, do you really > consider yourself to be a rational, logical person? The question > remains, just where does the existing circumstantial evidence point? > Please note that Tom has rapidly promoted me from a "hypothetical" to a > "probable" candidate. Note also that it can just as easily be said > that Tom has motive to discredit me because I am discrediting his > buddies, but ask him and he will tell you that he has no dog in this > fight, but I am sure you have noticed that Tom tends to bend the truth > a might. Ask yourself this as well. If Mr. McNaa has reason to > discredit Ed Gin & Company, wouldn't he author a blog focused upon > those he desired to discredit rather than on Bacchetta? Just how much > more ridiculous can Mr. Sherman get? To think that this man prides > himself in his ability to think logically. Truth be told this is > getting just too easy, but the repletion is becoming tedious. It is > frustrating dealing with a blockhead. I'm getting bored with it all > and may very well pull the plug soon. If I wanted to discredit Mr. McNaa, I could start a blog denigrating Ed Gin. For the subject matter I would research all of Mr. McNaa's old archived accusations against Ed Gin. Then, I would post messages to public forum's accusing Mr. McNaa of authoring the blog, and the circumstantial evidence would point to Mr. McNaa. See how easy this is? -- > You mean you'd go to all that trouble for me? I'm touched. Well, don't sing it. Bring it. What's holding you back? Go for it. Easy you say? It would entail a substantial amount of time and effort, but I'm sure you know of a few experienced people who would be willing to lend a helping hand. The way I see it, you missed your opportunity when you announced how easily you could accomplish this. In any such event, you wouldn't want to be the number one suspect. Besides, you're probably too late. Your buddies might already be working on that project. Fear not though. If this were to come to pass and if someone were to identify you know who as the most likely culprits, you can always step forward and assume the role of spokesperson in their defense. You appear to be quite comfortable in that role. While I really do not suspect Mr. McNaa very highly of being the HRS blog author, -- > Now you did that on purpose. Are you trying to shock your adversary to death with such a forthright admission? Regardless, I appreciate your honesty, but you shouldn't suspect me at all. There is not even a remote shred of circumstantial evidence to support the possibility. it is funny the way he gets all wound up when his own tactics of ACCUSING WITHOUT PROOF are turned against him (the whole point of the Johnny Sunset story). Mr. McNaa has established his double standard for all of alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent to see, so the story served its purpose well. -- > Equivocation. What's even more funny is the delight that you take in mental masturbation and linguistic gymnastics. > So Mr. McNaa had a falling out with Ed Gin. Why not sleeping dogs > lie [1]? > --> Mr. McNaa would HYPOTHETICALLY take that under advisement if > perhaps it had come from another source. Mr. McNaa should have come to that conclusion before becoming involved. In all likelihood, the HRS blog would never have mentioned him if he had not ACCUSED OTHERS WHILE LACKING PROOF. -- > Being included in the HRS blog doesn't trouble me. As I have previously indicated, the author(s) of the blog would not have responded in this matter if they were not the suspects in question. Their response lends credence to the notion that they are and I thank them profusely for tipping their hand. > Without invading Mr. McNaa's privacy, we can not know what ISP > services he does and does not have. If he can afford a place of > residence, he can likely afford SBC DSL, since the overall cost is less > than $20/month. > --> As usual. Drivel without substance. Affording a place of > residence and being able to afford SBC DSL is not the issue at hand, > but as long as you brought it up. My dialup connection works rather > well for me as long as I don't have to do BIG downloads. Several > broadband users have reked how well my internet connection works. I > have taken great pains to teak my hardware and software to optimal > performance. Up until a few years ago, SBC would not even sell me a > DLS connection because I was beyond the recommended distance for the > local telephone switching station. It has since changed its mind and > neighbors of mine who have SBC DSL are experiencing abysmal > performance. One down the street often has no connectivity for days at > a time. As the price continues to drop, if I go broadband I will > likely go with cable.... And support a monopoly? No thanks. -- > In a feeble attempt at diversion, you deliberately missed my again. I don't have SBC DSL for reasons of my own choosing, so I do not have the same provider as the HRS blog author(s) and this is easily verified as factual. > You ask that I invade Ed Gin's privacy to obtain > his ISP (as part an parcel of you required proof)... Assuming facts not in evidence again, I see. No one has proved Ed Gin is responsible for the HRS blog like Mr. McNaa's statement implies. This is getting to be a bad habit on Mr. McNaa's part. -- > You are putting words in my mouth. The only assumption and implication made here was made by Mr. Sherman. The facts in evidence are that Mr. Sherman requested certain data as part and parcel of what he would accept as proof, ISP number being one component, but that could entail invasion of privacy. Mr. Sherman expressed having a problem with that but had little difficulty expecting the same of Mr.McNaa. I trust that clears things up for the imperceptible Mr. Sherman. Mr. Sherman has repeated, and incorrectly, stated that I have accused or implied that Ed Gin is the author of the HRS blog, but he has failed to cite a single reference when and where Mr. McNaa did this. This is becoming a bad habit on the part of Mr. Sherman's part. I have repeatedly stated that I suspect someone else. How many times must I repeat that before it sinks into that thick skull of yours, dullard? You earned that gratuitous insult. > but are concerned > about invading my privacy to obtain mine. There's something wrong with > this picture. If someone is really interested, I could certainly > provide the information in a verifiable form that would leave no doubt > that I do not share an ISP used by the HRS blog culpable, but then I > couldn't play out my $1000,000 hand now could I? The reward has increased to $1 million dollars? And I though you said you like to argue about issues. Predictably, rather than address the issues, Mr. Sherman points out a typo. As for the dollar amount, I could just as easily offer that amount fully confident that I would never have to pay up, but I'll tell you what. The current offer stands at $100,000. The stakes can either be raised or lowered depending upon Mr. Sherman's level of confidence or lack thereof. So what's it going to be? Are you going to put your money where your mouth is or are you just going to keep running your mouth? Hypothetically speaking, Mr. McNaa could have SBC DSL at a secondary address or be using the service of an acquaintance. How does one prove a negative, anyhow? -- > Mr. Sherman has an overactive imagination. Please note how Mr. Sherman makes it impossible to meet his standard of proof. When Mr. McNaa offers to prove who his ISP is, Mr. Sherman engages in a shell game to simply introduce a secondary ISP at a secondary location. Hypothetical ... hypothetical. Hypothetically speaking, Mr. Sherman could be intelligent and logical, but..... Readers, remember I asked, just how ridiculous will Mr. Sherman become? Well, I think you have to agree the question has been answered. I will now extend my offer of $100,000 to include Mr. Sherman's latest ruse. Please note that one moment Mr. Sherman says that he really does not suspect Mr. McNaa very highly of being the HRS blog author and the next he says that Mr. McNaa could have SBC DSL at a secondary address or be using the service of an acquaintance. Mr. Sherman has just finished painting a revealing self-portrait of contradiction. > > Mr. McNaa's having access to the means and methods is hardly a > > stretch. > > --> No, but what is a stretch is the unproven assumptions that ... 