| |
Main
Date: 19 Dec 2005 17:49:11
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Offer to JimmyMac!
|
Here is my UNREASONABLE counter offer to JimmyMac: If he can prove I am
an extra-terrestrial space alien, I will give him $1,000.000.00. If he
can not prove this, he will give me $1,000,000.00.
See, I can be silly too! ;)
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
|
| |
Date: 22 Dec 2005 14:29:32
From:
Subject: Re: Offer to JimmyMac!
|
Readers, here's another episode...
Who is "Garry Brown"? I don't believe (to the best of my memory) I have
ever responded to a post by "Garry Brown".
-- > Another in a long list of Ed Gin's ex-friends and the person to
whom you posted a reply. Are you in the habit of compounding a lie
with another lie? You provided the link (which contains your response)
that I posted previously. You denied reading the post, then admitted
that you read ONE but not BOTH and now you deny responding. You are a
piece of work. Are you ... A. STUPID, B. A LIAR or C. BOTH OF THE
ABOVE? I reluctantly provided a link but the second post ias also
imbedded in the link that you provided. Please note that the your
response (that you claim not to have made) was responded to by Ed Gin
thanking you for your support. Please also note that even Ed Gin does
not dispute that the private emails were his. What he says is .... I
fail to see the relevance of this post for arbr readers. And it is
true, private and personal messages should remain just that. It is no
longer necessary for Mr. Sherman to dispute the origin or author. Why
would Ed gin make such statements if he were not the author?
But before Mr. McNaa wrote "At the time, without having read the
actual posts, how then could you have objected to the posts (posted
private emails)" [1] Note the plural "posts". Now Mr. McNaa writes
that he does not believe I made any comments about the second post.
Should I accept Mr. McNaa's standard here and call him a LIAR, or
should I accept that he made an error due to the length of time that
has passed since Gary Brown posted what he (Gary Brown) ALLEGED to be a
derogatory email from Ed Gin?
-- > Since you are pretending to have so much difficulty in your none
too subtle diversionary effort to avoid answering the question, allow
me to help you out with this one. I should not have used a plural, but
a typo does not a LIAR make. The question remains unanswered. How
could you have responded to that which you denied having read? You
said you didn't read the post. Then, you said you did, but didn't
respond though your own link stands in evidence that you both read and
responded to the post. I trust that the readers can decide who the
LIAR is. For what it is worth, the length of time that has passed
since Gary Brown posted Ed Gin's (not derogatory, but vile) email and
the typo have no relation to one another and it is ILLOGICAL to assume
otherwise, but what would one expect from Mr. ILLOGICAL?
I stand by my usage of letter, as that was the form of the writing. A
letter transmitted electronically as email, but a letter nonetheless.
-- > Introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the
question at hand is one of Mr. Sherman's favorite tools in his LOGICAL
FALLACY toolbox. I could care less if he calls an email a letter that
is electronically transmitted. Personally, I prefer the use of the
word to the use of the definition of the word. Mr. Sherman's protest
has nothing to do with the issue at hand, although this is not out of
the ordinary. The issue is that Mr. Sherman chooses to associate and
not associate with people based on what is posted on the internet and
what was posted in this instance was vile and Mr. Sherman has chosen to
associate with its author. What dose this say of Mr. Sherman?
Since Mr. McNaa will not do so, would someone else please post a
link to this second ALLEGED letter from Ed Gin to Gary Brown?
-- > As perceptive as your average tree stump and dumber that a rock,
Mr. Sherman failed to note that in the link that he provided the second
email was embedded. Furthermore I did provide a link, but it is a
tradek of Mr. Sherman to deny everything. The link was blue, but
because it was not preceded by http://, Mr. Imperceptible failed t
recognize that it was a link. The link repeated here is ...
www.cyclingforums.com/showthread/t-22158.html.
But Mr. McNaa says he does not recall me responding to the posting
of the second letter. If this belief of Mr. McNaa is true, then he
is being illogical when he calls my statement "technically incorrect"
since how would he know that I read the second post if I did not
respond to it? ESP perhaps?
-- > Do you never tire of logical fallacies? What you don't know about
logic could fill the Library of Congress. This is not about whether
you did or did not read the second post. It is about the post itself
as your criteria for who you chose to associate or not associate with.
If Mr. Sherman read the post in the link he proved he read the second
email that was embedded in the post and was also posted separately
elsewhere, so technically speaking Mr. Sherman's statement is indeed
technically incorrect and to insist otherwise is illogical. Off topic
again, I will remind Mr. Sherman that the issue at hand is that Mr.
Sherman chooses to associate and not associate with people based on
what is posted on the internet and what was posted in this instance was
vile and Mr. Sherman has chosen to associate with its author. What
dose this say of Mr. Sherman?
> The emails are not alleged.
Prove it. Get notarized ISP records that show Ed Gin originated an
email with this content that was sent to Gary Brown.
-- > I don't have to. I didn't label the emails alleged. You did. The
emails forwarded with intact headers are sufficient enough for me. If
this is insufficient for you, that's your problem to resolve, not mine.
Mr. Sherman should note that even Ed Gin didn't dispute that the
private emails were his. What he said was .... I fail to see the
relevance of this post for arbr readers. And it is true, private and
personal messages should remain just that. Since Ed Gin refers to his
own emails as irrelevant to the ARBR readership and as private and
personal and should have remained as such, is it not unreasonable to
assume that the emails originated from any other source or means? Why
would Ed Gin make such statements if he were not the author?
> You said ... I
> recall Mr. McNaa commenting on this before, but I have not read the
> actual posts referred to, but now you said that you have read ONE.
> Which is it? One is the truth and one is not. In either case, the
> fact remains that one time you did not tell the truth and what is a
> person called that tells an untruth ... A LIAR!!!
See above. By the standard he is proposing here, Mr. McNaa is a
liar.
-- > Readers this LOGICAL FALACY is know as Tu quoque, but I'll just
leave it at that, just see what I said about a typo does not a LIAR
make. I stand by the above statement, which is logical and incapable
of being proved to be otherwise.
I would also like Mr. McNaa to reference any moral system not of his
devising that considers not remembering an event over two and one-half
(2-1/2) years ago to be a lie.
-- > And I would like Mr. Sherman to refrain from introducing
irrelevant arguments as a diversionary tactic. How many times must I
point out that this is a LOGICAL FALLACY and very poor form on the part
of Mr. Sherman. Memory retention is not the issue here and has not
significance since links to the archived information were provided by
Mr. Sherman. FACT: Mr. Sherman has said that he didn't read the post
and then he said that he did, but did not respond to the post when, in
fact, he did. Mr. Sherman lied not once, but twice. Mr. Sherman had
sufficient time to read what was contained in the link that he provided
before lying for the second time. Although this speaks very poorly of
Mr. Sherman, that is not my concern. This is not about how truthful
Mr. Sherman is but about how he chooses who he associates with based on
what is posted on the internet which is bizarre enough to spin off
another debate altogether, but I'm not going there.
> If someone not being to recall one (1) of ten-thousand plus (10,000+)
> posts is the best "victory" Mr. McNaa can come up with, he really is
> a miserable creature.
> --> ILLOGICAL. So I am a miserable creature for having been victorious
> concerning something that you have assumed that I believe? Readers
> this is the same man that defies anyone to prove that he has ever made
> an illogical statement. That's not a challenge. That's a joke. What
> we have here is what Mr. Sherman refers to as the LOGICAL FALLACY known
> as a STRAW MAN. Words are first put in my mouth and then the next
> LOGICAL FALLACY is employed (RED HERRING - defined elsewhere) in the
> form of an irrelevant argument, introduced as diversion followed by the
> next LOGICAL FALLACY (NON SEQUITUR - defined elsewhere) in which a
> conclusion is arrived at that does follow from the premise. Mr.
> Sherman attributes of me that I consider his inability to recall one
> (1) of ten-thousand plus (10,000+) posts a "victory" whereas I consider
> it to be neither a victory on my part nor a shortcoming his, but Mr.
> Sherman made such a fuss about it that it does raise an interesting
> question regarding his basic insecurity.
Why did Mr. McNaa 'trumpet" about it so loudly if he did not
consider it a "victory"? If Mr. McNaa is being serious in the above
paragraph, I suggest he seek appropriate psychiatric attention.
-- > You really are insecure aren't you? You must be the only one to
have heard the trumpet let alone the excessive volume of the trumpet.
I was indeed being serious in the above paragraph. If you take this
logic stuff seriously, then you should learn how to employ it rather
than violate it. Nothing I said warrants a psychiatric evaluation.
Did you skip your meds today Tom?
> Tom is it so difficult for
> you to recognize even the most minute aspect in your makeup that would
> attest to you being like the rest of us that you must seek sanctuary in
> denial of a human shortcoming. Renunciation of human imperfection is
> itself an imperfection, but I digress. Putting things back on track,
> you said ... Based on the Internet postings of both Mr. McNaa and Ed
> Gin, I would rather be known to associate with Ed Gin and I replied
> referring the posting of two vile emails one of which you responded to
> in defense of the author and from there you went off on a tangent ...
> not uncommon.
Mr. McNaa has a significant issue with his stalking of Ed Gin on
various online discussion forums. Mr. McNaa has a history of
attacking Ed Gin on threads that have not made any mention of Mr.
McNaa. This is psychologically abnormal behavior of a rather
unpleasant sort, and I do not wish to deal with such people on a
voluntary basis.
-- > Stalking has a very specific definition under the law. Mr. Sherman
takes great liberty with that definition by misusing the term stalking.
This is hysterical. First Mr. Sherman refused to address my
contention (commonplace) and then the engineer takes off his engineer
cap and puts on his psychologist's smock and declares me to be a
stalker given to psychologically abnormal behavior ... an assessment
that Mr. Sherman lack of training and expertise renders him unqualified
to make, but that doesn't that cramp his style or lack thereof. It
gets better. He then emphatically states the he does not wish to deal
with such people on a voluntary basis. Correct me if I am wrong here
readers, but Mr. Sherman volunteered to be the HRS blog/Ed Gin
spokesperson to take on the alleged psychologically abnormal Mr.
McNaa, did he not? Now, either he wants to mix it up with me or he
doesn't, but he really should make up his mind in this regard. If he
doesn't wish to deal with me, then he should heed his own words and
stop volunteering to do so. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on
they way out, Tommy boy.
As for the ALLEGED improper behavior of Ed Gin, it is just that -
ALLEGED.
-- > Thanks To, I needed or you to lighten up and introduce some humor
to the debate.
Show me some DEFINITIVE PROOF and I would reconsider my position, but
that proof to date has not been forthcoming, which leads me to strongly
suspect that Ed Gin is innocent of the acts of which Mr. McNaa
accuses him.
-- > I once asked Mr. Sherman to provide me with a single example of a
concession that he has ever made and he could not do so. I have stated
that I do not believe that Mr. Sherman would accept any form of proof
no matter how damning and I have also said that I have no inclination
whatsoever to try no matter how often he makes his impractical and
unrealistic demands. I think I will let Ed Gin, answer this one in his
own words ... I fail to see the relevance of this post for arbr
readers. And it is true, private and personal messages should remain
just that. Since Ed Gin refers to his own emails as irrelevant to the
ARBR readership and refers to them as private and personal and protests
that they should have remained as such, is it not unreasonable to
assume that the emails originated from any other source or means? It
should be obvious that Ed Gin would not have made such statements
unless he was the author.
> The email headers could have been from a perfectly acceptable email by
> Ed Gin, posted with text by another author. Alternately, someone could
> have sent the offensive email with forged header's that appeared to be
> Ed Gin's.
> --> Tom, did you buy Ed Gin that engagement ring for Xmas? Readers,
> need I repeat what I have said about nonsensical hypothesis after
> nonsensical hypothesis? The emails were first forwarded to me intact
> even before they were posted. When posted, I noted not a single
> alteration. There was no need to alter that which was sufficiently
> vile as to speak for itself.
Oh yes, I would take Mr. McNaa's word on this, considering his
history of ACCUSING ED GIN WHILE LACKING PROOF OF THE ACCUSATION.
