| |
Main
Date: 16 Nov 2005 13:01:49
From: Larry the unvarnished truth
Subject: Rich is exposed!
|
We're sorry to announce the removal of Bitch Shidda as a sponsor. A close affiliation with Osama Bin Laden is apparant. Mr. Rich Pimpo, a principal at the firm is the US of A PUBLIC ENEMY #1! See the proof below:
http://highracers.blogspot.com/2005/11/news-flash-rich-pimpos-id-revealed.html
We apologize for misleading our readers and supporters. Hoping your purchases of Ti Slowgo Walking Recumbents are not in vain. You can and are encouraged to post them for sale on our boards.
Larry "the unvarnished truth" Barney
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
|
|
| |
Date: 07 Dec 2005 20:49:15
From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic
Subject: Re: Tom S. is correct
|
Someone wrote:
> ...
Do we really need to state the obvious in thread subject titles? ;)
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
"the bacteria people tuned in-as to bioengineering at the correct
wave
Point" - G. Daniels
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 2005 12:49:48
From:
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Tom et. al.
Sorry for the delayed response, but I had internet connectivity
problems the better part of the day yesterday. I think my ISP was
experiencing network difficulties. I couldn't log in most of the day.
Yeah, I top-posted here for goo reason. Eeverything is self contained
and in sequence, including the reinstatement of #1 that had been
omitted in the reply..
1. FACT ... OPINION. How did you conveniently manage to miss the "in
my opinion" and "I suspect" verbiage of mine? Did I ever emphatically
state that something is a known and proven FACT? No, but I have
indicated that there is a preponderance of circumstantial evidence that
cannot and should not be ignored even though you would have us do so.
Stating an "opinion" about the HRS blog author's identity in this
context may as well be an accusation of fact. An equivalent example is
mentioning "Saddam Hussein" in conjunction with either "9-11-2001" or
"Al-Qaeda." It allows the aspersion to be cast, while allowing the
accuser to later deny than he or she even made the connection. It is
certainly a deliberately misleading technique to use, which is why I
WILL NOT post my beliefs as to who the authors of the HRS blog or
Johnny NoCom posts really are.
--- > You omitted my #1, so I re-inserted it for you. Deliberately
misleading? If a statement fulfills your stipulated requirement that
it be qualified as an opinion if someone is still misled this can only
be attributed to perceptual difficulty the responsibility for which
does not rest with one making the qualified statement, but rather with
the one misinterpreting it. So much for your errant postulate.
Opinion ... fact? I fail to comprehend why do these terms cause you so
much confusion? Surely you can discern the difference. Opinion does
not a fact make, and that's a fact. The definition of opinion, may
include ... notion, feeling, belief, judgment, thought, view,
conception, estimation, perception, sentiment, but not FACT. No matter
what kind of spin you vainly attempt to put on it, stating my opinion
about who the author of the HRS blog is (and I repeat that I have not
yet done so) is just that ... a statement of opinion. You won't post
your beliefs as to who the authors of the HRS blog or Johnny NoCom
posts really are for more than just the above stated reason. Since you
have gone on record indicating that you could produce a list of the
likely candidate and it would be similar to the list that I could
produce, one must assume that you strongly suspect, and maybe even know
those who are responsible, but friendship compromises your judgment.
If you know who is responsible, then you are in the unenviable position
of having to betray some friends to exonerate others through
disclosure. There is this old adage ... we are judged by the company
we keep. One has to wonder why is it that you continue to associate
with and defend these scoundrels rather than denounce them, sever your
ties and abdicate your assumed role as their spokesperson. Lack of
conclusive evidence you might say. To that I say; based on
characteristic, parallel patterns of behavior, if you have suspicions
sufficient enough to enable you to compile a list of likely candidates,
then you have adequate reason to have already parted company with those
who you persist in harboring and defending. If you and I could produce
a similar list, then you must regard the telling circumstantial
evidence to be compelling enough for others to arrive at the same
conclusion an come have.
> 2. Offenses are not limited to the blog, but extend to objectionable
> posts both past and present ... posts that are obvious to all but you
> (Tom) to have originated from the same few sources.
There are multiple probable candidates for the authorship of the HRS
blog, the Johnny NoCom posts, and many of the other anonymous
anti-highracer/anti-Bacchetta/anti-BROL posts here on
alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent, the defunct Monkey Island message boards
and other online forums. Therefore, authorship of one does not
necessarily indicate authorship of the others, so that assumption
should not be made.
-- > You are out of sync. I addressed that particular issue in #4
(below). Multiple probable candidates? I can think of 3, the author
and 2 collaborators although there could possibly be more serving in a
minor capacity. The two to whom I refer have a history of anonymity
that extends back several years in archived Usenet newsgroup posts. As
concerns the defunct Monkey Island message board, most who adopted a
monkey moniker merely did so to have a simian nom de plume (pen-name)
to reflect their registered "residence" on Monkey Island.
Consequently, you cannot emphatically lump all the Monkey Island
participants into a pool of potential candidates. Why do that? I know
to further add to identity confusion ... a clever, but failed attempt.
Just whatever do you mean by saying ... "Therefore, authorship of one
does not necessarily indicate authorship of the others", like that
somehow logically follows? It most certainly does not. You persist in
ignoring what many others have noted and referred to countless times,
that is the consistency of priy focus and distinctive writing styles
that makes it easy to assume that these shenanigans are confined to the
same small group of specific individuals ... the same themes, the same
targets, the same misspellings, the same grammatical errors, the same
phraseology, the same email headers, the same PCs, the same ISPs, etc.
that attest to origin. You seem to be the only person who is incapable
and/or unwilling to recognize that. I guess someone has to express an
OPINION as to where the blame should be placed and it may as well be
me. Much speculation has been bandied about regarding the parties
responsible and although the evidence is purely circumstantial, it is
nonetheless substantial and compelling. The author of the HRS blog
trashes all highracer bikes accept for one which is exempted and in fat
is lauded and the author just happens own ... a Volae. Coincidence? I
think not. Tom, how many of those on your list of probable candidates
own a Volae? That kind of narrows authorship down now doesn't it? He
is an ex-Monkey Island friend of Ed Gin. I'll still not name any names
here, but the initials of the last names of the three that I suspect as
being directly involved, when placed side-by-side, spell JAG and I find
that particular sequence to be most appropriate. You know who the last
one is, so all you have to do now is to determine if the initials match
your lineup of suspects. I am convinced that you will find this to be
not very challenging.
> 3. Offenses are not limited solely to the owner of the blog, but rather
> to all who participate by contributing to it.
-- > Once again, you failed to acknowledge what I have said repeatedly
(see #3). I suppose I will just have to take silence as admission that
offenses are not limited solely to the blog or its author(s). I'm
beginning to think Ed Dolan is right about you being stubborn, never in
the wrong and unable or unwilling to take a stand. It should be duly
noted that there is a significant difference between condemning the
wrongdoing and condemning the nameless wrongdoers. You will do
neither. You are adamant in your resolve not to repudiate the
"unidentified" perpetrators or their surreptitious skullduggery.
Refusing to do so is tantamount to giving those involved and their
activities your personal stamp of approval. What do you suggest that
we do ... sit idly by, grant the offenders impunity ... what? I will
ask you again, without naming names, why do you refuse to condemn the
actions of the nameless? There is no middle ground here. One either
approves or disapproves. Where do you stand? Should you once again
fail to take a stand. I suppose that in not taking a stand, you have
in effect taken a stand ... a cowardly one, but one that reflects the
demeanor of those you shelter.