1. > > Mr. McNaa has an internet account with the same provider as those > > "accused" and 2. Mr. McNaa is a viable candidate to author the HRS > > blog. He has gone on record that he has neither the time nor the > > desire to do any such thing. How long will Mr. Sherman pursue this > > inane diversion? Stay tuned as he fails to establish PROOF for either > > unfounded allegation. #1 or #2. Hey, Mr. McNaa has said that he'd > > even make it worth Mr. Sherman's while by extending that generous offer > > of $100.000.00 to these two unsubstantiated allegations as well. You > > know what is amusing in all this. If Mr. McNaa were to say crap > > like this, Tommy boy would be on him like stink on shit, but as Mr. > > McNaa so rightly pointed out in the past; Tom doesn't play by the > > same set of rules that he expects his opposition to play by. That's > > not very fair of him, now is it? > If Mr. McNaa has time to argue with me at length about his unfounded > accusations, he should have time to create a simple blog. As for > desire, his posts (recent and less recent) indicate a great desire to > damage Ed Gin. The protests are not convincing. > --> Unfounded? I refer you to the mounting circumstantial evidence > that you refuse to acknowledge. Mr. McNaa has made time to argue > with you about much more than what you consider unfounded accusations. > Since you like the term motive, ask yourself who has a motive to > trash Bacchetta? Rhetorical question. From your previous posts, your > own written words answer the question. If present and past posts > indicate a great desire to damage Ed Gin, but are not convincing then > what's all the fuss over Tom? This is as much about my desire not to > see the reputation of Bacchetta, its bikes and the company damaged by a > few malcontents with a grudge, but you don't recognize that. You call > that acceptable parody of public figures. As defined by law, you are > WRONG on this account, so you have more that just me to argue with in > this matter. Bacchetta principals should stop insulting people ... -- > Bacchetta principals? Who? Are you trying to turn the tables here Tom? Oh that's right. The HRS blog isn't insulting. It's merely parody and, for the most part acceptable parody, according to Mr. Sherman, but insults .... now, that's where Mr.Sheman draws the line. What a hypocrite ... not a gratuitous insult ... just an observation and a conclusion readily drawn. The HRS blog has a specific objective ... to denigrate. 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 merited and will be haunted by. Remembered for the significant role that he played will be their spokesperson and defender ... Tom Sherman. Jim McNaa     Date: 12 Dec 2005 18:49:48 From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! Jim McNaa <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com > wrote: > Tom, > > You see little circumstantial evidence because your friendship has > obscured your objectivity. You see only what you want to see, but I > don't recall that anyone ever fingered ED, maybe Ed Dolan, but I'm not > positive. I said that I suspected his colaboration. I said that I > suspected someone else in the JAG Alliance as the author.... Mr. McNaa is putting words into my mouth. I never denied the circumstantial evidence, but have merely pointed out that it does NOT AMOUNT TO PROOF. > Now you > state that Ed Gin contacted Johnny NoCom who is not Ed Gin but whose > known preferences in biycles are a reasonable match for the HRS blog, > but Johnny NoCom is not the HRS blog author and we have Ed Gin's word > on that and your word that Ed Gin is not Johnny NoCom. Thanks for > clearing that all up for us. Ed Gin wrote (in part) "I've contacted the multiiple parties who AUTHORED the [Johnny NoCom] posts the last 4 months..." <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent/msg/bebf518444b68747?dmode=source >. This information is publicly archived. > I see you've run out of material and are now recycling the same old > grist through the mill. The ridiculous notion that I could possibly be > the blog author has been beaten to death and even the dead horse has > begun to complain. When someone is being deliberately obtuse, repetition is required. ;) > A blog would demand way too much time. I would be facing a learning > curve, since I've never done one and because it is graphics intensive. > It is a bit easier when the task can be shared especially when two of > those whom I suspect have a know expertise in that area, but do we > really need anymore circumstantial evidence? A blog would be > unsuitable for my purposes. It is a cowardly conduit because it is a > monologue devoid of combat with your adversary and there is just no > sport in that. The objections about a blog taking too much time and effort are comical from someone who is willing to spend so much time posting to this and related threads. ;) As for the other objections, we would have to assume that Mr. McNaa is neither cowardly nor unsportsmanlike. We really have no knowledge on these points others than an analysis of Mr. McNaa's posts and hearsay. While it may be true that Mr. McNaa is neither cowardly nor unsportsmanlike, those qualities remain unproven (certainly in the context of this forum) so Mr. McNaa's argument fails to convince. > As Tom points has pointed out, I've had issues with certain > individuals, two to be exact and one in partiicular. Now, if I were to > author a blog, is it not logical to assume what my focus would be? > Now, ask yourself, what is the focus of the HRS blog?... The unexpected nature of the Spanish Inquisition? > Don't cheat by > looking at the title. I have gone on record to indicate that I have no > issues with any form that a bicycle takes (including the NoCom), or > with any Bacchetta employee or with BROL or its moderator. Now, ask > yourself just what individuals have issues that the HRS blog happens to > focus on? If you need a point of reference, look through the archives > of the multitude of posts in various forums. There's no mystery here > folks. You'll find parallels to the material in the HRS blog, but > you'll not find me associated with any of it, although what you will > discover will leave little doubt in your mind as to who the probable > candidates are. Tom cliam that I could easily sopy the style ofr > previous anonymous anti-Bachetta/BROL posts. Then again, in another > post he basted that he could do the same. Tom continues to confuse what > could be done and what has been done and by whom. The above is irrelevant to my arguments. I am arguing what is HYPOTHETICALLY POSSIBLE and WHAT IS PROVEN. The above does nothing to contradict my position. > Tom the offer for $100,000 still stands. Prove that I am the author > and collect your $100,000. You can't can you? Well then just go about > your business. Rave and rant to your hearts content ...lunatic! The worthless offer, repeated yet again (Mr. McNaa is poor by his own admission, yet has $100,000.00 in liquid assets?) followed by a gratuitous insult. -- Tom Sherman - Deceased Equine Flagellator     Date: 12 Dec 2005 18:30:54 From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! Edward