-- > LOGICAL FALLACY - Argumentum ad hominem is the error of attacking
the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather
than the idea itself. Mr. Sherman continues to demonstrate that he is
a master of the LOGICAL FALLACY. Look, Ed Gin has told numerous lies
about me, but so what. That is not the issue here. I stand by what I
said above. Off topic again, I will remind Mr. Sherman that the issue
at hand is that Mr. Sherman chooses to associate and not associate with
people based on what is posted on the internet and what was posted in
this instance was vile and Mr. Sherman has chosen to associate with its
author. What dose this say of Mr. Sherman?
I did not fall off the turnip truck yesterday.
-- > The day before maybe?
Please provide original notarized records from the ISP proving that
these emails were indeed sent from Ed Gin's computer. Then prove that
Ed Gin was at his computer at the time the emails were sent (since Ed
Gin's computer could have been hacked by someone wishing to discredit
him.
-- > Readers, do you see how ridiculous this man is and the extremes to
which will go to defend Ed Gin? If I had said, Mr. Sherman would have
protested about how impractical and unreasonable the demand was as to
render it useless and in fact he did just that in another thread.
Prove that Ed Gin was at his computer 2 1/2 years ago? Now there's an
easy requirement to meet. It should be noted that even Ed Gin doesn't
even dispute that the private emails were his. What he says is .... I
fail to see the relevance of this post for arbr readers. And it is
true, private and personal messages should remain just that. Ed Gin
refers to his own emails as private, personal, irrelevant to the ARBR
readership, and should have remained as such. Why would Ed Gin make
such statements if he were not the author? Does Mr. Sherman doubt Gary
Brown, Jim McNaa and now Ed Gin too?
> Evidence on the Internet indicates that there are people resentful
> enough towards Ed Gin to have the motive to smear him this way.
> --> Now there's a revelation, but of course none of this resentment was
> earned or warranted.
That (assuming by context that Mr. McNaa is being sarcastic) is a
matter of opinion, not fact.
-- > Give that man a cigar. You picked up on the sarcasm. You do pay
attention sometimes (more sarcasm).
> > SPAM is neither the issue nor has it any relation whatsoever to the
> > emails that were forwarded by the victim and not by, the word you more
> > appropriate should have used ... a TROJAN (not a virus).
> Mr. McNaa is back to his immoral habit of willful misinterpretation.
> If the "Trojan" sends out email that contains advertising without the
> account owner's knowledge, what is received on the other end is SPAM.
> Or is Mr. McNaa not able to figure this out by himself?
> --> OK, allow me to restate. There is no immoral willful
> misinterpretation, just diversion on the part of Mr. Sherman through
> introducing irrelevant facts or
> arguments to distract from the question at hand. I know what SPAM is,
> but advertising wasn't sent out ...
I never claimed that advertising was sent out,
-- > Nor did I. I claimed that vile emails were sent out and not by a
trojan.
but used that as an
illustration of what types of things can happen.
-- > Ridiculous. You were confusing the issue by introducing irrelevant
issues as usual.
Mr. McNaa may
recall this incident:
<http://www.ihpva.org/pipermail/hpv/1999-December/001027.html >.
-- > Actually, I don't, but what bearing does this have on you choosign
who you associated or do not associate with based on internet postings?
> vile emails were that were in turn
> posted in newsgroups and a trojan compose and send it to Gray and a
> trojan didn't post it to the newsgroups. A trojan can harvest email
> address and send itself to every address in an email address book, but
> not to a newsgroup. There would be no purpose in that and that is not
> what a trojan does. Is Mr. Sherman so dense that he just can't figure
> out ... 1. what SPAM is, 2. how a tojan functions or, 3. how off-topic
> his objection is regarding authenticity of email headers with his
> SPAM/trojan diversionary nonsense?
Mr. McNaa must be dense since I NEVER SAID that was what happened in
the referenced case, but merely used it as an example of the INSECURITY
OF COMPUTERS CONNECTED TO THE INTERNET AND HOW THINGS CAN HAPPEN
WITHOUT THE CONSENT OR KNOWLEDGE OF THE COMPUTER OWNER. If Mr. McNaa
is not that dense, then he is being deceitful by introducing a straw
man.
-- > TRANSLATION: I (read Tom Sherman) introduced irrelevant nonsense
as a diversion to confuse the issue which was none too complicated in
the fist place. Gary Brown received two vile emails from Ed Gin. He
forwarded them to me. He later cross-posted them on the internet.
There was no need to introduce a complicated set of hypothetical
possibilities that did not correspond to reality.
> The common occurrence of emails being sent without the account
> owner's consent or knowledge demonstrates that temporarily taking
> over an email account to send disparaging messages is technically
> feasible for quite a few people.
> --> Readers, do not be misled by the above notion stated as factual.
> This is not a common occurrence. What it is though is Tom's assertions
> stated as though fact.
It is a common enough occurrence that it would merit investigation if
one were attempting to obtain the truth.
-- > And, where pray tell cane the statistical evidence be found to
substantiate your assertion that was misrepresented as fact?
> > The emails
> > that were forwarded with complete headers intact were those that were
> > cross-posted in various Internet Usenet newsgroups including ARBR. I
> > said that the author and origin of the email was beyond question.
> Are we supposed to take Mr. McNaa's word for something when it
> concerns an unfavorable contention against Ed Gin, knowing how deeply
> Mr. McNaa despises Ed Gin and Mr. McNaa's history of posting
> accusations WHILE LACKING DEFINITIVE PROOF? I think not.
> --> Readers, do not be taken in by this deliberately contrived
> misleading question. I did not expect Mr. Sherman to accept what I
> said and I have not even asked the readership to. I merely stated a
> fact. Ed Gin sent 2 vile emails to Gary Brown.
WHERE IS THE PROOF OF THIS BEING A FACT? All we have to rely on is the
apparent (assuming the post(s) in question were not forged) word of
Gary Brown and that of Mr. McNaa.
-- > You will not even accept the words of Ed Gin in this matter? He
said ... I fail to see the relevance of this post for arbr readers.
And it is true, private and personal messages should remain just that.
Since Ed Gin refers to his own emails as irrelevant to the ARBR
readership and refers to them as private and personal and protests that
they should have remained as such, is it not unreasonable to assume
that the emails originated from any other source or means? It should
be obvious that Ed Gin would not have made such statements unless he
was the author. Readers, please not that next we are likely to hear
that not only were the emails bogus but so to was Ed Gin's response.
The only thing bogus here is Tom Sherman's sincerity. Off topic again,
I will remind Mr. Sherman that the issue at hand is that Mr. Sherman
chooses to associate and not associate with people based on what is
posted on the internet and what was posted in this instance was vile
and Mr. Sherman has chosen to associate with its author. What dose
this say of Mr. Sherman?
Since to the best of our knowledge Mr. McNaa is not an infallible
omniscient godlike being, this does CONSTITUTE PROOF.
-- > To the best of my knowledge, I never claimed to be omniscient or
godlike. Check out Ed Gin's email signature from one of the posted
emails ... Ed - God like as you can get - Gin. I think Mr. Sherman has
me confused with the self-deified Ed Gin whom he worships.
> Gary Brown forwarded
> those 2 emails to me with headers in tact.
I am thankful that Gary Brown was tactful in doing so. Lack of tact is
a mortal sin.
-- > I'd be thankful if you'd stay on topic.
> Later, Gary cross-posted
> those emails to various newsgroups. You don't have to take my word for
> it. You also have the victim's word. Tom can run his mouth all he
> wants. What he has to say in this matter has no bearing on what
> occurred.
WHERE IS THE DEFINITVE PROOF THAT ED GIN WROTE THE (ALLEGED) EMAILS
THAT GARY (NOT GARRY) BROWN POSTED?
-- > Agreed, so why did you write ... Who is "Garry Brown"? I don't
believe (to the best of my memory) I have ever responded to a post by
"Garry Brown"? I once asked Mr. Sherman to provide me with a single
example of a concession that he has ever made and he could not do so.
I have stated that I do not believe that Mr. Sherman would accept any
form of proof no matter how damning and I have also said that I have no
inclination whatsoever to try no matter how often he makes his
impractical and unrealistic demands. I think I will let Ed Gin, answer
this one in his own words ... I fail to see the relevance of this post
for arbr readers. And it is true, private and personal messages should
remain just that. Since Ed Gin refers to his own emails as irrelevant
to the ARBR readership and refers to them as private and personal and
protests that they should have remained as such, is it not unreasonable
to assume that the emails originated from any other source or means?
It should be obvious that Ed Gin would not have made such statements
unless he was the author.
> > From
> > the content of the email headers and the personal nature of the emails,
> > it was obvious to me.
> Nothing that could not have been faked. [YAWN]
> --> Has anyone else grown tired of Tom's perhaps, maybe, could have
> crap? The only thing fake here is Tom Sherman. He is a sham ... as
> phony as they come ... gratuitous no ... fact. I take it from his
> YAWN that he's even tiring of his own bullshit.
When defamatory behavior of an individual is alleged, I deal in
INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED FACTS, not the statements of people who
constantly attack the individual in question when there has been no
provocation.
-- > I recall when you responded Gary Brown suggested that you ask Ed
Gin yourself whether he authored the vile emails. I suggest that you
do the same. Verify away.
> > Nothing is obvious to you where to Ed Gin is
> > concerned. As one of his devoted disciples you are blinded by your
> > allegiance to him and your reasoning process is impaired. Ed Gin can
> > do no wrong in your eyes. If you were an eyewitness to a murder
> > committed by Ed Gin, the first words out of your mouth would consist of
> > excuses and a defense.
> Now Mr. McNaa is just being ridiculous. [YAWN]
> --> Mr. Sherman replied in the only way that he could which was to
> avoid replying altogether.
Huh? In Mr. McNaa's hypothetical scenario, did I see just the
killing (in which case it could be legitimate self-defense) or do I
know ALL the FACTS in the case?
-- > Readers, do you see what I mean about Mr. Sherman? Thank you Mr.
Sherman for making my point abundantly clear to the readership. I
stated that Mr. Sherman witnessed a hypothetical murder. Murder is
defined as unlawful, premeditated killing of a human being by another
human being. Self-defense is not murder, but Mr. Sherman does
intentionally confuse issues. Mr. Sherman need not know all the facts
in the case to arrive at a conclusion from the data provided by his own
senses. Mr. Sherman witnessed a hypothetical murder and not so
hypothetically answered a question with a misleading question rather
that responding in an honest and straightforward manner which speaks
volumes of the man.
> What is the real problem here? Is it that Ed Gin is not Mr. McNaa's
> "Devoted disciple", or that Ed Gin does not see Mr. McNaa as someone
> who "can do no wrong"?
> --> And you assume that I would ever have Ed Gin as a devoted disciple
> or care what he thinks about me? Are you daft? I said I am ashamed to
> admit having ever been associated with him. How many times must
> someone repeat things to you for you to understand? What a dullard.
It is a sign of moral character to be able forgive others. What has Ed
Gin ever done to Mr. McNaa that is unforgivable?
-- > Ah, the ultimate diversion ... opening the door to an entirely
different topic to debate. At this juncture, did you really actually
expect me to fall fo that one?
> > > Although it can be argued that it
> > > was inappropriate to have posted a private email, in comparison, the
> > > posting of private was far less of an offense in comparison to the
> > > email content or the defense of the person responsible. Obviously you
> > > aren't new to the role of defending Ed Gin.
> > I am aware of several cases where I KNOW Ed Gin has wrongly been
> > accused of being the author of anonymous postings. This is cause for
> > reasonable doubt, in the ABSCENCE OF DEFINITIVE PROOF OF AUTHORSHIP.
> > --> Irrelevant (read RED HERRING - introducing irrelevant facts or
> > arguments to distract from the question at hand and NON SEQUITUR -
> > arriving at conclusion that that does not strictly follow from the
> > premise. You do like LOGICAL FALLACIES don't you MR. ILLOGICAL? We've
> > heard all this crap before. Nothing is acceptable to you as definitive
> > proof, so you can stop beatin' that tom-tom ... Tom.