> 4. The profiles of those involved and their distinctive, (readily
> recognizable) writing styles establishes their culpability and links
> the authors with their postings even though their specific identity is
> cowardly cloaked by a multitude of pseudonyms. If they were proud of
> what they do and if they had the courage to reveal their true identity,
> they would use their real names and real email addresses, but they are
> neither proud nor courageous. Surely you will not address this issue
> for there is no room for argument, so don't even give me any nonsense
> about there being a good reason for obscurity when you find no reason
> to do so and their reason is so obvious that it needn't even be
> mentioned.
To the contrary, there are some who might well indeed extend
retaliation to means beyond the written word. I am aware of several
cases (although not involving highracers/Bacchetta/BROL) where this has
occurred. True freedom of speech is usually more a theoretical concept
than reality.
-- > You're out of sync again. I addressed the freedom of speech issue
in #8 (below). By logical implication, you have all but admitted that
you are aware that those responsible have spawned sufficient
provocation to warrant remaining anonymous for fear of any
counter-measures that would exceed that of the written word. Well, I
couldn't agree more. The operative word in your statement was
retaliation, which is defined as an action taken in return for an
injury or offense. Certainly, no one can deny that there has been a
cornucopia of injury and offense. Now it should be obvious that
vengeance would not even be the point of discussion if the HRS blog and
the many derogatory posts past and present were simply never made. If
retribution extends beyond the written word, that is the risk that
those responsible knowingly and willingly took and the consequences
that they must accept. We must all take responsibility for our
decisions and the consequences of those decisions. If the parties who
are responsible find that their payback extends beyond the written
word, be it in the form of litigation, violence or whatever, so be it.
I'll not shed a tear. They will have reaped what they sowed ... earned
and deserve whatever form of reprisal comes their way.
> 5. Despite you assertion to the contrary, I didn't accuse Ed of
> authorship of the blog, but there is no doubt in my mind regarding his
> active participation in the blog or in his authorship of past and
> present objectionable posts and this is an OPINION that is shared by
> most here regardless of your drum beating about FACTS. Your logic
> reads much like this. If you enter a room and lying on the floor is a
> person dead from a gunshot wound and a person is standing over the body
> holding a gun that is later found to have been purchased by and
> registered in his name. In his pocket is found a receipt for recently
> purchased bullets and the open box, on the table, just happens to have
> the same number of bullets missing that were chambered in the gun,
> there still remains sufficient reason to consider that the person found
> holding the gun was not the murderer simply because the preponderance
> of evidence is purely circumstantial since the event was not captured
> on videotape. Sorry, but I just buy your line of reasoning.
The above criteria are certainly grounds to further investigate that
particular individual, but do not constitute proof of murder.
-- > Grounds??? I suppose that if ballistics were run and the bullet
matched the gun and motive were clearly established and gun powder
residue was found to be on the shooters hand, that would also
constitute reason for further investigation. You're impossible, but
I'm sure the hypothetical "murderer" would love to have you on the jury
... reasonable doubt ... no eye witness ... no video tape, just some
mere circumstantial evidence that warrants further investigation ...
yeah right.
> 6. You persist in your inability to recognize that the circumstantial
> evidence as formidable and telling. You also persist in your
> unwillingness to condemn the nameless perpetrators who are responsible.
> Why is that? Is it because if those responsible are ever identified,
> that you know you that could very well have condemned those with whom
> you are associated and allied?
Parody of public figures is accepted in advanced societies. Note that I
did post criticisms of the HRS blog in the two cases where people who
clearly are not public figures (I can state this with certainty since I
have met both these individuals) were objects of the parody.
-- > I somehow missed those two cases and posts. Care to repost? Do
you really expect any of us to believe that the objectionable posts
both past and present and the denigrating HRS blog fall within the
protective sanctuary of parody. Can you honestly say that you can find
nothing in all this that doesn't transcend the definition of the word
or doesn't exceed the boundaries of good taste? Lest I remind you
again, I'm the guy who fucks his mother. Ask your friends. One of
them said so. I know ... just another example of an otherwise
perfectly acceptable parody, if it were not for the fact that I am not
a public person ... right? I guess what you need is to become a victim
for you to come to grips with enlightenment. This all makes me wonder
though if in fact your reluctance to take a stand and condemn the
wrongdoers and their wrongdoing is because of the very real threat of
that possibility ... becoming one of their victims. If you ever find
yourself in that position, I suspect that you would find the experience
one that would provide you with a much needed attitude adjustment ...
one that would alter your perspective considerably. As concerns public
figures, many victims are most certainly not "public figures" (more
about that further down).
> 7. Personally, it is my opinion (I know you're fond of that word) that
> even you have little doubt as to who the culprits are. You as much as
> said so when you indicated that we would likely produce similar lists
> assuming of course that your convictions did not have you constrained
> from doing so. Here's a concept. How about this? We could both
> produce our lists with an appropriate escape clauses that our lists are
> not to be misconstrued as FACT since they are OPINIONS substantiated
> only by overwhelming circumstantial evidence. Then we could compare
> notes. You game? We could even do so in a private email if you don't
> want to go public.
See my first paragraph in this post.
-- > See my response to your first paragraph. The offer was made with
an escape clause to cover you ass and even provided with a private
email exchange option and yet still you weaseled out. The offer still
stands by the way.
> 8. From my perspective, you have sheltered the nameless guilty parties,
> in a feigned defense of freedom of speech, innocent until proven guilty
> and harmless parody/satire. Freedom of speech does not entitle one to
> say anything and everything, like screaming fire in a theater. Oh
> sure, one can say scandalous things for sure, but need I remind you
> that the courts are packed full of libel suits. Frankly, I hope this
> crap ends up in a courtroom so you will at long last have the proof
> that you demand ... proof that no one else here seems to require.
> Innocent until proven guilty is hard to quibble over, but the
> accumulated circumstantial evidence leaves only a shadow of a doubt and
> the blog and posts, both past and present, are way beyond parody,
> satire or even that which is commonly considered acceptable (read
> within the bounds of good taste) ... agreed?
See what I said above about the distinction between public and private
individuals (and the US Supreme Court agrees).
-- > I stand by what I said. You merely ducked the entire issue with a
one-liner. The US Supreme Court would be so bold as to define many of
those who have been on the receiving end as what you have construed as
"public individuals", so your fundamental contention is quite
irrelevant.
> 9. To Tom's credit, he at least gave me kudos for tenacity and
> determination. You are right Tom, I'll stick around and argue the
> point as long as I feel that there is a point to argue over and it is
> worthwhile to do so although admittedly this can become tiring quite
> quickly. When an impasse is reached, however, and we can only agree to
> disagree, I will likely just call it ... done and over with and move
> on....
Where is Rich Pinto? Mr. Pinto accused me of being "illogical" and
"delusional" but refused to back up his argument with facts and logic.
Mr. Pinto also has yet to back up his accusation that Ed Gin is a
"pathological liar".
--- > It would seem that Rich really struck a nerve. I would be
inappropriate for me to address a question that should only be answered
by Rich Pinto, but I personally don't see that he has anything to gain
by engaging in a cyclical debate with you over issues that the
readership has already decided in his favor. It is probably in his
best interest to just ignore all this bullshit. A more pertinent
question to ask is where are the cowardly culprits? Like you, at least
Rich used his real email address and name, but we've been through all
that innumerable times. Those who are responsible have good reason to
remain anonymous ... fear factor. Rich is not alone in his assertions.