Dolan wrote: > <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1134370996.778940.67290@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > [...] > > Tom, > > > > You see little circumstantial evidence because your friendship has > > obscured your objectivity. You see only what you want to see, but I > > don't recall that anyone ever fingered ED, maybe Ed Dolan, but I'm not > > positive. > [...] > > Tom and I have been giving each other the finger from day one. We have > become the best of enemies. Hells Bells, who would I have to write to if it > weren't for Mr. Tom Sherman! He at least puts up with me, which is more than > can be said for most of the denizens of ARBR. Dogs do enjoy barking at each other, even when their territory is defined by fences around their yards. -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley "ahno. the edo comes and goes. you stand there and experience the edo unless you are bound by ego riding a bike is highly valued as a way to experience and sample the edo" - G. Daniels   Date: 08 Dec 2005 23:10:30 From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! jimmymac_4@yahoo.com wrote: > Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic wrote: > > The following is a purely hypothetical thought experiment story. Any > resemblance to actual events, or any person, living or dead is purely > coincidental. > > -> In reality the following is just so much bull shit, but let's have > at it. This all sounds fairly familiar to the protagonist. Much of > the author's hypothetical scenario so approximates reality that, in > spite of his disclaimer, the author's tale is far beyond the > coincidental although a few twist that stray from reality were > certainly to expected by the protagonist an the author did not > disappoint. It is apparent to the protagonist that the author is privy > to and intimately familiar with background information than he was ever > willing to openly admit when playing the role of his alter-ego ... > annoying pedant, but the protagonist appreciates that the author has > candidly eluded to much of what the protagonist has contended from the > onset an the protagonist is grateful to the author in this respect. > > Let us say our protagonist lives in a major metropolitan area adjacent > to a large freshwater lake that has a small, but active community of > riders interests in maximizing unfaired recumbent bicycle performance. > Our protagonist has had a falling out with three (3) members of that > community. > > -> Actually, the author could just as easily have said that one of the > members had a falling out with the protagonist. Since the protagonist > is not known to have ever been unacquainted with two of the three > members, it is illogical to assume and consequently should not have > been said that the protagonist had a falling out with either of them, > but the protagonist realizes that this is the author's hypothetical > tale. > > Of these three members, one is seen as the founding "mentor" > of the group, one is one of the fastest racers, and one has recently > moved away to a distant capital city near the ocean. All three (3) ride > "cutting edge" design carbon fiber composite splitter plate lowracers > made in a country in another continent across a major ocean. The person > that moved to the capital city also owns a steel framed highracer that > is the "house brand" of a well known specialist recumbent bicycle > dealer located in an area known for its dairy industry. > > Due to our protagonist having feuded with these three (3) members, > he wishes to publicly discredit them. However, his public feuds on > several > Internet forums have, in general, not accomplished this goal. > > -> Actually, the protagonist is said to have had a feud with only one > member and would not have even had a feud with a second member had the > second member not voluntarily thrust himself into the feud to assist > the flailing first member referred to as the mentor. The protagonist > has not been known to have had a feud with the third member as alleged, > although it could be assumed that the protagonist has sufficient reason > after induction into the denigrating blog by member number three. As > though it were fact, and in spite of his "in general" > qualification, the author has knowingly introduced an unsubstantiated > opinion regarding the protagonist's intentions and relative success > in achieving his objective, but as the author will undoubtedly point > out, his unqualified opinion still falls within the protective umbrella > of his disclaimer. > > He recalls in the past an anonymous person generated some ill will > among a > portion of the Internet community by posting using an assumed name that > included the name of the carbon fiber composite splitter plate lowracer > that his three (3) enemies ride. > > -> From what the protagonist related previously, it would follow that > only one member is deserving of the label enemy, but again the > protagonist realizes that this is the author's hypothetical tale. > > Our protagonist creates an anonymous Internet "blog" that denigrates a > prominent manufacturer of steel and titanium alloy highracer recumbents > that competes with the highracer made by the specialist dealer. (In > fact this manufacturer dropped the specialist dealer when said dealer > introduced his "house brand" highracer line.) The "blog" also > denigrates riders sponsored by the prominent highracer manufacturer and > an online recumbent magazine and its editors who have accepted > advertising from and favorably reviewed the highracers made by the > prominent manufacturer. > > -> In a desperate effort to exonerate the protagonist's alleged > "enemies", the author decided to depart from reality to concoct a > new twist that portrays the protagonist as the author of the blog, > which he has vociferously denounced. The author wrongly assumes that > the readership will buy into his thinly disguised ruse. > > Our protagonist rightly assumes that many will blame his three (3) > enemies for authoring the blog, despite the lack of proof. Indeed, no > one comes to the defense of the three (3) carbon fiber composite > splitter plate lowracer riders except an often annoying pedant (best > known for his obsession with an obscure, out of production, user > friendly lowracer with an ISO 305-mm/406-mm wheelset, mid-drive > jackshaft, and industrial hemp seat pad cover) who copiously posts to > an un-moderated public recumbent forum. The annoying pedant, despite > being accused of being illogical and delusional by a principal with the > prominent highracer manufacturer, correctly points out the lack of > proof in the accusations. > > -> It is said that the protagonist recognizes a return to some > semblance of reality in this hypothetical tale with the exception of > the delusion that the author is not illogical. The protagonist realize > that the author is incapable of admitting to anything perceived as a > flaw and the protagonist is content to allow the author to bask in his > realm of self-deception. > > To further his case, our protagonist starts attacking himself on his > anonymous blog, while continuing baseless attacks on the three (3) > carbon fiber composite splitter plate lowracer riders. Our protagonist > has the advantage of being able to use the same ISP as the two (2) > victims that still live in the major city by the large freshwater lake, > furthering his wholly circumstantial evidence case against them. > > -> To further his absurd hypothetical yarn, the author presents yet > another preposterous twist accusing the protagonist of attacking > himself and employing the same ISP which can easily verified as false > since the protagonist has a dynamic ISP addresses selected from a pool > of IP addresses that is different than the static IP addresses that he > allegedly shares with his three adversaries ... 