> Mr. McNaa's idea of definitive proof appears to be "I said so".
> --> Where did I say anything about proving anything to you? Mr.
> Sherman's idea of disputation appears to be "but it could possibly be
> other than what it appears to be". Now that's a whole lot better now
> isn't it? Readers, please note that Mr. Sherman failed to address any
> of the issues raised regarding the use of LOGICAL FALLACIES even though
> he has constantly boasted about what a logician he is. Mr. Sherman has
> never and will never accept any proof, no matter how damning or
> definitive where Ed Gin is concerned.
I will accept evidence that would convince an impartial jury of
mentally competent persons of at least normal intelligence beyond a
reasonable doubt. Such evidence has never been presented to me
concerning ALLEGED wrongdoing by Ed Gin.
-- > TRANSLATION: I (read Tom Sherman) will not even accept Ed Gin's
own words in this regard. I will even protect him from himself. Like
it or not, Mr. Sherman, the readers will serve as the jurors.
> Ed Gin cannot do anything wrong in his eyes.
An assertion WITHOUT PROOF on Mr. McNaa's part. I have never claimed
that Ed Gin should join the company of Jesus of Nazareth (assuming
Christian belief) as being without fault.
-- > Until Mr. Sherman provides a specific acceptable example of what he
has ever disapproved of regarding Ed Gin and when, I stand firm by my
statement. Mr. Sherman should stop defending Mr. Gin. He is only
making Mr. Gin and himself look bad ... not an assertion ... an
observation.
> I never once said that I had any intentions of meeting
> Mr. Sherman's impossible demands for anything that even remotely
> resembles what he would consider definitive proof. It is not possible
> to prove anything to Mr. Sherman especially anything that reflects
> poorly on Mr. Ed Gin.
If this is the case, Mr. McNaa should not have accused Ed Gin of
wrongdoing.
-- > LOGICAL FALLACY. It does not logically follow that because I have
no intention of meeting Mr. Sherman's impractical and impossible
demands for anything that even remotely resembles what he would
consider definitive proof that this does not entitle me to accuse Ed
Gin of wrongdoing. Again I remind Mr. Sherman that I did not want to
post links or to have this discussion proceed in this direction. I
merely wanted to refer to an internet posting since he stated that who
he associates with or does not associate with persons was based on
internet posts. How many times must I remind Mr. Sherman to remain on
topic?
> Hint to Mr. McNaa - you are not the next true prophet of God.
> --> Click on the link that Tom Sherman provided and you will note that
> he has me confused with his vile companion who signed his email ... Ed
> - God like as you can get - Gin. The second posted email was signed
> ... Ed - get on your knees and pray to me you gimp - Gin. Readers,
> draw you own conclusion as to who thinks they are like unto a God. Do
> you suppose this is why Tom Sherman worships the ground that Ed Gin
> walks on?
See above. Mr. McNaa is using highly evidence that is highly
contested as to its authenticity in his argument. Enough said.
-- > Please define "highly evidence". Your refusal to recognize
anything that casts bad light on your good buddy Ed does not makes
evidence highly contested. Maybe to you it does. Go back and read
what your good buddy had to say. He didn't deny that he wrote the vile
emails. He protested them being posted.
> > > For what it is worth,
> > > this is not a popularity contest. Your choice of whom you would rather
> > > be known to associate with is of course your choice, but you will never
> > > be know to have associated with me because I will not associate with
> > > anyone who defends the vile Ed Gin.
> > Will Mr. McNaa confirm that Ed Gin is correct in stating the Mr.
> > McNaa is of retirement age, has gray hair and rides a black P-38?
> > The reason I am asking is so I will ignore any such person I encounter
> > in the Chicagoland area unless they identify themselves to me first as
> > being someone other than Mr. McNaa.
> > --> I refer you to my picture on the HRS blog. Could I fit on a P-38
> > ;^) ??? Ed is only a shade older than me. I ride a black P-38, but a
> > Bacchetta AERO might be in my future. I also ride a Spectrum titanium
> > upright and my hair is not gray, but how could you tell with a helmet
> > anyways?
> I am attempting to do Mr. McNaa a favor here - I would not want to
> cloud his day by having to acknowledge my existence in real life when
> he was out riding one of his bicycles.
> --> I suppose these sound bytes are suppose to convey something
> meaningful.
Sound? No Mr. McNaa, those words were WRITTEN, not SPOKEN.
-- > Mr. Sherman tried so hard to be cute that he even failed to note
that I meant sound bite, but trust me he got the point.
> > On the same note, if Mr. McNaa sees someone riding a light
> > purple/lavender Sunset or a red Sunset with "T" bars, Mr. McNaa
> > should be advised not to talk to this person, since said person
> > associates with Ed Gin.
> > --> Please provide your age, height, weight, hair and eye color so that
> > I can accommodate you.
> There is only one (1) red Sunset in the Chicagoland area with "T-bars"
> (and possibly in the whole world) and to the best of my knowledge only
> one (1) Sunset was powder coated light purple (or lavender, if you
> prefer). The possibility for confusion approaches zero (unless Mr.
> McNaa is color blind).
> --> I could do a Tom Sherman as go on and on about it being
> hypothetically possible for someone else to have their Sunset lowracer
> powder coated in the same color or equip one with T-bars or for Tom's
> bike to be ridden by some else, but I'll not do that. I'll just ask
> again the question that I asked that he did not answer ... please
> provide your age, height, weight, hair and eye color so that I can
> accommodate you.
Age "A": 1 year < A < 100 years.
Height "H": 1 meter < H < 2 meters.
Weight "W": 500N < W < 1500N.
Hair and Eye color: darker than white and lighter than black. - Are you
referring to hair or eyes?
-- > I asked for data, not a meaningless formula.
See <http://www.ransbikes.com/Gallery/Archive/Sherman.htm >.
> > Need I point out the logical fallacy here?
> > This is really becoming a bad habit. It does not logically follow that
> > I will not associate with someone simply because they associate with Ed
> > Gin.
> Yes, but Mr. McNaa has made it obvious in the VERY RECENT PAST that
> he would not want to associate with me. Is Mr. McNaa's memory
> failing?
> --> YES??? as, an admission of a logical fallacy? My memory is just
> fine. I sated that I would not associate.
Mr. McNaa apparently does not need any more associates because he is
sated.
-- > Predictable. If all your priy interest is in proof reading,
I'll see if I can make a few more typos for you.
> I remember stating. I
> still hold that to be a true statement and I'll not be forgetting that
> I said it anytime soon.
> > Repetition to ensure comprehension is becoming tedious, but I
> > will repeat a couple of things that you are still unable to comprehend.
> > Ed Gin and I have some common friends. You will never be one of them.
> Mr. McNaa makes my point above, which makes his paragraph
> self-contradictory.
> --> This makes so little sense that I don't even know what to say ...
> paragraphs self-contradictory and I make you point above. Get some
> sleep. You're not even making sense anymore.
> > I will not associate with you,
> I think I will break out the champagne!
> > if for no other reason than you defend the vile Mr. Ed Gin.
> Mr. McNaa once again presents facts not in evidence. Mr. McNaa
> has proven his disregard for Ed Gin, but has yet to offer DEFINITIVE
> PROOF of Ed Gin's ALLEGED vileness.
> --> There are no facts in evidence that Ed Gin is vile? Readership, I
> officially pronounce Mr. Sherman to be deaf, dumb and blind!!!
Mr. McNaa confuses FACTS with ALLEGATIONS.
PLEASE PROVIDE THESE FACTS WITH INDEPENDANT, VERIFYABLE CONFIRMATION.
-- > Is this the best that you can do ... parrot the same impractical,
unrealistic request that cannot be met to your satisfaction? Your
protests do not in any way shape or form change the facts or what
transpired. I once asked Mr. Sherman to provide me with a single
example of a concession that he has ever made and he could not do so.
I have stated that I do not believe that Mr. Sherman would accept any
form of proof no matter how damning and I have also said that I have no
inclination whatsoever to try no matter how often he makes his
impractical and unrealistic demands. I think I will let Ed Gin,
address this in his own words ... I fail to see the relevance of this
post for arbr readers. And it is true, private and personal messages
should remain just that. Since Ed Gin refers to his own emails as
irrelevant to the ARBR readership and refers to them as private and
personal and protest that they should have remained as such, is it not
unreasonable to assume that the emails originated from any other
source? It should be obvious that Ed Gin would not have made such
statements unless was the author.
> > Have you got it now ... Mr. Imperceptible?
> After his contradictory paragraph, Mr. McNaa follows up with a
> gratuitous insult
> --> Following misinterpretation of a paragraph, Mr. Sherman
> misconstrues a valid observation to be an insult. Go easy on the
> champagne, Tom.
I think I will have a glass of champagne and toast Ed Gin for
introducing many riders to recumbents, faired bicycles, lowracers, and
carbon fiber composite splitter-plate bikes.
[1]
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent/msg/f02ad6e... >.
-- > Irrelevant, but as long as you have the bottle open, I think I'll
have a glass and toast the conclusion of this debate. The vile emails
with complete intact headers speak for themselves ... Ed Gin's own
words speak for themselves ... Mr. Sherman's tedious debating style,
rife with illogical fallacies, speaks for itself and Ed Gin's vile
emails stand in evidence of the type of person that Mr. Sherman
associates with and this speaks volumes about Mr. Sherman. I think I'm
done here. I must make a New Year's resolution to only communicate
with intelligent life-forms.
JimmyMac
|
| |
Date: 21 Dec 2005 19:52:33
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Offer to JimmyMac!
|
jimmymac_4@yahoo.com wrote:
> Readers, do not be persuaded by Mr. Sherman's logical fallacies
> intended to divert or his lie intended to exonerate.
>
> > I recall Mr. McNaa commenting on this before, but I have not read
> > the actual posts referred to.
>
> > --> Are afflicted with a selective memory disability? With that
> > statement you just lost your credibility. YOU ARE A LAIR!!!
>
> Mr. McNaa should post the link, unless he expects me to remember ONE
> of 10,000+ messages I posted to cycling forums. It is extremely poor
> form on Mr. McNaa's part to use this type of trickery in a
> discussion, which certainly reflects on his character poorly.
>
> --> I felt it inappropriate and was reluctant to do so. One of us has
> a sense of good form and it's not you. If anything reflects poorly on
> someone's character, it is your insistence that I post a link about to
> the airing of your friend's dirty laundry. You claim that I have this
> all-consuming hatred of Ed Gin, so why would I not jump at this
> opportunity? Well, because I have more sense of fair play than the HRS
> blog authors and their defender, Mr. Sherman. Besides, this has all
> been aired in the past and I would prefer to do as Mr. Sherman has
> previously advised ... let sleeping dogs lie, but as you can see their
> is no pleasing this man. Even when I try to do as he asks, he cries
> foul. Mr. Sherman is indeed a conundrum.
If Mr. McNaa prefers to let sleeping dogs lie, why does he jump on
threads where he (Mr. McNaa) has not been mentioned to denigrate Ed
Gin?
Mr. McNaa needs to let go, and learn to ignore Ed Gin if he can not
deal with him in at least a neutral manner. Seeing this much bitterness
on display is rather sad.
> I highly suspect that Mr. McNaa does not recall everything off the
> top of his head that he has ever posted to an online forum, and to
> expect that of someone else is ridiculous.
>
> --> No I don't recall everything, but in previous posts you berated me
> for not remembering something. When I expect the same of you, that you
> expect of me, then I am labeled ridiculous. How ridiculous is that?
> When will you learn to play by the same set of rules especially when
> they are the rules that you set? Have you always cheated at games you
> play?
Should I search archived posts to find ones that Mr. McNaa has
responded to and quiz him to see if he remembers what he posted years
later?
> It took me quite a bit of searching to find this link:
> <http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.misc/browse_frm/thread/29...>
> since it was on rec.bicycles.misc and not alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent.
>
> --> Congratulations. You found the first and worst one. Garry Brown
> posted a second that was a follow up email that I don't believe you
> made any comments about.