I've as much as said that at times you were illogical (even in this
post) and I have said the I agree with Rich regarding his observations
regarding Ed Gin's pathological prevarication, although I have no
intention of citing examples to justify my accusation to you. I know
what I know and there are others who also know what I know. Suffice it
to say, that I've caught Ed Gin in countless lies and many were
specifically told about me. I refuse to be diverted, preferring to
stay on topic.
Jim McNaa
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic wrote:
> jimmymac_4@yahoo.com (Jim McNaa) wrote:
> > Tom,
> >
> > Well it's about time that you feel the heat. You should. Your terse
> > response was little more than a convenient means for you to avoid
> > addressing any issues raised. You are a master of the technique. As
> > concerns refutation of your contention that ownership of the HRS blog
> > is based on opinion rather than fact, I will agree that until proof of
> > ownership of the blog is firmly established, it is a given that the
> > readership can assume that accusations are opinions and not facts, but
> > opinions nonetheless with an undeniable wealth of credible
> > circumstantial evidence and as such opinions with some significant
> > weight. I guess I will have to repeat a few things that Teflon Tom
> > skirts over and over again.
> >
> > 1. FACT ... OPINION. How did you conveniently manage to miss the "in
> > my opinion" and "I suspect" verbiage of mine? Did I ever emphatically
> > state that something is a known and proven FACT? No, but I have
> > indicated that there is a preponderance of circumstantial evidence that
> > cannot and should not be ignored even though you would have us do so.
>
> Stating an "opinion" about the HRS blog author's identity in this
> context may as well be an accusation of fact. An equivalent example is
> mentioning "Saddam Hussein" in conjunction with either "9-11-2001" or
> "Al-Qaeda." It allows the aspersion to be cast, while allowing the
> accuser to later deny than he or she even made the connection. It is
> certainly a deliberately misleading technique to use, which is why I
> WILL NOT post my beliefs as to who the authors of the HRS blog or
> Johnny NoCom posts really are.
>
> > 2. Offenses are not limited to the blog, but extend to objectionable
> > posts both past and present ... posts that are obvious to all but you
> > (Tom) to have originated from the same few sources.
>
> There are multiple probable candidates for the authorship of the HRS
> blog, the Johnny NoCom posts, and many of the other anonymous
> anti-highracer/anti-Bacchetta/anti-BROL posts here on
> alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent, the defunct Monkey Island message boards
> and other online forums. Therefore, authorship of one does not
> necessarily indicate authorship of the others, so that assumption
> should not be made.
>
> > 3. Offenses are not limited solely to the owner of the blog, but rather
> > to all who participate by contributing to it.
> >
> > 4. The profiles of those involved and their distinctive, (readily
> > recognizable) writing styles establishes their culpability and links
> > the authors with their postings even though their specific identity is
> > cowardly cloaked by a multitude of pseudonyms. If they were proud of
> > what they do and if they had the courage to reveal their true identity,
> > they would use their real names and real email addresses, but they are
> > neither proud nor courageous. Surely you will not address this issue
> > for there is no room for argument, so don't even give me any nonsense
> > about there being a good reason for obscurity when you find no reason
> > to do so and their reason is so obvious that it needn't even be
> > mentioned.
>
> To the contrary, there are some who might well indeed extend
> retaliation to means beyond the written word. I am aware of several
> cases (although not involving highracers/Bacchetta/BROL) where this has
> occurred. True freedom of speech is usually more a theoretical concept
> than reality.
>
> > 5. Despite you assertion to the contrary, I didn't accuse Ed of
> > authorship of the blog, but there is no doubt in my mind regarding his
> > active participation in the blog or in his authorship of past and
> > present objectionable posts and this is an OPINION that is shared by
> > most here regardless of your drum beating about FACTS. Your logic
> > reads much like this. If you enter a room and lying on the floor is a
> > person dead from a gunshot wound and a person is standing over the body
> > holding a gun that is later found to have been purchased by and
> > registered in his name. IN his pocket is found a receipt for recently
> > purchased bullets and the open box, on the table, just happens to have
> > the same number of bullets missing that were chambered in the gun,
> > there still remains sufficient reason to consider that the person found
> > holding the gun was not the murderer simply because the preponderance
> > of evidence is purely circumstantial since the event was not captured
> > on videotape. Sorry, but I just buy your line of reasoning.
>
> The above criteria are certainly grounds to further investigate that
> particular individual, but do not constitute proof of murder.
>
> > 6. You persist in your inability to recognize that the circumstantial
> > evidence as formidable and telling. You also persist in your
> > unwillingness to condemn the nameless perpetrators who are responsible.
> > Why is that? Is it because if those responsible are ever identified,
> > that you know you that could very well have condemned those with whom
> > you are associated and allied?
>
> Parody of public figures is accepted in advanced societies. Note that I
> did post criticisms of the HRS blog in the two cases where people who
> clearly are not public figures (I can state this with certainty since I
> have met both these individuals) were objects of the parody.
>
> > 7. Personally, it is my opinion (I know you're fond of that word) that
> > even you have little doubt as to who the culprits are. You as much as
> > said so when you indicated that we would likely produce similar lists
> > assuming of course that your convictions did not have you constrained
> > from doing so. Here's a concept. How about this? We could both
> > produce our lists with an appropriate escape clauses that our lists are
> > not to be misconstrued as FACT since they are OPINIONS substantiated
> > only by overwhelming circumstantial evidence. Then we could compare
> > notes. You game? We could even do so in a private email if you don't
> > want to go public.
>
> See my first paragraph in this post.
>
> > 8. From my perspective, you have sheltered the nameless guilty parties,
> > in a feigned defense of freedom of speech, innocent until proven guilty
> > and harmless parody/satire. Freedom of speech does not entitle one to
> > say anything and everything, like screaming fire in a theater. Oh
> > sure, one can say scandalous things for sure, but need I remind you
> > that the courts are packed full of libel suits. Frankly, I hope this
> > crap ends up in a courtroom so you will at long last have the proof
> > that you demand ... proof that no one else here seems to require.
> > Innocent until proven guilty is hard to quibble over, but the
> > accumulated circumstantial evidence leaves only a shadow of a doubt and
> > the blog and posts, both past and present, are way beyond parody,
> > satire or even that which is commonly considered acceptable (read
> > within the bounds of good taste) ... agreed?
>
> See what I said above about the distinction between public and private
> individuals (and the US Supreme Court agrees).
>
> > 9. To Tom's credit, he at least gave me kudos for tenacity and
> > determination. You are right Tom, I'll stick around and argue the
> > point as long as I feel that there is a point to argue over and it is
> > worthwhile to do so although admittedly this can become tiring quite
> > quickly. When an impasse is reached, however, and we can only agree to
> > disagree, I will likely just call it ... done and over with and move
> > on....
>
> Where is Rich Pinto? Mr. Pinto accused me of being "illogical" and
> "delusional" but refused to back up his argument with facts and logic.
> Mr. Pinto also has yet to back up his accusation that Ed Gin is a
> "pathological liar".
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
| | |
Date: 09 Dec 2005 18:49:03
From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Edward Dolan wrote:
> ...
> The only real question I have at the moment is what are you doing still up?
> Do you realize we have been up all night? Don't you have to go to work
> today? I don't want to be responsible for you not getting a good night's
> sleep. Mr. McNaa wants you to go to bed too, something I think he did at
> least several hours ago....
At a certain point of fatigue, sleep become difficult, especially when
one is suffering some distress from ailments. I blame the cartel of
doctors and pharmacists for their anti-competitive, anti-free ket
practice of restricting the sale of certain medications that could do
much to alleviate suffering. In addition, the doctors are now cowed by
the DEA accusations of feeding addicts' habits, so now doctors are
loath to prescribe both the needed medications and in the required
quantities.