4 counting the author. > > > How will our story end? Will the truth be revealed? > > -> The protagonist assume that the story will not end with anyone other > than the annoying pedant (read "so called humble author") rising to > the defense of the three (3) carbon fiber composite splitter plate > lowracer riders that most now know to be the blog alliance. The > protagonist believes that the truth has already been revealed and is > confident that the readership will not be deterred by this rendition of > a hypothetical tale that departs from reality. > > Please remember, this is only a story, and has no connection to real > people or events. > > =E0 Please remember that the author has his tongue so firmly planted in > his cheek that it hurts. > > Your humble author, > > -> Remember too that humility is not a virtue that the author possesses > and it should be apparent that like his associates the author has way > to much time on his hands. > > Johnny Sunset [Most Fun Bike in the Known Universe] > Tommy Sherman [Annoying pedant and author of the absurd] > > Jim McNaa [Protagonist] Gee, I would say this story struck a nerve. Why, I do not know, since it is of course just a story. ;) Johnny Sunset [Most Fun Bike in the Known Universe]     Date: 09 Dec 2005 02:25:49 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! "Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1134112230.402154.14240@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... [...] Gee, I would say this story struck a nerve. Why, I do not know, since it is of course just a story. ;) Johnny Sunset [Most Fun Bike in the Known Universe] Gee, I don't know Tom. I was hoping you would answer Jim's rejoinder to your fable point by point in infinite detail. Instead, nothing but a tag end one liner. Hells Bells, I do that sort of thing all the time because I am the laziest man in the world and take great pride in it. But I know you are an industrious little beaver and would never take any short cuts like I do. Please, you have a reputation to uphold here and there are some standards after all. Surely one long winded post deserves another ... and so forth ad infinitum. I mean, what else do we have to do here now that your good buddy Ed Gin has killed this newsgroup. Regards, Ed Dolan - Minnesota   Date: 08 Dec 2005 23:02:09 From: Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic wrote: The following is a purely hypothetical thought experiment story. Any resemblance to actual events, or any person, living or dead is purely coincidental. - > In reality the following is just so much bull shit, but let's have at it. This all sounds fairly familiar to the protagonist. Much of the author's hypothetical scenario so approximates reality that, in spite of his disclaimer, the author's tale is far beyond the coincidental although a few twist that stray from reality were certainly to expected by the protagonist an the author did not disappoint. It is apparent to the protagonist that the author is privy to and intimately familiar with background information than he was ever willing to openly admit when playing the role of his alter-ego ... annoying pedant, but the protagonist appreciates that the author has candidly eluded to much of what the protagonist has contended from the onset an the protagonist is grateful to the author in this respect. Let us say our protagonist lives in a major metropolitan area adjacent to a large freshwater lake that has a small, but active community of riders interests in maximizing unfaired recumbent bicycle performance. Our protagonist has had a falling out with three (3) members of that community. - > Actually, the author could just as easily have said that one of the members had a falling out with the protagonist. Since the protagonist is not known to have ever been unacquainted with two of the three members, it is illogical to assume and consequently should not have been said that the protagonist had a falling out with either of them, but the protagonist realizes that this is the author's hypothetical tale. Of these three members, one is seen as the founding "mentor" of the group, one is one of the fastest racers, and one has recently moved away to a distant capital city near the ocean. All three (3) ride "cutting edge" design carbon fiber composite splitter plate lowracers made in a country in another continent across a major ocean. The person that moved to the capital city also owns a steel framed highracer that is the "house brand" of a well known specialist recumbent bicycle dealer located in an area known for its dairy industry. Due to our protagonist having feuded with these three (3) members, he wishes to publicly discredit them. However, his public feuds on several Internet forums have, in general, not accomplished this goal. - > Actually, the protagonist is said to have had a feud with only one member and would not have even had a feud with a second member had the second member not voluntarily thrust himself into the feud to assist the flailing first member referred to as the mentor. The protagonist has not been known to have had a feud with the third member as alleged, although it could be assumed that the protagonist has sufficient reason after induction into the denigrating blog by member number three. As though it were fact, and in spite of his "in general" qualification, the author has knowingly introduced an unsubstantiated opinion regarding the protagonist's intentions and relative success in achieving his objective, but as the author will undoubtedly point out, his unqualified opinion still falls within the protective umbrella of his disclaimer. He recalls in the past an anonymous person generated some ill will among a portion of the Internet community by posting using an assumed name that included the name of the carbon fiber composite splitter plate lowracer that his three (3) enemies ride. - > From what the protagonist related previously, it would follow that only one member is deserving of the label enemy, but again the protagonist realizes that this is the author's hypothetical tale. Our protagonist creates an anonymous Internet "blog" that denigrates a prominent manufacturer of steel and titanium alloy highracer recumbents that competes with the highracer made by the specialist dealer. (In fact this manufacturer dropped the specialist dealer when said dealer introduced his "house brand" highracer line.) The "blog" also denigrates riders sponsored by the prominent highracer manufacturer and an online recumbent magazine and its editors who have accepted advertising from and favorably reviewed the highracers made by the prominent manufacturer. - > In a desperate effort to exonerate the protagonist's alleged "enemies", the author decided to depart from reality to concoct a new twist that portrays the protagonist as the author of the blog, which he has vociferously denounced. The author wrongly assumes that the readership will buy into his thinly disguised ruse. Our protagonist rightly assumes that many will blame his three (3) enemies for authoring the blog, despite the lack of proof. Indeed, no one comes to the defense of the three (3) carbon fiber composite splitter plate lowracer riders except an often annoying pedant (best known for his obsession with an obscure, out of production, user friendly lowracer with an ISO 305-mm/406-mm wheelset, mid-drive jackshaft, and industrial hemp seat pad cover) who copiously posts to an un-moderated public recumbent forum. The annoying pedant, despite being accused of being illogical and delusional by a principal with the prominent highracer manufacturer, correctly points out the lack of proof in the