Who is "Garry Brown"? I don't believe (to the best of my memory) I have
ever responded to a post by "Garry Brown".
But before Mr. McNaa wrote "At the time, without having read the
actual posts, how then could you have objected to the posts (posted
private emails)" [1] Note the plural "posts". Now Mr. McNaa writes
that he does not believe I made any comments about the second post.
Should I accept Mr. McNaa's standard here and call him a LIAR, or
should I accept that he made an error due to the length of time that
has passed since Gary Brown posted what he (Gary Brown) ALLEGED to be a
derogatory email from Ed Gin?
> Besides, only ONE (1) alleged letter claimed by Gary Brown to be from
> Ed Gin was posted, not TWO (2). Mr. McNaa has problems if he can not
> count this properly.
>
> --> The indignant Mr. Sherman has problems if he is simply search
> challenged and the letter (email actually) need not be referred to as
> alleged. Doing so does not make it so. The email headers told me all
> that I needed to know. Ed Gin's many derogatory reks about Gary
> Brown said directly to me personally tell me all I need to know about
> how Ed felt about Gary and the content of the emails reflected that.
> The second was not nearly as bad as the first but the signature was
> vile.
I stand by my usage of letter, as that was the form of the writing. A
letter transmitted electronically as email, but a letter nonetheless.
I looked at every result for "Gary Brown" that Google Groups produced.
While not exhaustive, this meets the standard of reasonable effort.
Since Mr. McNaa will not do so, would someone else please post a
link to this second ALLEGED letter from Ed Gin to Gary Brown?
> So my statement is technically correct, I have read ONE (1) alleged
> email that was posted by Gary Brown, not TWO (2) posts.
>
> --> You really are quite the fool. Your statement is technically
> incorrect. The[re] were TWO.
But Mr. McNaa says he does not recall me responding to the posting
of the second letter. If this belief of Mr. McNaa is true, then he
is being illogical when he calls my statement "technically incorrect"
since how would he know that I read the second post if I did not
respond to it? ESP perhaps?
> The emails are not alleged.
Prove it. Get notarized ISP records that show Ed Gin originated an
email with this content that was sent to Gary Brown.
> You said ... I
> recall Mr. McNaa commenting on this before, but I have not read the
> actual posts referred to, but now you said that you have read ONE.
> Which is it? One is the truth and one is not. In either case, the
> fact remains that one time you did not tell the truth and what is a
> person called that tells an untruth ... A LIAR!!!
See above. By the standard he is proposing here, Mr. McNaa is also a
liar.
I would also like Mr. McNaa to reference any moral system not of his
devising that considers not remembering an event over two and one-half
(2-1/2) years ago to be a lie.
> I said that in the
> very beginning that you read it and then you responded, immediately
> making excuses, defending the author... Ed Gin. As Mr. Pyle would say
> ... SURPRISE ... SURPRISE!!!
When has Mr. Pyle commented on Ed Gin? A Google Groups search for "Pyle
Gin" returns only one result and that is the post I am responding to
here.
> > At the
> > time, without having read the actual posts, how then could you have
> > objected to the posts (posted private emails) and how then could you
> > have offered a defense of Ed Gin? You really have become entirely too
> > are ridiculous. I could re-post it all here or provide links, but I
> > said that I'd prefer not to as I considered it inappropriate to do so.
> > It is also inappropriate and foolish to deny that you read the posts
> > that you responded to, especially when the archives stand in testimony.
> > Personally archived on my hard drive, I still have copies of both of
> > Gary Brown's posts.
>
> If someone not being to recall one (1) of ten-thousand plus (10,000+)
> posts is the best "victory" Mr. McNaa can come up with, he really is
> a miserable creature.
>
> --> ILLOGICAL. So I am a miserable creature for having been victorious
> concerning something that you have assumed that I believe? Readers
> this is the same man that defies anyone to prove that he has ever made
> an illogical statement. That's not a challenge. That's a joke. What
> we have here is what Mr. Sherman refers to as the LOGICAL FALLACY known
> as a STRAW MAN. Words are first put in my mouth and then the next
> LOGICAL FALLACY is employed (RED HERRING - defined elsewhere) in the
> form of an irrelevant argument, introduced as diversion followed by the
> next LOGICAL FALLACY (NON SEQUITUR - defined elsewhere) in which a
> conclusion is arrived at that does follow from the premise. Mr.
> Sherman attributes of me that I consider his inability to recall one
> (1) of ten-thousand plus (10,000+) posts a "victory" whereas I consider
> it to be neither a victory on my part nor a shortcoming his, but Mr.
> Sherman made such a fuss about it that it does raise an interesting
> question regarding his basic insecurity.
Why did Mr. McNaa 'trumpet" about it so loudly if he did not
consider it a "victory"? If Mr. McNaa is being serious in the above
paragraph, I suggest he seek appropriate psychiatric attention.
> Tom is it so difficult for
> you to recognize even the most minute aspect in your makeup that would
> attest to you being like the rest of us that you must seek sanctuary in
> denial of a human shortcoming. Renunciation of human imperfection is
> itself an imperfection, but I digress. Putting things back on track,
> you said ... Based on the Internet postings of both Mr. McNaa and Ed
> Gin, I would rather be known to associate with Ed Gin and I replied
> referring the posting of two vile email one of which you responded to
> in defense of the author and from there you went off on a tangent ...
> not uncommon.
Mr. McNaa has a significant issue with his stalking of Ed Gin on
various online discussion forums. Mr. McNaa has a history of
attacking Ed Gin on threads that have not made any mention of Mr.
McNaa. This is psychologically abnormal behavior of a rather
unpleasant sort, and I do not wish to deal with such people on a
voluntary basis.
As for the ALLEGED improper behavior of Ed Gin, it is just that -
ALLEGED.
Show me some DEFINITIVE PROOF and I would reconsider my position, but
that proof to date has not been forthcoming, which leads me to strongly
suspect that Ed Gin is innocent of the acts of which Mr. McNaa
accuses him.
> > > It is considered poor etiquette to post private emails to a public
> > > forum, no matter their content.
>
> > > As for these emails, how are we to know that Ed Gin is actually the
> > > author? [1] There are at least two other obvious possibilities.
>
> > > [1] I can think of an actual case where someone attacked Ed Gin on an
> > > email list about a post he believed was from Ed Gin. As it turns out,
> > > the email was from someone else, and was sent without Ed Gin's
> > > involvement.
>
> > > Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)
>
> Again, it is very poor form on Mr. McNaa's part not to post the
> link, especially since it was not posted originally to this forum.
>
> --> It was posted to about half a dozen forums including this one (I
> believe) although I have no control over what has or has not been
> archived any more than I have control over your inability to make use
> of the tools to locate something that is archived ...
> www.cyclingforums.com/showthread/t-22158.html.
I have avoided cyclingforums.com due to the horrendous formatting I
often see coming from that site.
> > > No matter what Ed Gin does, you will offer an excuse on his behalf and
> > > defend him. He can do no wrong in your eyes. The two emails in
> > > question were forwarded to me with their complete headers intact,
> > > before Ed Gin learned how to obfuscate his email headers. The author
> > > and origin of the email was beyond question and the subject matter was
> > > vile, inexcusable and indefensible....
>
> > How do we know that the authenticity of the emails was beyond question?
> > With the proper knowledge it is possible to use a person's email
> > account without them being aware of it. I (and many others) have
> > received spam that was forwarded from virus infected Outlook email
> > programs that the account owner was unaware of, so this is hardly
> > beyond the realm of possibility.
>
> > --> As Ronald Regan would have said ... There you go again. You claim
> > to be logical and yet constantly employ logical fallacies in your
> > arguments. Our debate was rife them. You combined two here ...
> > drawing a conclusion that does not logically follow and introducing an
> > irrelevant fact or arguments to distract from the question at hand....
>
> The email headers could have been from a perfectly acceptable email by
> Ed Gin, posted with text by another author. Alternately, someone could
> have sent the offensive email with forged header's that appeared to be
> Ed Gin's.
>
> --> Tom, did you buy Ed Gin that engagement ring for Xmas? Readers,
> need I repeat what I have said nonsensical hypothesis after nonsensical
> hypothesis? The emails were first forwarded to me intact even before
> they were posted. When posted, I noted not a single alteration. There
> was no need to alter, that which was sufficiently vile as to speak for
> itself.
Oh yes, I would take Mr. McNaa's word on this, considering his
history of ACCUSING ED GIN WHILE LACKING PROOF OF THE ACCUSATION.
I did not fall off the turnip truck yesterday.
Please provide original notarized records from the ISP proving that
these emails were indeed sent from Ed Gin's computer. Then prove that
Ed Gin was at his computer at the time the emails were sent (since Ed
Gin's computer could have been hacked by someone wishing to discredit
him.
> Evidence on the Internet indicates that there are people resentful
> enough towards Ed Gin to have the motive to smear him this way.
>
> --> Now there's a revelation, but of course none of this resentment was
> earned or warranted.
That (assuming by context that Mr. McNaa is being sarcastic) is a
matter of opinion, not fact.
> > SPAM is neither the issue nor has it any relation whatsoever to the
> > emails that were forwarded by the victim and not by, the word you more
> > appropriate should have used ... a TROJAN (not a virus).
>
> Mr. McNaa is back to his immoral habit of willful misinterpretation.
> If the "Trojan" sends out email that contains advertising without the
> account owner's knowledge, what is received on the other end is SPAM.
> Or is Mr. McNaa not able to figure this out by himself?
>
> --> OK, allow me to restate. There is no immoral willful
> misinterpretation, just diversion on the part of Mr. Sherman through
> introducing irrelevant facts or
> arguments to distract from the question at hand. I know what SPAM is,
> but advertising wasn't sent out ...
I never claimed that advertising was sent out, but used that as an
illustration of what types of things can happen. Mr. McNaa may
recall this incident:
<http://www.ihpva.org/pipermail/hpv/1999-December/001027.html >.
> vile emails were that were in turn
> posted in newsgroups and a trojan compose and send it to Gray and a
> trojan didn't post it to the newsgroups. A trojan can harvest email
> address and send itself to every address in an email address book, but
> not to a newsgroup. There would be no purpose in that and that is not
> what a trojan does. Is Mr. Sherman so dense that he just can't figure
> out ... 1. what SPAM is, 2. how a tojan functions or, 3. how off-topic
> his objection is regarding authenticity of email headers with his
> SPAM/trojan diversionary nonsense?
Mr. McNaa must be dense since I NEVER SAID that was what happened in
the referenced case, but merely used it as an example of the INSECURITY
OF COMPUTERS CONNECTED TO THE INTERNET AND HOW THINGS CAN HAPPEN
WITHOUT THE CONSENT OR KNOWLEDGE OF THE COMPUTER OWNER. If Mr. McNaa
is not that dense, then he is being deceitful by introducing a straw
man.
> The common occurrence of emails being sent without the account
> owner's consent or knowledge demonstrates that temporarily taking
> over an email account to send disparaging messages is technically
> feasible for quite a few people.
>
> --> Readers, do not be misled by the above notion stated as factual.
> This is not a common occurrence. What it is though is Tom's assertions
> stated as though fact.
It is a common enough occurrence that it would merit investigation if
one were attempting to obtain the truth.
> > The emails
> > that were forwarded with complete headers intact were those that were
> > cross-posted in various Internet Usenet newsgroups including ARBR. I
> > said that the author and origin of the email was beyond question.
>
> Are we supposed to take Mr. McNaa's word for something when it
> concerns an unfavorable contention against Ed Gin, knowing how deeply
> Mr. McNaa despises Ed Gin and Mr. McNaa's history of posting
> accusations WHILE LACKING DEFINITIVE PROOF? I think not.
>
> --> Readers, do not be taken in by this deliberately contrived
> misleading question. I did not expect Mr. Sherman to accept what I
> said and I have not even asked the readership to. I merely stated a
> fact. Ed Gin sent 2 vile emails to Gary Brown.