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
"the bacteria people tuned in-as to bioengineering at the correct
wave
Point" - G. Daniels
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Dec 2005 01:24:56
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
"Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1134182943.030655.149490@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> ...
>> The only real question I have at the moment is what are you doing still
>> up?
>> Do you realize we have been up all night? Don't you have to go to work
>> today? I don't want to be responsible for you not getting a good night's
>> sleep. Mr. McNaa wants you to go to bed too, something I think he did
>> at
>> least several hours ago....
>
> At a certain point of fatigue, sleep become difficult, especially when
> one is suffering some distress from ailments. I blame the cartel of
> doctors and pharmacists for their anti-competitive, anti-free ket
> practice of restricting the sale of certain medications that could do
> much to alleviate suffering. In addition, the doctors are now cowed by
> the DEA accusations of feeding addicts' habits, so now doctors are
> loath to prescribe both the needed medications and in the required
> quantities.
Tom, you should not be having any serious medical problems that would
prevent you from sleeping, not at your age. I am guessing that you are in
your 40's and since you bicycle you must be in reasonably good shape. Now
when you get to be my age (almost 70) you will have all kinds of health
issues which will drive you crazy. Finally it gets to the point where you
realize that only death itself is going to solve all your health problems.
No one has ever understood my sleeping habits. I sleep right around the
clock, turning night into day and day into night. I tell those who wish to
contact me that the best time to see me is about 3:00 AM., depending on the
day of the month. I have been cursed all my life because I cannot get up in
the morning. I don't believe I have been up before noon for at least 40
years, unless I have been up all the preceding night of course.
The problem with my life style is that you never get anything done, let
alone accomplished. I have a list of to do things a mile long, but they are
never going to get done. By the time I get up the day is shot, and so I just
fritter away the reminder of the day doing God knows what.
The main advantage of having to hold down a job is that it puts you on a
schedule. We humans need schedules. Otherwise, we tend to go off the deep
end. I almost envy folks who have regular jobs, except for the fact that I
hate all work. Leisure is the only thing that makes any sense to me, but not
everyone knows what to do with leisure. And so I do not recommend my life
style to anyone. It takes a lifetime of practice to live the way I do.
Regards,
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
|
| | |
Date: 09 Dec 2005 00:32:22
From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Edward Dolan wrote:
> ...
> Well, yes, there is not much relationship anymore to where it all came from.
> But still we know where most leftist ideology comes from - x and Lenin.
Groucho x? ;)
> Ah, for the good old days of the Berlin Wall. Damn that Reagan anyway for
> winning the Cold War for America and the West!....
Ed Dolan must mean Gorbachev as the person responsible for ending the
cold war [1]. The cold war could have ended a decade earlier, but
certain people in the Ford administration deliberately sabotaged
detente' in the 1970's. They were Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
and White House Chief of Staff Richard Cheney - I wonder what ever
happened to those two?
[1] Fearless prediction. As time passes, Gorbachev's reputation will
gain luster, while Reagan's will become more tarnished.
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Dec 2005 02:31:48
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
"Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1134117142.096208.236370@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> ...
>> Well, yes, there is not much relationship anymore to where it all came
>> from.
>> But still we know where most leftist ideology comes from - x and
>> Lenin.
>
> Groucho x? ;)
>
>> Ah, for the good old days of the Berlin Wall. Damn that Reagan anyway for
>> winning the Cold War for America and the West!....
>
> Ed Dolan must mean Gorbachev as the person responsible for ending the
> cold war [1]. The cold war could have ended a decade earlier, but
> certain people in the Ford administration deliberately sabotaged
> detente' in the 1970's. They were Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
> and White House Chief of Staff Richard Cheney - I wonder what ever
> happened to those two?
>
> [1] Fearless prediction. As time passes, Gorbachev's reputation will
> gain luster, while Reagan's will become more tarnished.
All of the above is absurd! Any more Presidents like Carter and the US would
have been defeated. Reagan came along just in the nick of time to save us
from the liberal folly. The idea of détente with the Evil Empire just turns
my stomach!
Gorbachev is destined to be either forgotten altogether if Russia becomes a
success or to be reviled if Russia fails. The Russians will then hold
Gorbachev responsible for not adequately defending the old Soviet Union.
However the liberals want to play it, the fact is that the Soviet Union did
not fall of itself. The US had everything to do with it. The Cold War was
real and all the proxy wars that the US fought on behalf of the West,
particularly in Korea and Vietnam, had everything to do with the final
victory.
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
|
| | |
Date: 05 Dec 2005 22:36:13
From: Mike Rice
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
On 5 Dec 2005 12:49:48 -0800, jimmymac_4@yahoo.com wrote:
>Tom et. al.
>
>Sorry for the delayed response, but I had internet connectivity
>problems the better part of the day yesterday. I think my ISP was
>experiencing network difficulties. I couldn't log in most of the day.
>
>Yeah, I top-posted here for goo reason. Eeverything is self contained
>and in sequence, including the reinstatement of #1 that had been
>omitted in the reply..
As long as you had a goo reason...speaking of long, you certainly do
go on, don't you?
<snip >
>
>--> Once again, you failed to acknowledge what I have said repeatedly
>(see #3). I suppose I will just have to take silence as admission that
>offenses are not limited solely to the blog or its author(s). I'm
>beginning to think Ed Dolan is right about you being stubborn, never in
>the wrong and unable or unwilling to take a stand. It should be duly
>noted that there is a significant difference between condemning the
>wrongdoing and condemning the nameless wrongdoers. You will do
>neither. You are adamant in your resolve not to repudiate the
>"unidentified" perpetrators or their surreptitious skullduggery.
>Refusing to do so is tantamount to giving those involved and their
>activities your personal stamp of approval.
<snip >
>
>Parody of public figures is accepted in advanced societies. Note that I
>did post criticisms of the HRS blog in the two cases where people who
>clearly are not public figures (I can state this with certainty since I
>have met both these individuals) were objects of the parody.
>
>
>
>--> I somehow missed those two cases and posts. Care to repost?
I remember both those posts. Ther are none so blind...
>Do
>you really expect any of us to believe that the objectionable posts
>both past and present and the denigrating HRS blog fall within the
>protective sanctuary of parody. Can you honestly say that you can find
>nothing in all this that doesn't transcend the definition of the word
>or doesn't exceed the boundaries of good taste?
The boundaries of good taste fall far short than those of protected
parody. Remember Larry Flint vs Jerry Fallwell?
>Lest I remind you
>again, I'm the guy who fucks his mother.
And you complain about crossing the boundaries of good taste?
>
>
>
>--> See my response to your first paragraph. The offer was made with
>an escape clause to cover you ass and even provided with a private
>email exchange option and yet still you weaseled out. The offer still
>stands by the way.
>
Some of us wish you would take this to private e-mail, I guess it must
not be worth the effort. I believe you only get responses here because
the lurkers need to know there is more than one viewpoint.
>
>
>> 8. From my perspective, you have sheltered the nameless guilty parties,
>> in a feigned defense of freedom of speech, innocent until proven guilty
>> and harmless parody/satire.
Even when ssomeone commits a crime while being broadcast and video
taped, the media always refers to that person as the 'alledged'
perpretator. I wonder why?
<snip >
>> Innocent until proven guilty is hard to quibble over, but the
>> accumulated circumstantial evidence leaves only a shadow of a doubt and
>> the blog and posts, both past and present, are way beyond parody,
>> satire or even that which is commonly considered acceptable (read
>> within the bounds of good taste) ... agreed?