accusations. - > It is said that the protagonist recognizes a return to some semblance of reality in this hypothetical tale with the exception of the delusion that the author is not illogical. The protagonist realize that the author is incapable of admitting to anything perceived as a flaw and the protagonist is content to allow the author to bask in his realm of self-deception. To further his case, our protagonist starts attacking himself on his anonymous blog, while continuing baseless attacks on the three (3) carbon fiber composite splitter plate lowracer riders. Our protagonist has the advantage of being able to use the same ISP as the two (2) victims that still live in the major city by the large freshwater lake, furthering his wholly circumstantial evidence case against them. - > To further his absurd hypothetical yarn, the author presents yet another preposterous twist accusing the protagonist of attacking himself and employing the same ISP which can easily verified as false since the protagonist has a dynamic ISP addresses selected from a pool of IP addresses that is different than the static IP addresses that he allegedly shares with his three adversaries ... 4 counting the author. How will our story end? Will the truth be revealed? - > The protagonist assume that the story will not end with anyone other than the annoying pedant (read "so called humble author") rising to the defense of the three (3) carbon fiber composite splitter plate lowracer riders that most now know to be the blog alliance. The protagonist believes that the truth has already been revealed and is confident that the readership will not be deterred by this rendition of a hypothetical tale that departs from reality. Please remember, this is only a story, and has no connection to real people or events. =E0 Please remember that the author has his tongue so firmly planted in his cheek that it hurts. Your humble author, - > Remember too that humility is not a virtue that the author possesses and it should be apparent that like his associates the author has way to much time on his hands. Johnny Sunset [Most Fun Bike in the Known Universe] Tommy Sherman [Annoying pedant and author of the absurd] Jim McNaa [Protagonist]     Date: 11 Dec 2005 23:03:16 From: Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! Tom, You see little circumstantial evidence because your friendship has obscured your objectivity. You see only what you want to see, but I don't recall that anyone ever fingered ED, maybe Ed Dolan, but I'm not positive. I said that I suspected his colaboration. I said that I suspected someone else in the JAG Alliance as the author. Now you state that Ed Gin contacted Johnny NoCom who is not Ed Gin but whose known preferences in biycles are a reasonable match for the HRS blog, but Johnny NoCom is not the HRS blog author and we have Ed Gin's word on that and your word that Ed Gin is not Johnny NoCom. Thanks for clearing that all up for us. I see you've run out of material and are now recycling the same old grist through the mill. The ridiculous notion that I could possibly be the blog author has been beaten to death and even the dead horse has begun to complain. A blog would demand way too much time. I would be facing a learning curve, since I've never done one and because it is graphics intensive. It is a bit easier when the task can be shared especially when two of those whom I suspect have a know expertise in that area, but do we really need anymore circumstantial evidence? A blog would be unsuitable for my purposes. It is a cowardly conduit because it is a monologue devoid of combat with your adversary and there is just no sport in that. As Tom points has pointed out, I've had issues with certain individuals, two to be exact and one in partiicular. Now, if I were to author a blog, is it not logical to assume what my focus would be? Now, ask yourself, what is the focus of the HRS blog? Don't cheat by looking at the title. I have gone on record to indicate that I have no issues with any form that a bicycle takes (including the NoCom), or with any Bacchetta employee or with BROL or its moderator. Now, ask yourself just what individuals have issues that the HRS blog happens to focus on? If you need a point of reference, look through the archives of the multitude of posts in various forums. There's no mystery here folks. You'll find parallels to the material in the HRS blog, but you'll not find me associated with any of it, although what you will discover will leave little doubt in your mind as to who the probable candidates are. Tom cliam that I could easily sopy the style ofr previous anonymous anti-Bachetta/BROL posts. Then again, in another post he basted that he could do the same. Tom continues to confuse what could be done and what has been done and by whom. Tom the offer for $100,000 still stands. Prove that I am the author and collect your $100,000. You can't can you? Well then just go about your business. Rave and rant to your hearts content ...lunatic! Jim McNaa       Date: 12 Dec 2005 02:45:38 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1134370996.778940.67290@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... [...] > Tom, > > You see little circumstantial evidence because your friendship has > obscured your objectivity. You see only what you want to see, but I > don't recall that anyone ever fingered ED, maybe Ed Dolan, but I'm not > positive. [...] Tom and I have been giving each other the finger from day one. We have become the best of enemies. Hells Bells, who would I have to write to if it weren't for Mr. Tom Sherman! He at least puts up with me, which is more than can be said for most of the denizens of ARBR. Regards, Ed Dolan - Minnesota     Date: 11 Dec 2005 19:51:06 From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! Edward Dolan wrote: > ...Only Mr. > Sherman truly deserves me and I him. We are surely both going to go to Hell > for our transgressions against the readership of ARBR. Some advance information about Hell: <http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/genInfo.php?locIndex=55275 >. -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley "Great Ford! yawl smelling your clivus? pew! a unique event or transient actionable intelligence? unclog!" - G. Daniels     Date: 11 Dec 2005 19:02:31 From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! Jim McNaa <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com > wrote: > Tom, > > Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic wrote: > > Jim McNaa <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic wrote: > > > > Jim McNaa <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Tom, > > > > > > > > > > Another one of Tom's cyber-skirmish entrapment tradeks is exhibited > > > > > here ... putting words into the mouth of his adversary. Contrary to > > > > > Mr. Sherman's assertion, as previously explained, Mr. McNaa supplied > > > > > the surname initials of those he suspects and Mr. Sherman mated them up > > > > > with the initials of their first names ... how telling. What I admit, > > > > > is that Tom was able to match the same initial that I could but would > > > > > not have provided, however, this comes as no surpise to me. Tom, I > > > > > think you should re-read what I said so that you are in sync with the > > > > > readership who I'm reasonably certain found it less challenging to > > > > > comprehend than you did. > > > > > > > > > > Jim McNaa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jim McNaa > > > > > > > > Which of the two (2) Jim McNaa's is writing here? > > > > > > --> Both of us. It takes two of us to keep pace as we don't stay up > > > all odd hours of the night ;^) > > > > > > > Anyone familiar with who rides lowracers in Chicagoland and who