WHERE IS THE PROOF OF THIS BEING A FACT? All we have to rely on is the
apparent (assuming the post(s) in question were not forged) word of
Gary Brown and that of Mr. McNaa.
Since to the best of our knowledge Mr. McNaa is not an infallible
omniscient godlike being, this does CONSTITUTE PROOF.
> Gary Brown forwarded
> those 2 emails to me with headers in tact.
I am thankful that Gary Brown was tactful in doing so. Lack of tact is
a mortal sin.
> Later, Gary cross-posted
> those emails to various newsgroups. You don't have to take my word for
> it. You also have the victim's word. Tom can run his mouth all he
> wants. What he has to say in this matter has no bearing on what
> occurred.
WHERE IS THE DEFINITVE PROOF THAT ED GIN WROTE THE (ALLEGED) EMAILS
THAT GARY (NOT GARRY) BROWN POSTED?
> > From
> > the content of the email headers and the personal nature of the emails,
> > it was obvious to me.
>
> Nothing that could not have been faked. [YAWN]
>
> --> Has anyone else grown tired of Tom's perhaps, maybe, could have
> crap? The only thing fake here is Tom Sherman. He is a sham ... as
> phony as they come ... gratuitous no ... fact. I take it from his
> YAWN that he's even tiring of his own bullshit.
When defamatory behavior of an individual is alleged, I deal in
INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED FACTS, not the statements of people who
constantly attack the individual in question when there has been no
provocation.
> > Nothing is obvious to you where to Ed Gin is
> > concerned. As one of his devoted disciples you are blinded by your
> > allegiance to him and your reasoning process is impaired. Ed Gin can
> > do no wrong in your eyes. If you were an eyewitness to a murder
> > committed by Ed Gin, the first words out of your mouth would consist of
> > excuses and a defense.
>
> Now Mr. McNaa is just being ridiculous. [YAWN]
>
> --> Mr. Sherman replied in the only way that he could which was to
> avoid replying altogether.
Huh? In Mr. McNaa's hypothetical scenario, did I see just the
killing (in which case it could be legitimate self-defense) or do I
know ALL the FACTS in the case?
> What is the real problem here? Is it that Ed Gin is not Mr. McNaa's
> "Devoted disciple", or that Ed Gin does not see Mr. McNaa as someone
> who "can do no wrong"?
>
> --> And you assume that I would ever have Ed Gin as a devoted disciple
> or care what he thinks about me? Are you daft? I said I am ashamed to
> admit having ever been associated with him. How many times must
> someone repeat things to you for you to understand? What a dullard.
It is a sign of moral character to be able forgive others. What has Ed
Gin ever done to Mr. McNaa that is unforgivable?
> > > Although it can be argued that it
> > > was inappropriate to have posted a private email, in comparison, the
> > > posting of private was far less of an offense in comparison to the
> > > email content or the defense of the person responsible. Obviously you
> > > aren't new to the role of defending Ed Gin.
>
> > I am aware of several cases where I KNOW Ed Gin has wrongly been
> > accused of being the author of anonymous postings. This is cause for
> > reasonable doubt, in the ABSCENCE OF DEFINITIVE PROOF OF AUTHORSHIP.
>
> > --> Irrelevant (read RED HERRING - introducing irrelevant facts or
> > arguments to distract from the question at hand and NON SEQUITUR -
> > arriving at conclusion that that does not strictly follow from the
> > premise. You do like LOGICAL FALLACIES don't you MR. ILLOGICAL? We've
> > heard all this crap before. Nothing is acceptable to you as definitive
> > proof, so you can stop beatin' that tom-tom ... Tom.
>
> Mr. McNaa's idea of definitive proof appears to be "I said so".
>
> --> Where did I say anything about proving anything to you? Mr.
> Sherman's idea of disputation appears to be "but it could possibly
> other than what it appears to be". Now that's a whole lot better now
> isn't it? Readers, please note that Mr. Sherman failed to address any
> of the issues raised regarding the use of LOGICAL FALLACIES even though
> he has constantly boasted about what a logician he is. Mr. Sherman has
> never and will never accept any proof, no matter how damning or
> definitive where Ed Gin is concerned.
I will accept evidence that would convince an impartial jury of
mentally competent persons of at least normal intelligence beyond a
reasonable doubt. Such evidence has never been presented to me
concerning ALLEGED wrongdoing by Ed Gin.
> Ed Gin cannot do anything wrong in his eyes.
An assertion WITHOUT PROOF on Mr. McNaa's part. I have never claimed
that Ed Gin should join the company of Jesus of Nazareth (assuming
Christian belief) as being without fault.
> I never once said that I had any intentions of meeting
> Mr. Sherman's impossible demands for anything that even remotely
> resembles what he would consider definitive proof. It is not possible
> to prove anything to Mr. Sherman especially anything that reflects
> poorly on Mr. Ed Gin.
If this is the case, Mr. McNaa should not have accused Ed Gin of
wrongdoing.
> Hint to Mr. McNaa - you are not the next true prophet of God.
>
> --> Click on the link that Tom Sherman provided and you will note that
> he has me confused with his vile companion who signed his email ... Ed
> - God like as you can get - Gin. The second posted email was signed
> ... Ed - get on your knees and pray to me you gimp - Gin. Readers,
> draw you own conclusion as to who thinks they are like unto a God. Do
> you suppose this is why Tom Sherman worships the ground that Ed Gin
> walks on?
See above. Mr. McNaa is using highly evidence that is highly
contested as to its authenticity in his argument. Enough said.
> > > For what it is worth,
> > > this is not a popularity contest. Your choice of whom you would rather
> > > be known to associate with is of course your choice, but you will never
> > > be know to have associated with me because I will not associate with
> > > anyone who defends the vile Ed Gin.
>
> > Will Mr. McNaa confirm that Ed Gin is correct in stating the Mr.
> > McNaa is of retirement age, has gray hair and rides a black P-38?
> > The reason I am asking is so I will ignore any such person I encounter
> > in the Chicagoland area unless they identify themselves to me first as
> > being someone other than Mr. McNaa.
>
> > --> I refer you to my picture on the HRS blog. Could I fit on a P-38
> > ;^) ??? Ed is only a shade older than me. I ride a black P-38, but a
> > Bacchetta AERO might be in my future. I also ride a Spectrum titanium
> > upright and my hair is not gray, but how could you tell with a helmet
> > anyways?
>
> I am attempting to do Mr. McNaa a favor here - I would not want to
> cloud his day by having to acknowledge my existence in real life when
> he was out riding one of his bicycles.
>
> --> I suppose these sound bytes are suppose to convey something
> meaningful.
Sound? No Mr. McNaa, those words were WRITTEN, not SPOKEN.
> > On the same note, if Mr. McNaa sees someone riding a light
> > purple/lavender Sunset or a red Sunset with "T" bars, Mr. McNaa
> > should be advised not to talk to this person, since said person
> > associates with Ed Gin.
>
> > --> Please provide your age, height, weight, hair and eye color so that
> > I can accommodate you.
>
> There is only one (1) red Sunset in the Chicagoland area with "T-bars"
> (and possibly in the whole world) and to the best of my knowledge only
> one (1) Sunset was powder coated light purple (or lavender, if you
> prefer). The possibility for confusion approaches zero (unless Mr.
> McNaa is color blind).
>
> --> I could do a Tom Sherman as go on and on about it being
> hypothetically possible for someone else to have their Sunset lowracer
> powder coated in the same color or equip one with T-bars or for Tom's
> bike to be ridden by some else, but I'll not do that. I'll just ask
> again the question that I asked that he did not answer ... please
> provide your age, height, weight, hair and eye color so that I can
> accommodate you.
Age "A": 1 year < A < 100 years.
Height "H": 1 meter < H < 2 meters.
Weight "W": 500N < W < 1500N.
Hair and Eye color: darker than white and lighter than black.
See <http://www.ransbikes.com/Gallery/Archive/Sherman.htm >.
> > Need I point out the logical fallacy here?
> > This is really becoming a bad habit. It does not logically follow that
> > I will not associate with someone simply because they associate with Ed
> > Gin.
>
> Yes, but Mr. McNaa has made it obvious in the VERY RECENT PAST that
> he would not want to associate with me. Is Mr. McNaa's memory
> failing?
>
> --> YES??? as, n an admission of a logical fallacy? My memory is just
> fine. I sated that I would not associate.
Mr. McNaa apparently does not need any more associates because he is
sated.
> I remember stating. I
> still hold that to be a true statement and I'll not be forgetting that
> I said it anytime soon.
>
> > Repetition to ensure comprehension is becoming tedious, but I
> > will repeat a couple of things that you are still unable to comprehend.
> > Ed Gin and I have some common friends. You will never be one of them.
>
> Mr. McNaa makes my point above, which makes his paragraph
> self-contradictory.
>
> --> This makes so little sense that I don't even know what to say ...
> paragraphs self-contradictory and I make you point above. Get some
> sleep. You're not even making sense anymore.
>
> > I will not associate with you,
>
> I think I will break out the champagne!
>
> > if for no other reason than you defend the vile Mr. Ed Gin.
>
> Mr. McNaa once again presents facts not in evidence. Mr. McNaa
> has proven his disregard for Ed Gin, but has yet to offer DEFINITIVE
> PROOF of Ed Gin's ALLEGED vileness.
>
> --> There are no facts in evidence that Ed Gin is vile? Readership, I
> officially pronounce Mr. Sherman to be deaf, dumb and blind!!!
Mr. McNaa confuses FACTS with ALLEGATIONS.
PLEASE PROVIDE THESE FACTS WITH INDEPENDANT, VERIFYABLE CONFIRMATION.
> > Have you got it now ... Mr. Imperceptible?
>
> After his contradictory paragraph, Mr. McNaa follows up with a
> gratuitous insult
>
> --> Following misinterpretation of a paragraph, Mr. Sherman
> misconstrues a valid observation to be an insult. Go easy on the
> champagne, Tom.
I think I will have a glass of champagne and toast Ed Gin for
introducing many riders to recumbents, faired bicycles, lowracers, and
carbon fiber composite splitter-plate bikes.
[1]
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent/msg/f02ad6e3f0969f0f?dmode=source&hl=en >.
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
| |
Date: 20 Dec 2005 22:13:44
From:
Subject: Re: Offer to JimmyMac!
|
Readers, do not be persuaded by Mr. Sherman's logical fallacies
intended to divert or his lie intended to exonerate.
> I recall Mr. McNaa commenting on this before, but I have not read
> the actual posts referred to.
> --> Are afflicted with a selective memory disability? With that
> statement you just lost your credibility. YOU ARE A LAIR!!!
Mr. McNaa should post the link, unless he expects me to remember ONE
of 10,000+ messages I posted to cycling forums. It is extremely poor
form on Mr. McNaa's part to use this type of trickery in a
discussion, which certainly reflects on his character poorly.
-- > I felt it inappropriate and was reluctant to do so. One of us has
a sense of good form and it's not you. If anything reflects poorly on
someone's character, it is your insistence that I post a link about to
the airing of your friend's dirty laundry. You claim that I have this
all-consuming hatred of Ed Gin, so why would I not jump at this
opportunity? Well, because I have more sense of fair play than the HRS
blog authors and their defender, Mr. Sherman. Besides, this has all
been aired in the past and I would prefer to do as Mr. Sherman has
previously advised ... let sleeping dogs lie, but as you can see their
is no pleasing this man. Even when I try to do as he asks, he cries
foul. Mr. Sherman is indeed a conundrum.
I highly suspect that Mr. McNaa does not recall everything off the
top of his head that he has ever posted to an online forum, and to
expect that of someone else is ridiculous.
-- > No I don't recall everything, but in previous posts you berated me
for not remembering something. When I expect the same of you, that you
expect of me, then I am labeled ridiculous. How ridiculous is that?
When will you learn to play by the same set of rules especially when
they are the rules that you set? Have you always cheated at games you
play?
It took me quite a bit of searching to find this link:
<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.misc/browse_frm/thread/29... >
since it was on rec.bicycles.misc and not alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent.