>
>See what I said above about the distinction between public and private
>individuals (and the US Supreme Court agrees).
Ditto. Stop saying no one else here needs a real level of proof.
>
>
>
>--> I stand by what I said. You merely ducked the entire issue with a
>one-liner. The US Supreme Court would be so bold as to define many of
>those who have been on the receiving end as what you have construed as
>"public individuals", so your fundamental contention is quite
>irrelevant.
>
>
>
>> 9. To Tom's credit, he at least gave me kudos for tenacity and
>> determination. You are right Tom, I'll stick around and argue the
>> point as long as I feel that there is a point to argue over and it is
>> worthwhile to do so although admittedly this can become tiring quite
>> quickly. When an impasse is reached, however, and we can only agree to
>> disagree, I will likely just call it ... done and over with and move
>> on....
This seems to be the situation. Your near endless repition is a
monument to your basic disagreement. At least when Ed Dolan trolls
there is usually some humour to brighten the load.
My apologies to any following this thread for the length of this post.
I trimmed far more than I left in.
Indiana Mike
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Dec 2005 17:08:15
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
"Mike Rice" <jodymike@gte.net > wrote in message
news:qof9p1dr8eve7e9jdqg95i254au9enpsoh@4ax.com...
[...]
> This seems to be the situation. Your near endless repition is a
> monument to your basic disagreement. At least when Ed Dolan trolls
> there is usually some humour to brighten the load.
Actually Mike, there is no trolling going on in this dialogue between Jim
and Tom. With me, I must admit, you never know for sure. Sometimes I think I
am trolling myself more than anyone else.
In order to get Tom focused it is often quite necessary to hammer away.
Otherwise he slips and slides away from you like the slippery eel that he
is. I admire Jim for his tenacity and his energy. I could never do what he
does as I am way too lazy. Besides, I learned long ago that it is no good
beating a dead horse like Tom Sherman. I don't believe he has ever once
admitted to being wrong about anything. I think if he did the foundations of
the universe would crumble.
[...]
Regards,
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
PS. Mike, are you English or Canadian? I note your spelling of humor as
humour.
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Dec 2005 00:56:40
From: Mike Rice
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 17:08:15 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net >
wrote:
>
>"Mike Rice" <jodymike@gte.net> wrote in message
>news:qof9p1dr8eve7e9jdqg95i254au9enpsoh@4ax.com...
>[...]
>> This seems to be the situation. Your near endless repition is a
>> monument to your basic disagreement. At least when Ed Dolan trolls
>> there is usually some humour to brighten the load.
>
>Actually Mike, there is no trolling going on in this dialogue between Jim
>and Tom. With me, I must admit, you never know for sure. Sometimes I think I
>am trolling myself more than anyone else.
While it may have seemed that I implied hook and line tactics in this
dialogue, careful reading should reveal I only refered to admitted
behaviour.
>
>In order to get Tom focused it is often quite necessary to hammer away.
>Otherwise he slips and slides away from you like the slippery eel that he
>is. I admire Jim for his tenacity and his energy. I could never do what he
>does as I am way too lazy. Besides, I learned long ago that it is no good
>beating a dead horse like Tom Sherman. I don't believe he has ever once
>admitted to being wrong about anything. I think if he did the foundations of
>the universe would crumble.
>[...]
>
>Regards,
>
>Ed Dolan - Minnesota
>
>PS. Mike, are you English or Canadian? I note your spelling of humor as
>humour.
>
>
As I knew you would. Excepting the case of an obvious typo it is
generally a safe assumption that any mispellings in my posts are for
your ed-ifcation.
And I believe you know where I am from.
Indiana Mike
|
| | | | | |
Date: 05 Dec 2005 21:15:08
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
"Mike Rice" <jodymike@gte.net > wrote in message
news:f4o9p1luvid8p9vnvrbor8vujodtqpqrll@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 17:08:15 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net>
> wrote:
[...]
>>PS. Mike, are you English or Canadian? I note your spelling of humor as
>>humour.
>>
>>
>
> As I knew you would. Excepting the case of an obvious typo it is
> generally a safe assumption that any mispellings in my posts are for
> your ed-ifcation.
>
> And I believe you know where I am from.
>
> Indiana Mike
But you could be an Englishman or a Canadian who has only recently settled
in Indiana.
By and large, we Americans have improved on the English as given to us from
old England, both in our spellings and in our pronunciations. I give you the
word glacier as an example. The English say this word like it is spelled,
but it just sounds all wrong. So who is right? Why of course we Americans
are right as rain because we are the number one super power in the world. If
England wanted to be right, they should have remained Great Britain instead
of losing their empire and becoming just plain Britain, no more Great.
It goes without saying that the less said about the Canadians, the better.
One of these days that benighted nation will break in two (English speaking
and French speaking) and that will be the end of it.
Regards,
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
|
| | |
Date: 05 Dec 2005 15:58:48
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
<jimmymac_4@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1133815788.585449.319430@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Tom et. al.
>
> Sorry for the delayed response, but I had internet connectivity
> problems the better part of the day yesterday. I think my ISP was
> experiencing network difficulties. I couldn't log in most of the day.
>
> Yeah, I top-posted here for goo reason. Eeverything is self contained
> and in sequence, including the reinstatement of #1 that had been
> omitted in the reply..
>
> 1. FACT ... OPINION. How did you conveniently manage to miss the "in
> my opinion" and "I suspect" verbiage of mine? Did I ever emphatically
> state that something is a known and proven FACT? No, but I have
> indicated that there is a preponderance of circumstantial evidence that
> cannot and should not be ignored even though you would have us do so.
>
> Stating an "opinion" about the HRS blog author's identity in this
> context may as well be an accusation of fact. An equivalent example is
> mentioning "Saddam Hussein" in conjunction with either "9-11-2001" or
> "Al-Qaeda." It allows the aspersion to be cast, while allowing the
> accuser to later deny than he or she even made the connection. It is
> certainly a deliberately misleading technique to use, which is why I
> WILL NOT post my beliefs as to who the authors of the HRS blog or
> Johnny NoCom posts really are.
>
>
>
> ---> You omitted my #1, so I re-inserted it for you. Deliberately
> misleading? If a statement fulfills your stipulated requirement that
> it be qualified as an opinion if someone is still misled this can only
> be attributed to perceptual difficulty the responsibility for which
> does not rest with one making the qualified statement, but rather with
> the one misinterpreting it. So much for your errant postulate.
> Opinion ... fact? I fail to comprehend why do these terms cause you so
> much confusion? Surely you can discern the difference. Opinion does
> not a fact make, and that's a fact. The definition of opinion, may
> include ... notion, feeling, belief, judgment, thought, view,
> conception, estimation, perception, sentiment, but not FACT. No matter
> what kind of spin you vainly attempt to put on it, stating my opinion
> about who the author of the HRS blog is (and I repeat that I have not
> yet done so) is just that ... a statement of opinion. You won't post
> your beliefs as to who the authors of the HRS blog or Johnny NoCom
> posts really are for more than just the above stated reason. Since you
> have gone on record indicating that you could produce a list of the
> likely candidate and it would be similar to the list that I could
> produce, one must assume that you strongly suspect, and maybe even know
> those who are responsible, but friendship compromises your judgment.