Mr. > > > > McNaa does not get along with would come up with the same first > > > > initials to match the "J" "A" and "G" that Mr. McNaa posted, so I am > > > > not what his point here is. > > > > > > --> Another smokescreen by Tom. It is telling how Tom consistently > > > phrases things so as to betray his partiality. He could just as easily > > > have said that they didn't t get along with me as to say that I don't > > > get along with them. > > > > I hate to break this to Mr. McNaa, but I have never heard his name > > come up in person or be mentioned until he enters an online discussion. > > --> Heartbreaker. > > > > Mr. Sherman mentions riders of lowracers in Chicago as though I have > > > something against the riding platform and all who ride it. I have gone > > > on record that I am accepting of any bike in whatever form it takes. > > > It should be noted that there are those that ride lowracers in the > > > Chicagoland area that I have no issue with and/or with whom I have not > > > become acquainted. > > > > In the context of an Internet forum, if lowracer riders in Chicagoland > > are mentioned, the same names will come up. > > --> And this has what bearing on what was said? > > > > As Mr. Sherman previously posted, "J" does not live in the Chicago area["] > > > and I have never personally met "J", so it DOES NOT LOGICALLY FOLLOW > > > that we don't get along. I've said before, that I hadn't been > > > acquainted with "A" until he thrust himself into the heat of battle to > > > come to the aid of "G", but I have never personally met "A" either, so > > > I don't think that it is appropriate to say that we don't get along. > > > Now, it is fair to say that I don't get along with "E" and "E" doesn't > > > get along with me, but that is a very complex matter that I will not > > > rehash again here. > > > > Mr. McNaa is getting sloppy. There should be a quote k after the > > word area. > > --> It most certainly does not, but either way, who really cares. You > failed to address anything that was said. Surely you haven't run out > of things to say? I repeat that what you said was ILLOGICAL. If you have no issues with "J", why bring him up? Or do you get along with someone you accuse of contributing to the HRS blog? > > > Tom wrote, and I quote,"...so, I am not what his point here is" and if > > > I were to take him literally I would have to reply, but Tom, you most > > > certainly are. I if I wrote that, Tom would respond ... please > > > reformulate the question for clarity, unwilling to recognize the > > > obvious omission of "sure", but I digress. > > > > > > Having spelled out several times what the point is, I'll not allow Tom > > > to make me reinvent the wheel again. He knows very well what the point > > > is. > > > > Yes, Mr. McNaa's point is to cast aspersions on Ed Gin. > > --> Still trying to figure it out I see. Why else would Mr. McNaa jump to the chance to accuse Ed Gin of wrong doing, WHEN MR. McNAA LACKS ANY PROOF? > > > > Mr. McNaa is missing a couple of obvious potential candidates [1], > > > > but he is too blinded by his hatred for Ed Gin to think clearly. > > > > > > --> Mr. McNaa refuses to mention any other candidates that are not > > > as obvious to him as they apparently are to Tom Sherman, but Mr. > > > McNaa has contended all along that he believes that Tom knows far > > > more about all this than he is willing to divulge.... > > > > For the record, no one has told me or admitted to me the identity of > > the HRS blog author(s). > > --> Yeah we all heard that before, but your list of candidates is > longer than mine so you know something that I don't. Why else would Mr. McNaa jump to the chance to accuse Ed Gin of wrong doing, WHEN MR. McNAA LACKS ANY PROOF? > > > Mr. McNaa's > > > feelings about Ed Gin do not obscure his thinking. Ed Gin and Jim > > > McNaa parted company long before the lowracer craze, so it is reasonable > > > to assume that Mr. McNaa is [?] of other potential candidates simply > > > because they were not members of the inner circle when he was. This is > > > apparently a difficult concept for Mr. Sherman to grasp. > > > > Is aware or unaware? > > --> I must have had a momentary distraction. Here' s a hint. It is > the longer of the two words. You know I've said this before, but it > bears repeating. A debate is not about form but about function. > Because of this, I have repeated (9 timea out of 10, at least ) > overlooked numerous mistakes in your writing and assumed you would be > gracious enough to return the favor, but no one will ever accuse you of > being gracious. This harkens back to what I have said countless times > before. When you have nothing worthwhile to contribute in a response, > you resort to inconsequential nitpicking over the insignificant. I > could stoop to you level and do likewise, but I hold myself to a higher > standard. ACCUSATION WITHOUT PROOF IS A HIGHER STANDARD? Who Ed Gin associates with can be determined for the most part by searching Internet forums and websites. Since Mr. McNaa obviously has Internet access, which would not be beyond his means. > > > > [1] And no, I will not mention names, since unlike some; I do not want > > > > to cast suspicion on the possibly innocent. > > > > > > --> I am a member of the possibly innocent and yet Tom has mentioned my > > > name, cloaked by a hypothetical escape clause so that that he can > > > conveniently say something and yet claim that you hadn't actually. I > > > easily play that game, but why? I figure you either have something to > > > say or you don't. I see no point in saying things hypothetically so > > > that I can then later deny that I said them and that is what has been > > > done here no matter what spin Tom puts on it. > > > > Mr. McNaa is not innocent of accusing others without proof. I bring > > the hypothetical possibility that he is the HRS blog author so he can > > see how easy it is to be the victim of unjustified accusations and how > > it is not possible to prove one's innocence other than by confirming > > the guilt of another. > > --> Circumstantial evidence is acceptable as proof in a court of law. > You are not innocent of having accused Mr. McNaa of the possibility > that he is the blog author without proof. Why is it that you feel that > you are above being held accountable for that which you hold other > accountable? You simply will not play by the same rules will you? You > know that you just can't win when you do, can you? Mr. McNaa and > others have cited much in the way of circumstantial evidence in support > of their contention that there is very good reason for their > suspicions. Mr. Sherman hasn't never even produced "hypothetical" > circumstantial evidence to support his "hypothetic" contention that Mr. > McNaa is the HRS blog author and therein lies a very vast difference > that Mr. Sherman utterly refuse to recognize.. I see little circumstantial evidence pointing to Ed Gin as the author of the HRS blog. People accuse Ed Gin because the Johnny NoCom posts, but remember, credible people have stated that Ed Gin is NOT Johnny NoCom. Furthermore, even thought Ed Gin admitted to having contacted "Johnny NoCom", there is no proof of connection between "Johnny NoCom" and HRS other than similar subject matter. So what those who accuse Ed Gin are left with is little beyond his admission of having contacted Johnny NoCom and his known preferences in bicycles which are a reasonable match for the HRS blog. On the other hand, Mr. McNaa fit perfectly the profile of someone who would wish to discredit Ed Gin. By the same low standards Mr. McNaa uses to accuse others, it is reasonable to suspect him of creating the HRS blog with the intent to harm Ed Gin's reputation. It is also clearly credible that Mr. McNaa could avail