-- > Congratulations. You found the first and worst one. Garry Brown
posted a second that was a follow up email that I don't believe you
made any comments about.
Besides, only ONE (1) alleged letter claimed by Gary Brown to be from
Ed Gin was posted, not TWO (2). Mr. McNaa has problems if he can not
count this properly.
-- > The indignant Mr. Sherman has problems if he is simply search
challenged and the letter (email actually) need not be referred to as
alleged. Doing so does not make it so. The email headers told me all
that I needed to know. Ed Gin's many derogatory reks about Gary
Brown said directly to me personally tell me all I need to know about
how Ed felt about Gary and the content of the emails reflected that.
The second was not nearly as bad as the first but the signature was
vile.
So my statement is technically correct, I have read ONE (1) alleged
email that was posted by Gary Brown, not TWO (2) posts.
-- > You really are quite the fool. Your statement is technically
incorrect. The were TWO. The emails are not alleged. You said ... I
recall Mr. McNaa commenting on this before, but I have not read the
actual posts referred to, but now you said that you have read ONE.
Which is it? One is the truth and one is not. In either case, the
fact remains that one time you did not tell the truth and what is a
person called that tells an untruth ... A LIAR!!! I said that in the
very beginning that you read it and then you responded, immediately
making excuses, defending the author... Ed Gin. As Mr. Pyle would say
... SURPRISE ... SURPRISE!!!
> At the
> time, without having read the actual posts, how then could you have
> objected to the posts (posted private emails) and how then could you
> have offered a defense of Ed Gin? You really have become entirely too
> are ridiculous. I could re-post it all here or provide links, but I
> said that I'd prefer not to as I considered it inappropriate to do so.
> It is also inappropriate and foolish to deny that you read the posts
> that you responded to, especially when the archives stand in testimony.
> Personally archived on my hard drive, I still have copies of both of
> Gary Brown's posts.
If someone not being to recall one (1) of ten-thousand plus (10,000+)
posts is the best "victory" Mr. McNaa can come up with, he really is
a miserable creature.
-- > ILLOGICAL. So I am a miserable creature for having been victorious
concerning something that you have assumed that I believe? Readers
this is the same man that defies anyone to prove that he has ever made
an illogical statement. That's not a challenge. That's a joke. What
we have here is what Mr. Sherman refers to as the LOGICAL FALLACY known
as a STRAW MAN. Words are first put in my mouth and then the next
LOGICAL FALLACY is employed (RED HERRING - defined elsewhere) in the
form of an irrelevant argument, introduced as diversion followed by the
next LOGICAL FALLACY (NON SEQUITUR - defined elsewhere) in which a
conclusion is arrived at that does follow from the premise. Mr.
Sherman attributes of me that I consider his inability to recall one
(1) of ten-thousand plus (10,000+) posts a "victory" whereas I consider
it to be neither a victory on my part nor a shortcoming his, but Mr.
Sherman made such a fuss about it that it does raise an interesting
question regarding his basic insecurity. Tom is it so difficult for
you to recognize even the most minute aspect in your makeup that would
attest to you being like the rest of us that you must seek sanctuary in
denial of a human shortcoming. Renunciation of human imperfection is
itself an imperfection, but I digress. Putting things back on track,
you said ... Based on the Internet postings of both Mr. McNaa and Ed
Gin, I would rather be known to associate with Ed Gin and I replied
referring the posting of two vile email one of which you responded to
in defense of the author and from there you went off on a tangent ...
not uncommon.
> > It is considered poor etiquette to post private emails to a public
> > forum, no matter their content.
> > As for these emails, how are we to know that Ed Gin is actually the
> > author? [1] There are at least two other obvious possibilities.
> > [1] I can think of an actual case where someone attacked Ed Gin on an
> > email list about a post he believed was from Ed Gin. As it turns out,
> > the email was from someone else, and was sent without Ed Gin's
> > involvement.
> > Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)
Again, it is very poor form on Mr. McNaa's part not to post the
link, especially since it was not posted originally to this forum.
-- > It was posted to about half a dozen forums including this one (I
believe) although I have no control over what has or has not been
archived any more than I have control over your inability to make use
of the tools to locate something that is archived ...
www.cyclingforums.com/showthread/t-22158.html.
> > No matter what Ed Gin does, you will offer an excuse on his behalf and
> > defend him. He can do no wrong in your eyes. The two emails in
> > question were forwarded to me with their complete headers intact,
> > before Ed Gin learned how to obfuscate his email headers. The author
> > and origin of the email was beyond question and the subject matter was
> > vile, inexcusable and indefensible....
> How do we know that the authenticity of the emails was beyond question?
> With the proper knowledge it is possible to use a person's email
> account without them being aware of it. I (and many others) have
> received spam that was forwarded from virus infected Outlook email
> programs that the account owner was unaware of, so this is hardly
> beyond the realm of possibility.
> --> As Ronald Regan would have said ... There you go again. You claim
> to be logical and yet constantly employ logical fallacies in your
> arguments. Our debate was rife them. You combined two here ...
> drawing a conclusion that does not logically follow and introducing an
> irrelevant fact or arguments to distract from the question at hand....
The email headers could have been from a perfectly acceptable email by
Ed Gin, posted with text by another author. Alternately, someone could
have sent the offensive email with forged header's that appeared to be
Ed Gin's.
-- > Tom, did you buy Ed Gin that engagement ring for Xmas? Readers,
need I repeat what I have said nonsensical hypothesis after nonsensical
hypothesis? The emails were first forwarded to me intact even before
they were posted. When posted, I noted not a single alteration. There
was no need to alter, that which was sufficiently vile as to speak for
itself.
Evidence on the Internet indicates that there are people resentful
enough towards Ed Gin to have the motive to smear him this way.
-- > Now there's a revelation, but of course none of this resentment was
earned or warranted.
> SPAM is neither the issue nor has it any relation whatsoever to the
> emails that were forwarded by the victim and not by, the word you more
> appropriate should have used ... a TROJAN (not a virus).
Mr. McNaa is back to his immoral habit of willful misinterpretation.
If the "Trojan" sends out email that contains advertising without the
account owner's knowledge, what is received on the other end is SPAM.
Or is Mr. McNaa not able to figure this out by himself?
-- > OK, allow me to restate. There is no immoral willful
misinterpretation, just diversion on the part of Mr. Sherman through
introducing irrelevant facts or
arguments to distract from the question at hand. I know what SPAM is,
but advertising wasn't sent out ... vile emails were that were in turn
posted in newsgroups and a trojan compose and send it to Gray and a
trojan didn't post it to the newsgroups. A trojan can harvest email
address and send itself to every address in an email address book, but
not to a newsgroup. There would be no purpose in that and that is not
what a trojan does. Is Mr. Sherman so dense that he just can't figure
out ... 1. what SPAM is, 2. how a tojan functions or, 3. how off-topic
his objection is regarding authenticity of email headers with his
SPAM/trojan diversionary nonsense?
The common occurrence of emails being sent without the account
owner's consent or knowledge demonstrates that temporarily taking
over an email account to send disparaging messages is technically
feasible for quite a few people.
-- > Readers, do not be misled by the above notion stated as factual.
This is not a common occurrence. What it is though is Tom's assertions
stated as though fact.
> The emails
> that were forwarded with complete headers intact were those that were
> cross-posted in various Internet Usenet newsgroups including ARBR. I
> said that the author and origin of the email was beyond question.
Are we supposed to take Mr. McNaa's word for something when it
concerns an unfavorable contention against Ed Gin, knowing how deeply
Mr. McNaa despises Ed Gin and Mr. McNaa's history of posting
accusations WHILE LACKING DEFINITIVE PROOF? I think not.
-- > Readers, do not be taken in by this deliberately contrived
misleading question. I did not expect Mr. Sherman to accept what I
said and I have not even asked the readership to. I merely stated a
fact. Ed Gin sent 2 vile emails to Gary Brown. Gary Brown forwarded
those 2 emails to me with headers in tact. Later, Gary cross-posted
those emails to various newsgroups. You don't have to take my word for
it. You also have the victim's word. Tom can run his mouth all he
wants. What he has to say in this matter has no bearing on what
occurred.
> From
> the content of the email headers and the personal nature of the emails,
> it was obvious to me.
Nothing that could not have been faked. [YAWN]
-- > Has anyone else grown tired of Tom's perhaps, maybe, could have
crap? The only thing fake here is Tom Sherman. He is a sham ... as
phony as they come ... gratuitous no ... fact. I take it from his
YAWN that he's even tiring of his own bullshit.
> Nothing is obvious to you where to Ed Gin is
> concerned. As one of his devoted disciples you are blinded by your
> allegiance to him and your reasoning process is impaired. Ed Gin can
> do no wrong in your eyes. If you were an eyewitness to a murder
> committed by Ed Gin, the first words out of your mouth would consist of
> excuses and a defense.
Now Mr. McNaa is just being ridiculous. [YAWN]
-- > Mr. Sherman replied in the only way that he could which was to
avoid replying altogether.
What is the real problem here? Is it that Ed Gin is not Mr. McNaa's
"Devoted disciple", or that Ed Gin does not see Mr. McNaa as someone
who "can do no wrong"?
-- > And you assume that I would ever have Ed Gin as a devoted disciple
or care what he thinks about me? Are you daft? I said I am ashamed to
admit having ever been associated with him. How many times must
someone repeat things to you for you to understand? What a dullard.
> > Although it can be argued that it
> > was inappropriate to have posted a private email, in comparison, the
> > posting of private was far less of an offense in comparison to the
> > email content or the defense of the person responsible. Obviously you
> > aren't new to the role of defending Ed Gin.
> I am aware of several cases where I KNOW Ed Gin has wrongly been
> accused of being the author of anonymous postings. This is cause for
> reasonable doubt, in the ABSCENCE OF DEFINITIVE PROOF OF AUTHORSHIP.
> --> Irrelevant (read RED HERRING - introducing irrelevant facts or
> arguments to distract from the question at hand and NON SEQUITUR -
> arriving at conclusion that that does not strictly follow from the
> premise. You do like LOGICAL FALLACIES don't you MR. ILLOGICAL? We've
> heard all this crap before. Nothing is acceptable to you as definitive
> proof, so you can stop beatin' that tom-tom ... Tom.
Mr. McNaa's idea of definitive proof appears to be "I said so".
-- > Where did I say anything about proving anything to you? Mr.
Sherman's idea of disputation appears to be "but it could possibly
other than what it appears to be". Now that's a whole lot better now
isn't it? Readers, please note that Mr. Sherman failed to address any
of the issues raised regarding the use of LOGICAL FALLACIES even though
he has constantly boasted about what a logician he is. Mr. Sherman has
never and will never accept any proof, no matter how damning or
definitive where Ed Gin is concerned. Ed Gin cannot do anything wrong
in his eyes. I never once said that I had any intentions of meeting
Mr. Sherman's impossible demands for anything that even remotely
resembles what he would consider definitive proof. It is not possible
to prove anything to Mr. Sherman especially anything that reflects
poorly on Mr. Ed Gin.
Hint to Mr. McNaa - you are not the next true prophet of God.
-- > Click on the link that Tom Sherman provided and you will note that
he has me confused with his vile companion who signed his email ... Ed
- God like as you can get - Gin. The second posted email was signed
... Ed - get on your knees and pray to me you gimp - Gin. Readers,
draw you own conclusion as to who thinks they are like unto a God. Do
you suppose this is why Tom Sherman worships the ground that Ed Gin
walks on?
> > For what it is worth,
> > this is not a popularity contest. Your choice of whom you would rather
> > be known to associate with is of course your choice, but you will never
> > be know to have associated with me because I will not associate with
> > anyone who defends the vile Ed Gin.
> Will Mr. McNaa confirm that Ed Gin is correct in stating the Mr.
> McNaa is of retirement age, has gray hair and rides a black P-38?
> The reason I am asking is so I will ignore any such person I encounter
> in the Chicagoland area unless they identify themselves to me first as
> being someone other than Mr. McNaa.