> If you know who is responsible, then you are in the unenviable position
> of having to betray some friends to exonerate others through
> disclosure. There is this old adage ... we are judged by the company
> we keep. One has to wonder why is it that you continue to associate
> with and defend these scoundrels rather than denounce them, sever your
> ties and abdicate your assumed role as their spokesperson. Lack of
> conclusive evidence you might say. To that I say; based on
> characteristic, parallel patterns of behavior, if you have suspicions
> sufficient enough to enable you to compile a list of likely candidates,
> then you have adequate reason to have already parted company with those
> who you persist in harboring and defending. If you and I could produce
> a similar list, then you must regard the telling circumstantial
> evidence to be compelling enough for others to arrive at the same
> conclusion an come have.
>
>
>
>> 2. Offenses are not limited to the blog, but extend to objectionable
>> posts both past and present ... posts that are obvious to all but you
>> (Tom) to have originated from the same few sources.
>
> There are multiple probable candidates for the authorship of the HRS
> blog, the Johnny NoCom posts, and many of the other anonymous
> anti-highracer/anti-Bacchetta/anti-BROL posts here on
> alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent, the defunct Monkey Island message boards
> and other online forums. Therefore, authorship of one does not
> necessarily indicate authorship of the others, so that assumption
> should not be made.
>
>
>
> --> You are out of sync. I addressed that particular issue in #4
> (below). Multiple probable candidates? I can think of 3, the author
> and 2 collaborators although there could possibly be more serving in a
> minor capacity. The two to whom I refer have a history of anonymity
> that extends back several years in archived Usenet newsgroup posts. As
> concerns the defunct Monkey Island message board, most who adopted a
> monkey moniker merely did so to have a simian nom de plume (pen-name)
> to reflect their registered "residence" on Monkey Island.
> Consequently, you cannot emphatically lump all the Monkey Island
> participants into a pool of potential candidates. Why do that? I know
> to further add to identity confusion ... a clever, but failed attempt.
> Just whatever do you mean by saying ... "Therefore, authorship of one
> does not necessarily indicate authorship of the others", like that
> somehow logically follows? It most certainly does not. You persist in
> ignoring what many others have noted and referred to countless times,
> that is the consistency of priy focus and distinctive writing styles
> that makes it easy to assume that these shenanigans are confined to the
> same small group of specific individuals ... the same themes, the same
> targets, the same misspellings, the same grammatical errors, the same
> phraseology, the same email headers, the same PCs, the same ISPs, etc.
> that attest to origin. You seem to be the only person who is incapable
> and/or unwilling to recognize that. I guess someone has to express an
> OPINION as to where the blame should be placed and it may as well be
> me. Much speculation has been bandied about regarding the parties
> responsible and although the evidence is purely circumstantial, it is
> nonetheless substantial and compelling. The author of the HRS blog
> trashes all highracer bikes accept for one which is exempted and in fat
> is lauded and the author just happens own ... a Volae. Coincidence? I
> think not. Tom, how many of those on your list of probable candidates
> own a Volae? That kind of narrows authorship down now doesn't it? He
> is an ex-Monkey Island friend of Ed Gin. I'll still not name any names
> here, but the initials of the last names of the three that I suspect as
> being directly involved, when placed side-by-side, spell JAG and I find
> that particular sequence to be most appropriate. You know who the last
> one is, so all you have to do now is to determine if the initials match
> your lineup of suspects. I am convinced that you will find this to be
> not very challenging.
>
>
>
>> 3. Offenses are not limited solely to the owner of the blog, but rather
>> to all who participate by contributing to it.
>
>
>
> --> Once again, you failed to acknowledge what I have said repeatedly
> (see #3). I suppose I will just have to take silence as admission that
> offenses are not limited solely to the blog or its author(s). I'm
> beginning to think Ed Dolan is right about you being stubborn, never in
> the wrong and unable or unwilling to take a stand. It should be duly
> noted that there is a significant difference between condemning the
> wrongdoing and condemning the nameless wrongdoers. You will do
> neither. You are adamant in your resolve not to repudiate the
> "unidentified" perpetrators or their surreptitious skullduggery.
> Refusing to do so is tantamount to giving those involved and their
> activities your personal stamp of approval. What do you suggest that
> we do ... sit idly by, grant the offenders impunity ... what? I will
> ask you again, without naming names, why do you refuse to condemn the
> actions of the nameless? There is no middle ground here. One either
> approves or disapproves. Where do you stand? Should you once again
> fail to take a stand. I suppose that in not taking a stand, you have
> in effect taken a stand ... a cowardly one, but one that reflects the
> demeanor of those you shelter.
>
>
>
>> 4. The profiles of those involved and their distinctive, (readily
>> recognizable) writing styles establishes their culpability and links
>> the authors with their postings even though their specific identity is
>> cowardly cloaked by a multitude of pseudonyms. If they were proud of
>> what they do and if they had the courage to reveal their true identity,
>> they would use their real names and real email addresses, but they are
>> neither proud nor courageous. Surely you will not address this issue
>> for there is no room for argument, so don't even give me any nonsense
>> about there being a good reason for obscurity when you find no reason
>> to do so and their reason is so obvious that it needn't even be
>> mentioned.
>
> To the contrary, there are some who might well indeed extend
> retaliation to means beyond the written word. I am aware of several
> cases (although not involving highracers/Bacchetta/BROL) where this has
> occurred. True freedom of speech is usually more a theoretical concept
> than reality.
>
>
>
> --> You're out of sync again. I addressed the freedom of speech issue
> in #8 (below). By logical implication, you have all but admitted that
> you are aware that those responsible have spawned sufficient
> provocation to warrant remaining anonymous for fear of any
> counter-measures that would exceed that of the written word. Well, I
> couldn't agree more. The operative word in your statement was
> retaliation, which is defined as an action taken in return for an
> injury or offense. Certainly, no one can deny that there has been a
> cornucopia of injury and offense. Now it should be obvious that
> vengeance would not even be the point of discussion if the HRS blog and
> the many derogatory posts past and present were simply never made. If
> retribution extends beyond the written word, that is the risk that
> those responsible knowingly and willingly took and the consequences
> that they must accept. We must all take responsibility for our
> decisions and the consequences of those decisions. If the parties who
> are responsible find that their payback extends beyond the written
> word, be it in the form of litigation, violence or whatever, so be it.
> I'll not shed a tear. They will have reaped what they sowed ... earned
> and deserve whatever form of reprisal comes their way.
>
>
>
>> 5. Despite you assertion to the contrary, I didn't accuse Ed of
>> authorship of the blog, but there is no doubt in my mind regarding his
>> active participation in the blog or in his authorship of past and
>> present objectionable posts and this is an OPINION that is shared by
>> most here regardless of your drum beating about FACTS. Your logic
>> reads much like this. If you enter a room and lying on the floor is a
>> person dead from a gunshot wound and a person is standing over the body
>> holding a gun that is later found to have been purchased by and
>> registered in his name. In his pocket is found a receipt for recently
>> purchased bullets and the open box, on the table, just happens to have
>> the same number of bullets missing that were chambered in the gun,
>> there still remains sufficient reason to consider that the person found
>> holding the gun was not the murderer simply because the preponderance
>> of evidence is purely circumstantial since the event was not captured
>> on videotape. Sorry, but I just buy your line of reasoning.
>
> The above criteria are certainly grounds to further investigate that
> particular individual, but do not constitute proof of murder.
>
>
>
> --> Grounds??? I suppose that if ballistics were run and the bullet
> matched the gun and motive were clearly established and gun powder
> residue was found to be on the shooters hand, that would also
> constitute reason for further investigation. You're impossible, but
> I'm sure the hypothetical "murderer" would love to have you on the jury
> ... reasonable doubt ... no eye witness ... no video tape, just some
> mere circumstantial evidence that warrants further investigation ...