himself of the tools and information to create the HRS blog if he so chose. After all, with his self proclaimed superior intelligence and writing ability, copying the style of previous anonymous anti-Bacchetta/BROL posts would not be beyond the great Mr. McNaa's ability, would it? -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley   Date: 08 Dec 2005 21:19:11 From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! Edward Dolan wrote: > ... > Glad I was able to wipe all the cobwebs away so that you can now see clearly > your way to salvation.... I must purchase a Polish made, carbon fiber composite splitter plate lowracer? -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley "the bacteria people tuned in-as to bioengineering at the correct wave Point" - G. Daniels   Date: 08 Dec 2005 19:39:30 From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! Jim McNaa <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com > wrote: > I now have to retract what I said to Indiana Mike about not being > attacked in the HRS blog. Gee, do you think it was something I said? > >From the picture one would think that I should take stock of myself, if > it were me that is. I'm 6 feet tall and the last time I weigh a shade > under 170 pounds. I don't take Prozac and never have. The only thing > that they got right is that I did suffer a recent bout with acute > bacterial prostatitis, but that's behind me now. I find it most > telling that I have become the latest target candidate right after Tom > Sherman's blunder when he provided the suspects first initials to the > last initials that I had provided. Now, Tom might not agree, but it is > not unreasonable to assume that I would only have been added to the > inane, defamatory HRS blog if those initials were applicable to one or > more of the suspects. I can hear Tom now ... coincidence ... > circumstantial ... where's the proof? My response is that there have > been way too many coincidences and the circumstantial evidence > continues to mount. This might come as a surprise to you, but > anticipated this predictable response and I am overjoyed that I have > been included. Why? Well, because my inclusion lends credence to my > contention regarding who is responsible and stands in evidence that > what I have had to say has hit home and stuck a nerve. Thanks for > tipping your hand guys. You're not the brightest crayons in the box > are you? You know, the way I look at it, the more target candidates > they include, the more time they will have to devote to (read waste on) > an initiative that no one cares abut cares about. I'll give them their > due though. These toddlers are a clever lot. If they hadn't cracked > their mommy's password, we wouldn't be subjected to their infantile > drivel. Be patient. Perhaps one day they will grow up. Don't hold > your breath though. The following is a purely hypothetical thought experiment story. Any resemblance to actual events, or any person, living or dead is purely coincidental. Let us say our protagonist lives in a major metropolitan area adjacent to a large freshwater lake that has a small, but active community of riders interests in maximizing unfaired recumbent bicycle performance. Our protagonist has had a falling out with three (3) members of that community. Of these three members, one is seen as the founding "mentor" of the group, one is one of the fastest racers, and one has recently moved away to a distant capital city near the ocean. All three (3) ride "cutting edge" design carbon fiber composite splitter plate lowracers made in a country in another continent across a major ocean. The person that moved to the capital city also owns a steel framed highracer that is the "house brand" of a well known specialist recumbent bicycle dealer located in an area known for its dairy industry. Due to our protagonist having feuded with these three (3) members, he wishes to publicly discredit them. However, his public feuds on several Internet forums have, in general, not accomplished this goal. He recalls in the past an anonymous person generated some ill will among a portion of the Internet community by posting using an assumed name that included the name of the carbon fiber composite splitter plate lowracer that his three (3) enemies ride. Our protagonist creates an anonymous Internet "blog" that denigrates a prominent manufacturer of steel and titanium alloy highracer recumbents that competes with the highracer made by the specialist dealer. (In fact this manufacturer dropped the specialist dealer when said dealer introduced his "house brand" highracer line.) The "blog" also denigrates riders sponsored by the prominent highracer manufacturer and an online recumbent magazine and its editors who have accepted advertising from and favorably reviewed the highracers made by the prominent manufacturer. Our protagonist rightly assumes that many will blame his three (3) enemies for authoring the blog, despite the lack of proof. Indeed, no one comes to the defense of the three (3) carbon fiber composite splitter plate lowracer riders except an often annoying pedant (best known for his obsession with an obscure, out of production, user friendly lowracer with an ISO 305-mm/406-mm wheelset, mid-drive jackshaft, and industrial hemp seat pad cover) who copiously posts to an un-moderated public recumbent forum. The annoying pedant, despite being accused of being illogical and delusional by a principal with the prominent highracer manufacturer, correctly points out the lack of proof in the accusations. To further his case, our protagonist starts attacking himself on his anonymous blog, while continuing baseless attacks on the three (3) carbon fiber composite splitter plate lowracer riders. Our protagonist has the advantage of being able to use the same ISP as the two (2) victims that still live in the major city by the large freshwater lake, furthering his wholly circumstantial evidence case against them. How will our story end? Will the truth be revealed? Please remember, this is only a story, and has no connection to real people or events. Your humble author, Johnny Sunset [Most Fun Bike in the Known Universe]     Date: 08 Dec 2005 22:33:06 From: Edward Dolan Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! "Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1134099570.484830.186940@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... [...] > The following is a purely hypothetical thought experiment story. Any > resemblance to actual events, or any person, living or dead is purely > coincidental. > > Let us say our protagonist lives in a major metropolitan area adjacent > to a large freshwater lake that has a small, but active community of > riders interests in maximizing unfaired recumbent bicycle performance. > Our protagonist has had a falling out with three (3) members of that > community. Of these three members, one is seen as the founding "mentor" > of the group, one is one of the fastest racers, and one has recently > moved away to a distant capital city near the ocean. All three (3) ride > "cutting edge" design carbon fiber composite splitter plate lowracers > made in a country in another continent across a major ocean. The person > that moved to the capital city also owns a steel framed highracer that > is the "house brand" of a well known specialist recumbent bicycle > dealer located in an area known for its dairy industry. > > Due to our protagonist having feuded with these three (3) members, he > wishes to publicly discredit them. However, his public feuds on several > Internet forums have, in general, not accomplished this goal. He > recalls in the past an anonymous person generated some ill will among a > portion of the Internet community by posting using an assumed name that > included the name of the carbon fiber composite splitter plate lowracer > that his three (3) enemies ride. > > Our protagonist creates an anonymous Internet "blog" that denigrates a > prominent manufacturer of steel and titanium alloy highracer recumbents > that competes with the highracer made by the specialist dealer. (In > fact this manufacturer dropped the specialist dealer when said dealer > introduced his "house brand" highracer line.) The "blog" also > denigrates riders sponsored by the prominent highracer manufacturer and > an online recumbent magazine and its editors who have accepted > advertising from and favorably reviewed the highracers made by the > prominent manufacturer. > > Our protagonist rightly assumes that many will blame his three (3) > enemies for authoring the blog, despite the lack of proof. Indeed, no > one comes to the defense of the three (3) carbon fiber composite > splitter plate lowracer riders except an often annoying pedant (best > known for his obsession with an obscure, out of production, user > friendly lowracer with an ISO 305-mm/406-mm wheelset, mid-drive > jackshaft, and industrial hemp seat pad cover) who copiously posts to > an un-moderated public recumbent forum. The annoying pedant, despite > being accused of being illogical and delusional by a principal with the > prominent highracer manufacturer, correctly points out the lack of > proof in the accusations. > > To further his case, our protagonist starts attacking himself on his > anonymous blog, while continuing baseless attacks on the three (3) > carbon fiber composite splitter plate lowracer riders. Our protagonist > has the advantage of being able to use the same ISP as the two (2) > victims that still live in the major city by the large freshwater lake, > furthering his wholly circumstantial evidence case against them. > > How will our story end? Will the truth be revealed? > > Please remember, this is only a story, and has no connection to real > people or events. > > Your humble author, > > Johnny Sunset [Most Fun Bike in the Known Universe] The moral of the above fable is never, never go to any blog, not even if it is by God or the Devil Himself. Instead, come to the welcoming arms of good old ARBR where you can get in your two cents worth without being censored or otherwise meddled with. Who could ask for anything more? However, ARBR can be taken down and easily destroyed by criminal behavior, so we ask that you restrict your criminal behavior to a blog where no one, but no one will ever read you. Glad I was able to wipe all the cobwebs away so that you can now see clearly your way to salvation. Regards, Ed Dolan - Minnesota >   Date: 08 Dec 2005 17:31:43 From: Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! Mike, I got a good laugh concerning your observation that Tom could regard this coincidence as possible evidence that you might be behind the site, but he'd regard that as circumstantial ... requiring further investigation and lack of definitive proof and I would tend to agree with him in this instance. I didn't miss your reference, but I think the seed was planted long beforehand. I fully anticipated this would occur. Frankly, much to their disappointment, I'm not bothered in the least by my induction. I welcome it as an affirmation and confirmation of those that I regard as responsible. As concern this bothering me out of proportion to it's merit, I understand what you're saying, but this all comes down to a matter of perspective. I just feel that all that is said in jest is not a joke and what is amusing from the outside looking in is generally far less amusing when one is the brunt of a joke. The bottom line is that HRS blog is a purposefully tasteless, denigrating monologue with no avenue for rebuttal for the victim other than an opposing blog or discussion in an open unmoderated from such is this. What should be kept in mind though is not how you and I perceive this, but how it is perceived under the law. Public figures have much more diminished right under the 1st amendment. 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 have assumed special prominence 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. Nonetheless, determination of public figure status is a question of law, not fact. It is the trial judge who makes that determination. It does not appear that the targeted individuals fall into the category of "public figures" as defined, including myself. It should also be noted that private individuals need only show that a defamatory falsehood was made negligently (with reckless disregard as to its truth) and not that it was made with actual malice. 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. The blog participants are on shaky grounds, but 1st amendment rights are a complicated issue and topic of jurisprudence and 1st amendment interpretation is best left to the Constitutional law professional and the court system. I offer this as food for thought. Jim McNaa   Date: 09 Dec 2005 00:06:55 From: Mike Rice Subject: Re: Move over Rich ... There's a new guy in town at HRS (Attn: Indiana Mike) !!! On 8 Dec 2005 15:47:03 -0800, jimmymac_4@yahoo.com wrote: >I now have to retract what I said to Indiana Mike about not being >attacked in the HRS blog. Gee, do you think it was something I said? >>From the picture one would think that I should take stock of myself, if >it were me that is. I'm 6 feet tall and the last time I weigh a shade >under 170 pounds. I don't take Prozac and never have. The only thing >that they got right is that I did suffer a recent bout with acute >bacterial prostatitis, but that's behind me now. Intentional pun? >(I) find it most >telling that I have become the latest target candidate right after Tom >Sherman's blunder when he provided the suspects first initials to the >last initials that I had provided. Now, Tom might not agree, but it is >not unreasonable to assume that I would only have been added to the >inane, defamatory HRS blog if those initials were applicable to one or >more of the suspects. I can hear Tom now ... coincidence ... >circumstantial ... where's the proof? It is also likely a coincidence that your apparent inclusion came right after I stated that your & Tom's thread had gone on so long that I would not be surprised to find reference to it included in said blog site. Or did you miss that post as well as Tom's ones chastising the bloggers for the targeting of private individuals? Of course, now Tom can point to this coincidence as possible evidence that *I* could be behind the site, eh? > My response is that there have >been way too many coincidences and the circumstantial evidence >continues to mount. This might come as a surprise to you, but >anticipated this predictable response and I am overjoyed that I have >been included. Why? Well, because my inclusion lends credence to my >contention regarding who is responsible and stands in evidence that >what I have had to say has hit home and stuck a nerve. Thanks for >tipping your hand guys. You're not the brightest crayons in the box >are you? You know, the way I look at it, the more target candidates >they include, the more time they will have to devote to (read waste on) >an initiative that no one cares abut cares about. I'll give them their >due though. These toddlers are a clever lot. If they hadn't cracked >their mommy's password, we wouldn't be subjected to their infantile >drivel. Be patient. Perhaps one day they will grow up. Don't hold >your breath though. > >Jim McNaa My perception is that this bothers you all out of proportion to it's merit. We used to have a saying before the world got so cought up in political correctness, one that I miss. whatever happened to "Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke?" Indiana Mike