> --> I refer you to my picture on the HRS blog. Could I fit on a P-38
> ;^) ??? Ed is only a shade older than me. I ride a black P-38, but a
> Bacchetta AERO might be in my future. I also ride a Spectrum titanium
> upright and my hair is not gray, but how could you tell with a helmet
> anyways?
I am attempting to do Mr. McNaa a favor here - I would not want to
cloud his day by having to acknowledge my existence in real life when
he was out riding one of his bicycles.
-- > I suppose these sound bytes are suppose to convey something
meaningful.
> On the same note, if Mr. McNaa sees someone riding a light
> purple/lavender Sunset or a red Sunset with "T" bars, Mr. McNaa
> should be advised not to talk to this person, since said person
> associates with Ed Gin.
> --> Please provide your age, height, weight, hair and eye color so that
> I can accommodate you.
There is only one (1) red Sunset in the Chicagoland area with "T-bars"
(and possibly in the whole world) and to the best of my knowledge only
one (1) Sunset was powder coated light purple (or lavender, if you
prefer). The possibility for confusion approaches zero (unless Mr.
McNaa is color blind).
-- > I could do a Tom Sherman as go on and on about it being
hypothetically possible for someone else to have their Sunset lowracer
powder coated in the same color or equip one with T-bars or for Tom's
bike to be ridden by some else, but I'll not do that. I'll just ask
again the question that I asked that he did not answer ... please
provide your age, height, weight, hair and eye color so that I can
accommodate you.
> Need I point out the logical fallacy here?
> This is really becoming a bad habit. It does not logically follow that
> I will not associate with someone simply because they associate with Ed
> Gin.
Yes, but Mr. McNaa has made it obvious in the VERY RECENT PAST that
he would not want to associate with me. Is Mr. McNaa's memory
failing?
-- > YES??? as, n an admission of a logical fallacy? My memory is just
fine. I sated that I would not associate. I remember stating. I
still hold that to be a true statement and I'll not be forgetting that
I said it anytime soon.
> Repetition to ensure comprehension is becoming tedious, but I
> will repeat a couple of things that you are still unable to comprehend.
> Ed Gin and I have some common friends. You will never be one of them.
Mr. McNaa makes my point above, which makes his paragraph
self-contradictory.
-- > This makes so little sense that I don't even know what to say ...
paragraphs self-contradictory and I make you point above. Get some
sleep. You're not even making sense anymore.
> I will not associate with you,
I think I will break out the champagne!
> if for no other reason than you defend the vile Mr. Ed Gin.
Mr. McNaa once again presents facts not in evidence. Mr. McNaa
has proven his disregard for Ed Gin, but has yet to offer DEFINITIVE
PROOF of Ed Gin's ALLEGED vileness.
-- > There are no facts in evidence that Ed Gin is vile? Readership, I
officially pronounce Mr. Sherman to be deaf, dumb and blind!!!
> Have you got it now ... Mr. Imperceptible?
After his contradictory paragraph, Mr. McNaa follows up with a
gratuitous insult
-- > Following misinterpretation of a paragraph, Mr. Sherman
misconstrues a valid observation to be an insult. Go easy on the
champagne, Tom.
JimmyMac
|
| |
Date: 20 Dec 2005 17:49:02
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Offer to JimmyMac!
|
jimmymac_4@yahoo.com wrote:
> Readers, do not be persuaded by Mr. Sherman's logical fallacies
> intended to divert or his the lie intended to exonerate.
>
> I recall Mr. McNaa commenting on this before, but I have not read
> the actual posts referred to.
>
> --> Are afflicted with a selective memory disability? With that
> statement you just lost your credibility. YOU ARE A LAIR!!!
Mr. McNaa should post the link, unless he expects me to remember ONE
of 10,000+ messages I posted to cycling forums. It is extremely poor
form on Mr. McNaa's part to use this type of trickery in a
discussion, which certainly reflects on his character poorly.
I highly suspect that Mr. McNaa does not recall everything off the
top of his head that he has ever posted to an online forum, and to
expect that of someone else is ridiculous.
It took me quite a bit of searching to find this link:
<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.misc/browse_frm/thread/29e0fd6982fb0f6e/02dcbe445923cb36?lnk=st&q=Ed+Gin+God+gary+brown&rnum=1#02dcbe445923cb36 >
since it was on rec.bicycles.misc and not alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent.
Besides, only ONE (1) alleged letter claimed by Gary Brown to be from
Ed Gin was posted, not TWO (2). Mr. McNaa has problems if he can not
count this properly.
So my statement is technically correct, I have read ONE (1) alleged
email that was posted by Gary Brown, not TWO (2) posts.
> At the
> time, without having read the actual posts, how then could you have
> objected to the posts (posted private emails) and how then could you
> have offered a defense of Ed Gin? You really have become entirely too
> are ridiculous. I could re-post it all here or provide links, but I
> said that I'd prefer not to as I considered it inappropriate to do so.
> It is also inappropriate and foolish to deny that you read the posts
> that you responded to, especially when the archives stand in testimony.
> Personally archived on my hard drive, I still have copies of both of
> Gary Brown's posts.
If someone not being to recall one (1) of ten-thousand plus (10,000+)
posts is the best "victory" Mr. McNaa can come up with, he really is
a miserable creature.
> > It is considered poor etiquette to post private emails to a public
> > forum, no matter their content.
>
> > As for these emails, how are we to know that Ed Gin is actually the
> > author? [1] There are at least two other obvious possibilities.
>
> > [1] I can think of an actual case where someone attacked Ed Gin on an
> > email list about a post he believed was from Ed Gin. As it turns out,
> > the email was from someone else, and was sent without Ed Gin's
> > involvement.
>
> > Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)
Again, it is very poor form on Mr. McNaa's part not to post the
link, especially since it was not posted originally to this forum.
> > No matter what Ed Gin does, you will offer an excuse on his behalf and
> > defend him. He can do no wrong in your eyes. The two emails in
> > question were forwarded to me with their complete headers intact,
> > before Ed Gin learned how to obfuscate his email headers. The author
> > and origin of the email was beyond question and the subject matter was
> > vile, inexcusable and indefensible....
>
> How do we know that the authenticity of the emails was beyond question?
> With the proper knowledge it is possible to use a person's email
> account without them being aware of it. I (and many others) have
> received spam that was forwarded from virus infected Outlook email
> programs that the account owner was unaware of, so this is hardly
> beyond the realm of possibility.
>
> --> As Ronald Regan would have said ... There you go again. You claim
> to be logical and yet constantly employ logical fallacies in your
> arguments. Our debate was rife them. You combined two here ...
> drawing a conclusion that does not logically follow and introducing an
> irrelevant fact or arguments to distract from the question at hand....
The email headers could have been from a perfectly acceptable email by
Ed Gin, posted with text by another author. Alternately, someone could
have sent the offensive email with forged header's that appeared to be
Ed Gin's.
Evidence on the Internet indicates that there are people resentful
enough towards Ed Gin to have the motive to smear him this way.
> SPAM is neither the issue nor has it any relation whatsoever to the
> emails that were forwarded by the victim and not by, the word you more
> appropriate should have used ... a TROJAN (not a virus).
Mr. McNaa is back to his immoral habit of willful misinterpretation.
If the "Trojan" sends out email that contains advertising without the
account owner's knowledge, what is received on the other end is SPAM.
Or is Mr. McNaa not able to figure this out by himself?
The common occurrence of emails being sent without the account
owner's consent or knowledge demonstrates that temporarily taking
over an email account to send disparaging messages is technically
feasible for quite a few people.
> The emails
> that were forwarded with complete headers intact were those that were
> cross-posted in various Internet Usenet newsgroups including ARBR. I
> said that the author and origin of the email was beyond question.
Are we supposed to take Mr. McNaa's word for something when it
concerns an unfavorable contention against Ed Gin, knowing how deeply
Mr. McNaa despises Ed Gin and Mr. McNaa's history of posting
accusations WHILE LACKING DEFINITIVE PROOF? I think not.
> From
> the content of the email headers and the personal nature of the emails,
> it was obvious to me.
Nothing that could not have been faked. [YAWN]
> Nothing is obvious to you where to Ed Gin is
> concerned. As one of his devoted disciple, you are blinded by your
> allegiance to him and your reasoning process is impaired. Ed Gin can
> do no wrong in your eyes. If you were an eyewitness to a murder
> committed by Ed Gin, the first words out of your mouth would consist of
> excuses and a defense.
Now Mr. McNaa is just being ridiculous. [YAWN]
What is the real problem here? Is it that Ed Gin is not Mr. McNaa's
"devoted disciple", or that Ed Gin does not see Mr. McNaa as someone
who "can do no wrong"?
> > Although it can be argued that it
> > was inappropriate to have posted a private email, in comparison, the
> > posting of private was far less of an offense in comparison to the
> > email content or the defense of the person responsible. Obviously you
> > aren't new to the role of defending Ed Gin.
>
> I am aware of several cases where I KNOW Ed Gin has wrongly been
> accused of being the author of anonymous postings. This is cause for
> reasonable doubt, in the ABSCENCE OF DEFINITIVE PROOF OF AUTHORSHIP.
>
> --> Irrelevant (read RED HERRING - introducing irrelevant facts or
> arguments to distract from the question at hand and NON SEQUITUR -
> arriving at conclusion that that does not strictly follow from the
> premise. You do like LOGICAL FALLACIES don't you MR. ILLOGICAL? We've
> heard all this crap before. Nothing is acceptable to you as definitive
> proof, so you can stop beatin' that tom-tom ... Tom.
Mr. McNaa's idea of definitive proof appears to be "I said so".
Hint to Mr. McNaa - you are not the next true prophet of God.
> > For what it is worth,
> > this is not a popularity contest. Your choice of whom you would rather
> > be known to associate with is of course your choice, but you will never
> > be know to have associated with me because I will not associate with
> > anyone who defends the vile Ed Gin.
>
> Will Mr. McNaa confirm that Ed Gin is correct in stating the Mr.
> McNaa is of retirement age, has gray hair and rides a black P-38?
> The reason I am asking is so I will ignore any such person I encounter
> in the Chicagoland area unless they identify themselves to me first as
> being someone other than Mr. McNaa.
>
> --> I refer you to my picture on the HRS blog. Could I fit on a P-38
> ;^) ??? Ed is only a shade older than me. I ride a black P-38, but a
> Bacchetta AERO might be in my future. I also ride a Spectrum titanium
> upright and my hair is not gray, but how could you tell with a helmet
> anyways?
I am attempting to do Mr. McNaa a favor here - I would not want to
cloud his day by having to acknowledge my existence in real life when
he was out riding one of his bicycles.
> On the same note, if Mr. McNaa sees someone riding a light
> purple/lavender Sunset or a red Sunset with "T" bars, Mr. McNaa
> should be advised not to talk to this person, since said person
> associates with Ed Gin.
>
> --> Please provide your age, height, weight, hair and eye color so that
> I can accommodate you.
There is only one (1) red Sunset in the Chicagoland area with "T-bars"
(and possibly in the whole world) and to the best of my knowledge only
one (1) Sunset was powder coated light purple (or lavender, if you
prefer). The possibility for confusion approaches zero (unless Mr.
McNaa is color blind).
> Need I point out the logical fallacy here?
> This is really becoming a bad habit. It does not logically follow that
> I will not associate with someone simply because they associate with Ed
> Gin.
Yes, but Mr. McNaa has made it obvious in the VERY RECENT PAST that
he would not want to associate with me. Is Mr. McNaa's memory
failing?
> Repetition to ensure comprehension is becoming tedious, but I
> will repeat a couple of things that you are still unable to comprehend.
> Ed Gin and I have some common friends. You will never be one of them.
Mr. McNaa makes my point above, which makes his paragraph
self-contradictory.
> I will not associate with you,
I think I will break out the champagne!
> if for no other reason than you defend the vile Mr. Ed Gin.
Mr. McNaa once again presents facts not in evidence. Mr. McNaa
has proven his disregard for Ed Gin, but has yet to offer DEFINITIVE
PROOF of Ed Gin's ALLEGED vileness.
> Have you got it now ... Mr. Imperceptible?