> yeah right.
>
>
>
>> 6. You persist in your inability to recognize that the circumstantial
>> evidence as formidable and telling. You also persist in your
>> unwillingness to condemn the nameless perpetrators who are responsible.
>> Why is that? Is it because if those responsible are ever identified,
>> that you know you that could very well have condemned those with whom
>> you are associated and allied?
>
> Parody of public figures is accepted in advanced societies. Note that I
> did post criticisms of the HRS blog in the two cases where people who
> clearly are not public figures (I can state this with certainty since I
> have met both these individuals) were objects of the parody.
>
>
>
> --> I somehow missed those two cases and posts. Care to repost? Do
> you really expect any of us to believe that the objectionable posts
> both past and present and the denigrating HRS blog fall within the
> protective sanctuary of parody. Can you honestly say that you can find
> nothing in all this that doesn't transcend the definition of the word
> or doesn't exceed the boundaries of good taste? Lest I remind you
> again, I'm the guy who fucks his mother. Ask your friends. One of
> them said so. I know ... just another example of an otherwise
> perfectly acceptable parody, if it were not for the fact that I am not
> a public person ... right? I guess what you need is to become a victim
> for you to come to grips with enlightenment. This all makes me wonder
> though if in fact your reluctance to take a stand and condemn the
> wrongdoers and their wrongdoing is because of the very real threat of
> that possibility ... becoming one of their victims. If you ever find
> yourself in that position, I suspect that you would find the experience
> one that would provide you with a much needed attitude adjustment ...
> one that would alter your perspective considerably. As concerns public
> figures, many victims are most certainly not "public figures" (more
> about that further down).
>
>
>
>> 7. Personally, it is my opinion (I know you're fond of that word) that
>> even you have little doubt as to who the culprits are. You as much as
>> said so when you indicated that we would likely produce similar lists
>> assuming of course that your convictions did not have you constrained
>> from doing so. Here's a concept. How about this? We could both
>> produce our lists with an appropriate escape clauses that our lists are
>> not to be misconstrued as FACT since they are OPINIONS substantiated
>> only by overwhelming circumstantial evidence. Then we could compare
>> notes. You game? We could even do so in a private email if you don't
>> want to go public.
>
> See my first paragraph in this post.
>
>
>
> --> See my response to your first paragraph. The offer was made with
> an escape clause to cover you ass and even provided with a private
> email exchange option and yet still you weaseled out. The offer still
> stands by the way.
>
>
>
>> 8. From my perspective, you have sheltered the nameless guilty parties,
>> in a feigned defense of freedom of speech, innocent until proven guilty
>> and harmless parody/satire. Freedom of speech does not entitle one to
>> say anything and everything, like screaming fire in a theater. Oh
>> sure, one can say scandalous things for sure, but need I remind you
>> that the courts are packed full of libel suits. Frankly, I hope this
>> crap ends up in a courtroom so you will at long last have the proof
>> that you demand ... proof that no one else here seems to require.
>> Innocent until proven guilty is hard to quibble over, but the
>> accumulated circumstantial evidence leaves only a shadow of a doubt and
>> the blog and posts, both past and present, are way beyond parody,
>> satire or even that which is commonly considered acceptable (read
>> within the bounds of good taste) ... agreed?
>
> See what I said above about the distinction between public and private
> individuals (and the US Supreme Court agrees).
>
>
>
> --> I stand by what I said. You merely ducked the entire issue with a
> one-liner. The US Supreme Court would be so bold as to define many of
> those who have been on the receiving end as what you have construed as
> "public individuals", so your fundamental contention is quite
> irrelevant.
>
>
>
>> 9. To Tom's credit, he at least gave me kudos for tenacity and
>> determination. You are right Tom, I'll stick around and argue the
>> point as long as I feel that there is a point to argue over and it is
>> worthwhile to do so although admittedly this can become tiring quite
>> quickly. When an impasse is reached, however, and we can only agree to
>> disagree, I will likely just call it ... done and over with and move
>> on....
>
> Where is Rich Pinto? Mr. Pinto accused me of being "illogical" and
> "delusional" but refused to back up his argument with facts and logic.
> Mr. Pinto also has yet to back up his accusation that Ed Gin is a
> "pathological liar".
>
>
>
> ---> It would seem that Rich really struck a nerve. I would be
> inappropriate for me to address a question that should only be answered
> by Rich Pinto, but I personally don't see that he has anything to gain
> by engaging in a cyclical debate with you over issues that the
> readership has already decided in his favor. It is probably in his
> best interest to just ignore all this bullshit. A more pertinent
> question to ask is where are the cowardly culprits? Like you, at least
> Rich used his real email address and name, but we've been through all
> that innumerable times. Those who are responsible have good reason to
> remain anonymous ... fear factor. Rich is not alone in his assertions.
> I've as much as said that at times you were illogical (even in this
> post) and I have said the I agree with Rich regarding his observations
> regarding Ed Gin's pathological prevarication, although I have no
> intention of citing examples to justify my accusation to you. I know
> what I know and there are others who also know what I know. Suffice it
> to say, that I've caught Ed Gin in countless lies and many were
> specifically told about me. I refuse to be diverted, preferring to
> stay on topic.
>
> Jim McNaa
[...]
Ed Dolan is standing by and awaiting Mr. Tom Sherman's detailed response
point by point to Jim McNaa's lawyer like reprise of the entire
situation. I have not read the blog nor do I intend to but I am going to
read every word of Mr. Tom Sherman's response to this summing up by Jim
McNaa. I hope to be enlightened as to how cowards think when confronted
with their own cowardice.
I am now listening so intently that I can hear a pin drop.
Regards,
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
|
| |
Date: 02 Dec 2005 18:02:36
From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
jimmymac_4@yahoo.com (Jim McNaa) wrote:
> Tom,
>
> Well it's about time that you feel the heat. You should. Your terse
> response was little more than a convenient means for you to avoid
> addressing any issues raised. You are a master of the technique. As
> concerns refutation of your contention that ownership of the HRS blog
> is based on opinion rather than fact, I will agree that until proof of
> ownership of the blog is firmly established, it is a given that the
> readership can assume that accusations are opinions and not facts, but
> opinions nonetheless with an undeniable wealth of credible
> circumstantial evidence and as such opinions with some significant
> weight. I guess I will have to repeat a few things that Teflon Tom
> skirts over and over again.
>
> 1. FACT ... OPINION. How did you conveniently manage to miss the "in
> my opinion" and "I suspect" verbiage of mine? Did I ever emphatically
> state that something is a known and proven FACT? No, but I have
> indicated that there is a preponderance of circumstantial evidence that
> cannot and should not be ignored even though you would have us do so.
Stating an "opinion" about the HRS blog author's identity in this
context may as well be an accusation of fact. An equivalent example is
mentioning "Saddam Hussein" in conjunction with either "9-11-2001" or
"Al-Qaeda." It allows the aspersion to be cast, while allowing the
accuser to later deny than he or she even made the connection. It is
certainly a deliberately misleading technique to use, which is why I
WILL NOT post my beliefs as to who the authors of the HRS blog or
Johnny NoCom posts really are.
> 2. Offenses are not limited to the blog, but extend to objectionable
> posts both past and present ... posts that are obvious to all but you
> (Tom) to have originated from the same few sources.
There are multiple probable candidates for the authorship of the HRS
blog, the Johnny NoCom posts, and many of the other anonymous
anti-highracer/anti-Bacchetta/anti-BROL posts here on
alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent, the defunct Monkey Island message boards
and other online forums. Therefore, authorship of one does not
necessarily indicate authorship of the others, so that assumption
should not be made.