After his contradictory paragraph, Mr. McNaa follows up with a
gratuitous insult
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
.
|
| |
Date: 20 Dec 2005 10:53:01
From:
Subject: Re: Offer to JimmyMac!
|
Readers, do not be persuaded by Mr. Sherman's logical fallacies
intended to divert or his the lie intended to exonerate.
I recall Mr. McNaa commenting on this before, but I have not read
the actual posts referred to.
-- > Are afflicted with a selective memory disability? With that
statement you just lost your credibility. YOU ARE A LAIR!!! At the
time, without having read the actual posts, how then could you have
objected to the posts (posted private emails) and how then could you
have offered a defense of Ed Gin? You really have become entirely too
are ridiculous. I could re-post it all here or provide links, but I
said that I'd prefer not to as I considered it inappropriate to do so.
It is also inappropriate and foolish to deny that you read the posts
that you responded to, especially when the archives stand in testimony.
Personally archived on my hard drive, I still have copies of both of
Gary Brown's posts.
> It is considered poor etiquette to post private emails to a public
> forum, no matter their content.
> As for these emails, how are we to know that Ed Gin is actually the
> author? [1] There are at least two other obvious possibilities.
> [1] I can think of an actual case where someone attacked Ed Gin on an
> email list about a post he believed was from Ed Gin. As it turns out,
> the email was from someone else, and was sent without Ed Gin's
> involvement.
> Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)
> No matter what Ed Gin does, you will offer an excuse on his behalf and
> defend him. He can do no wrong in your eyes. The two emails in
> question were forwarded to me with their complete headers intact,
> before Ed Gin learned how to obfuscate his email headers. The author
> and origin of the email was beyond question and the subject matter was
> vile, inexcusable and indefensible....
How do we know that the authenticity of the emails was beyond question?
With the proper knowledge it is possible to use a person's email
account without them being aware of it. I (and many others) have
received spam that was forwarded from virus infected Outlook email
programs that the account owner was unaware of, so this is hardly
beyond the realm of possibility.
-- > As Ronald Regan would have said ... There you go again. You claim
to be logical and yet constantly employ logical fallacies in your
arguments. Our debate was rife them. You combined two here ...
drawing a conclusion that does not logically follow and introducing an
irrelevant fact or arguments to distract from the question at hand.
SPAM is neither the issue nor has it any relation whatsoever to the
emails that were forwarded by the victim and not by, the word you more
appropriate should have used ... a TROJAN (not a virus). The emails
that were forwarded with complete headers intact were those that were
cross-posted in various Internet Usenet newsgroups including ARBR. I
said that the author and origin of the email was beyond question. From
the content of the email headers and the personal nature of the emails,
it was obvious to me. Nothing is obvious to you where to Ed Gin is
concerned. As one of his devoted disciple, you are blinded by your
allegiance to him and your reasoning process is impaired. Ed Gin can
do no wrong in your eyes. If you were an eyewitness to a murder
committed by Ed Gin, the first words out of your mouth would consist of
excuses and a defense.
> Although it can be argued that it
> was inappropriate to have posted a private email, in comparison, the
> posting of private was far less of an offense in comparison to the
> email content or the defense of the person responsible. Obviously you
> aren't new to the role of defending Ed Gin.
I am aware of several cases where I KNOW Ed Gin has wrongly been
accused of being the author of anonymous postings. This is cause for
reasonable doubt, in the ABSCENCE OF DEFINITIVE PROOF OF AUTHORSHIP.
-- > Irrelevant (read RED HERRING - introducing irrelevant facts or
arguments to distract from the question at hand and NON SEQUITUR -
arriving at conclusion that that does not strictly follow from the
premise. You do like LOGICAL FALLACIES don't you MR. ILLOGICAL? We've
heard all this crap before. Nothing is acceptable to you as definitive
proof, so you can stop beatin' that tom-tom ... Tom.
> For what it is worth,
> this is not a popularity contest. Your choice of whom you would rather
> be known to associate with is of course your choice, but you will never
> be know to have associated with me because I will not associate with
> anyone who defends the vile Ed Gin.
Will Mr. McNaa confirm that Ed Gin is correct in stating the Mr.
McNaa is of retirement age, has gray hair and rides a black P-38?
The reason I am asking is so I will ignore any such person I encounter
in the Chicagoland area unless they identify themselves to me first as
being someone other than Mr. McNaa.
-- > I refer you to my picture on the HRS blog. Could I fit on a P-38
;^) ??? Ed is only a shade older than me. I ride a black P-38, but a
Bacchetta AERO might be in my future. I also ride a Spectrum titanium
upright and my hair is not gray, but how could you tell with a helmet
anyways?
On the same note, if Mr. McNaa sees someone riding a light
purple/lavender Sunset or a red Sunset with "T" bars, Mr. McNaa
should be advised not to talk to this person, since said person
associates with Ed Gin.
-- > Please provide your age, height, weight, hair and eye color so that
I can accommodate you. Need I point out the logical fallacy here?
This is really becoming a bad habit. It does not logically follow that
I will not associate with someone simply because they associate with Ed
Gin. Repetition to ensure comprehension is becoming tedious, but I
will repeat a couple of things that you are still unable to comprehend.
Ed Gin and I have some common friends. You will never be one of them.
I will not associate with you, if for no other reason than you defend
the vile Mr. Ed Gin. Have you got it now ... Mr. Imperceptible?
JimmyMac
|
| |
Date: 20 Dec 2005 02:46:42
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Offer to JimmyMac!
|
jimmymac_4@yahoo.com wrote:
> I am quite sure that you can recall the two extremely vile private
> emails that were posted by another ex-friend of Ed Gin's (Gary Brown)
> and although these were not postings by Ed, they were postings that
> speak volumes about him and how he feels about ex-friend and the length
> that he will go to make fun of the disabled. Although I could
> certainly repost here or provide links I will refrain from doing so as
> I feel that this would be inappropriate. I merely refer to them in
> response to your reks of what is archive on the Internet as a basis
> for choosing whom you would prefer to be known to be associated with.
> In response to those two posted emails, you replied...
I recall Mr. McNaa commenting on this before, but I have not read
the actual posts referred to.
> It is considered poor etiquette to post private emails to a public
> forum, no matter their content.
>
> As for these emails, how are we to know that Ed Gin is actually the
> author? [1] There are at least two other obvious possibilities.
>
> [1] I can think of an actual case where someone attacked Ed Gin on an
> email list about a post he believed was from Ed Gin. As it turns out,
> the email was from someone else, and was sent without Ed Gin's
> involvement.
>
> Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)
>
> No matter what Ed Gin does, you will offer an excuse on his behalf and
> defend him. He can do no wrong in your eyes. The two emails in
> question were forwarded to me with their complete headers intact,
> before Ed Gin learned how to obfuscate his email headers. The author
> and origin of the email was beyond question and the subject matter was
> vile, inexcusable and indefensible....
How do we know that the authenticity of the emails was beyond question?
With the proper knowledge it is possible to use a person's email
account without them being aware of it. I (and many others) have
received spam that was forwarded from virus infected Outlook email
programs that the account owner was unaware of, so this is hardly
beyond the realm of possibility.
> Although it can be argued that it
> was inappropriate to have posted a private email, in comparison, the
> posting of private was far less of an offense in comparison to the
> email content or the defense of the person responsible. Obviously you
> aren't new to the role of defending Ed Gin.
I am aware of several cases where I KNOW Ed Gin has wrongly been
accused of being the author of anonymous postings. This is cause for
reasonable doubt, in the ABSCENCE OF DEFINITIVE PROOF OF AUTHORSHIP.
> For what it is worth,
> this is not a popularity contest. Your choice of whom you would rather
> be known to associate with is of course your choice, but you will never
> be know to have associated with me because I will not associate with
> anyone who defends the vile Ed Gin.
Will Mr. McNaa confirm that Ed Gin is correct in stating the Mr.
McNaa is of retirement age, has gray hair and rides a black P-38?
The reason I am asking is so I will ignore any such person I encounter
in the Chicagoland area unless they identify themselves to me first as
being someone other than Mr. McNaa.
On the same note, if Mr. McNaa sees someone riding a light
purple/lavender Sunset or a red Sunset with "T" bars, Mr. McNaa
should be advised not to talk to this person, since said person
associates with Ed Gin.
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
| |
Date: 19 Dec 2005 23:23:09
From:
Subject: Re: Offer to JimmyMac!
|
I am quite sure that you can recall the two extremely vile private
emails that were posted by another ex-friend of Ed Gin's (Gary Brown)
and although these were not postings by Ed, they were postings that
speak volumes about him and how he feels about ex-friend and the length
that he will go to make fun of the disabled. Although I could
certainly repost here or provide links I will refrain from doing so as
I feel that this would be inappropriate. I merely refer to them in
response to your reks of what is archive on the Internet as a basis
for choosing whom you would prefer to be known to be associated with.
In response to those two posted emails, you replied...
It is considered poor etiquette to post private emails to a public
forum, no matter their content.
As for these emails, how are we to know that Ed Gin is actually the
author? [1] There are at least two other obvious possibilities.
[1] I can think of an actual case where someone attacked Ed Gin on an
email list about a post he believed was from Ed Gin. As it turns out,
the email was from someone else, and was sent without Ed Gin's
involvement.
Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)
No matter what Ed Gin does, you will offer an excuse on his behalf and
defend him. He can do no wrong in your eyes. The two emails in
question were forwarded to me with their complete headers intact,
before Ed Gin learned how to obfuscate his email headers. The author
and origin of the email was beyond question and the subject matter was
vile, inexcusable and indefensible. Although it can be argued that it
was inappropriate to have posted a private email, in comparison, the
posting of private was far less of an offense in comparison to the
email content or the defense of the person responsible. Obviously you
aren't new to the role of defending Ed Gin. For what it is worth,
this is not a popularity contest. Your choice of whom you would rather
be known to associate with is of course your choice, but you will never
be know to have associated with me because I will not associate with
anyone who defends the vile Ed Gin.
JimmyMac
|
| |
Date: 19 Dec 2005 22:24:46
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Offer to JimmyMac!
|
jimmyma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> No one has to discredit you. In your defense of the HRS blog and Ed
> Gin and company, you brign descredit upon yourself.
As for discredit, my contention that the DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE of HRS
blog authorship has yet to be presented has not been effectively
challenged.
Based on the Internet postings of both Mr. McNaa and Ed Gin, I would
rather be known to associate with Ed Gin.
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
| |
Date: 19 Dec 2005 22:12:13
From:
Subject: Re: Offer to JimmyMac!
|
No one has to discredit you. In your defense of the HRS blog and Ed
Gin and company, you brign descredit upon yourself.
JimmyMac
|
| |
Date: 19 Dec 2005 21:48:13
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Offer to JimmyMac!
|
jimmyma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Readers,
>
> k your calendars. Tom Sherman and I are in complete agreement. I
> have not in the past, nor will I in the present or future disagree with
> Tom Sherman's acknowledgment that he is capable of being silly. I am
> reasonably certain that Mr. Sherman has no expectations of my accepting
> his challenge, which by his own admission is UNREASONABLE. It even
> appears that he has no further expectations of me continuing our
> debate, which is just as well. Much human misery is caused by
> unrealistic and unfulfilled expectations.
The difference is I am OPENLY AND INTENTIONALLY BEING SILLY with my
offer.
Mr. McNaa's offer was based on a straw man argument, and was a bad
faith (and failed) effort to discredit me.
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
| |
Date: 19 Dec 2005 21:13:00
From:
Subject: Re: Offer to JimmyMac!
|
Readers,
k your calendars. Tom Sherman and I are in complete agreement. I
have not in the past, nor will I in the present or future disagree with
Tom Sherman's acknowledgment that he is capable of being silly. I am
reasonably certain that Mr. Sherman has no expectations of my accepting
his challenge, which by his own admission is UNREASONABLE. It even
appears that he has no further expectations of me continuing our
debate, which is just as well. Much human misery is caused by
unrealistic and unfulfilled expectations.
JimmyMac
|
|