> 3. Offenses are not limited solely to the owner of the blog, but rather
> to all who participate by contributing to it.
>
> 4. The profiles of those involved and their distinctive, (readily
> recognizable) writing styles establishes their culpability and links
> the authors with their postings even though their specific identity is
> cowardly cloaked by a multitude of pseudonyms. If they were proud of
> what they do and if they had the courage to reveal their true identity,
> they would use their real names and real email addresses, but they are
> neither proud nor courageous. Surely you will not address this issue
> for there is no room for argument, so don't even give me any nonsense
> about there being a good reason for obscurity when you find no reason
> to do so and their reason is so obvious that it needn't even be
> mentioned.
To the contrary, there are some who might well indeed extend
retaliation to means beyond the written word. I am aware of several
cases (although not involving highracers/Bacchetta/BROL) where this has
occurred. True freedom of speech is usually more a theoretical concept
than reality.
> 5. Despite you assertion to the contrary, I didn't accuse Ed of
> authorship of the blog, but there is no doubt in my mind regarding his
> active participation in the blog or in his authorship of past and
> present objectionable posts and this is an OPINION that is shared by
> most here regardless of your drum beating about FACTS. Your logic
> reads much like this. If you enter a room and lying on the floor is a
> person dead from a gunshot wound and a person is standing over the body
> holding a gun that is later found to have been purchased by and
> registered in his name. IN his pocket is found a receipt for recently
> purchased bullets and the open box, on the table, just happens to have
> the same number of bullets missing that were chambered in the gun,
> there still remains sufficient reason to consider that the person found
> holding the gun was not the murderer simply because the preponderance
> of evidence is purely circumstantial since the event was not captured
> on videotape. Sorry, but I just buy your line of reasoning.
The above criteria are certainly grounds to further investigate that
particular individual, but do not constitute proof of murder.
> 6. You persist in your inability to recognize that the circumstantial
> evidence as formidable and telling. You also persist in your
> unwillingness to condemn the nameless perpetrators who are responsible.
> Why is that? Is it because if those responsible are ever identified,
> that you know you that could very well have condemned those with whom
> you are associated and allied?
Parody of public figures is accepted in advanced societies. Note that I
did post criticisms of the HRS blog in the two cases where people who
clearly are not public figures (I can state this with certainty since I
have met both these individuals) were objects of the parody.
> 7. Personally, it is my opinion (I know you're fond of that word) that
> even you have little doubt as to who the culprits are. You as much as
> said so when you indicated that we would likely produce similar lists
> assuming of course that your convictions did not have you constrained
> from doing so. Here's a concept. How about this? We could both
> produce our lists with an appropriate escape clauses that our lists are
> not to be misconstrued as FACT since they are OPINIONS substantiated
> only by overwhelming circumstantial evidence. Then we could compare
> notes. You game? We could even do so in a private email if you don't
> want to go public.
See my first paragraph in this post.
> 8. From my perspective, you have sheltered the nameless guilty parties,
> in a feigned defense of freedom of speech, innocent until proven guilty
> and harmless parody/satire. Freedom of speech does not entitle one to
> say anything and everything, like screaming fire in a theater. Oh
> sure, one can say scandalous things for sure, but need I remind you
> that the courts are packed full of libel suits. Frankly, I hope this
> crap ends up in a courtroom so you will at long last have the proof
> that you demand ... proof that no one else here seems to require.
> Innocent until proven guilty is hard to quibble over, but the
> accumulated circumstantial evidence leaves only a shadow of a doubt and
> the blog and posts, both past and present, are way beyond parody,
> satire or even that which is commonly considered acceptable (read
> within the bounds of good taste) ... agreed?
See what I said above about the distinction between public and private
individuals (and the US Supreme Court agrees).
> 9. To Tom's credit, he at least gave me kudos for tenacity and
> determination. You are right Tom, I'll stick around and argue the
> point as long as I feel that there is a point to argue over and it is
> worthwhile to do so although admittedly this can become tiring quite
> quickly. When an impasse is reached, however, and we can only agree to
> disagree, I will likely just call it ... done and over with and move
> on....
Where is Rich Pinto? Mr. Pinto accused me of being "illogical" and
"delusional" but refused to back up his argument with facts and logic.
Mr. Pinto also has yet to back up his accusation that Ed Gin is a
"pathological liar".
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
| | |
Date: 04 Dec 2005 19:46:57
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
"Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1133575356.746561.146510@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[...]
> Where is Rich Pinto? Mr. Pinto accused me of being "illogical" and
> "delusional" but refused to back up his argument with facts and logic.
> Mr. Pinto also has yet to back up his accusation that Ed Gin is a
> "pathological liar".
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
Mr. Rich Pinto is a genius in my opinion and has hit the nail squarely on
the head. Mr. Sherman IS illogical and delusional when it comes to Ed Gin
and Ed Gin IS many times worse that a pathological liar. He forges names and
addresses among his many other misdeeds.
But Hey! Hang in there with your defense of the indefensible. The rest of us
are enjoying you making a spectacle of yourself. One thing is for certain:
none of us are going to have any sympathy for you when Ed Gin turns on you,
which he surely will do because he is as crazy as a hoot owl.
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
|
| |
Date: 02 Dec 2005 17:29:13
From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1133345043.013723.27280@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> [...]
> > A lot of heat but no light - nowhere in the above is there refutation
> > of my position that accusations of authorship of the HRS blog are
> > OPINIONS, not FACTS. Until someone has proof of authorship, they should
> > qualify their accusations as opinions.
>
> The ARBR readership came to a conclusion about this mess long ago. It is
> only you who continues to have a reservation. That right there ought to tell
> you something, but it doesn't because you are stubborn and willful....
Or maybe I happen to know more about this subject than the 50%
percentile alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent reading ursine.
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
| |
Date: 02 Dec 2005 17:26:40
From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1133254023.942998.273460@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> [...]
> > Note that I am NOT saying that Ed Gin is not the author of the HRS blog
> > and associated posts. I am merely pointing out that no one has PROVED
> > THE IDENTITY OF THE HRS blog author. I am defending the concept of
> > innocent until proven guilty (yes, I know it is an unpopular concept in
> > the 21st century United States) but one that is mandatory for a society
> > to be considered just.
> >
> > I am willing to further explain any of the above the [that] others have
> > trouble understanding.
> >
> > Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
>
> Mr. Sherman's sophistry fails because it does not persuade. On the other
> hand Joao DE Souza's modest presentation concerning the headers involved
> more than convinces.
>
> Same old score:
>
> Joao DE Souza = 100; Tom Sherman = 0.
>
> Ed Dolan - Minnesota
>
> PS. By the way, there are real courts and then there is the court of public
> opinion. The latter is what prevails here on ARBR. Try not to confuse the
> two.
Mr. Ed Dolan is obviously not aware that there are SEVERAL potential
candidates for being the HRS blog author. Mr. Ed Dolan does not need
to take my word for it, since Jim McNaa has implied as much, stating
that he thinks "it is a party of (at least) three."
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
| | |
Date: 04 Dec 2005 19:27:56
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
"Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1133573200.607738.296250@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1133254023.942998.273460@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> [...]
>> > Note that I am NOT saying that Ed Gin is not the author of the HRS blog
>> > and associated posts. I am merely pointing out that no one has PROVED
>> > THE IDENTITY OF THE HRS blog author. I am defending the concept of
>> > innocent until proven guilty (yes, I know it is an unpopular concept in
>> > the 21st century United States) but one that is mandatory for a society
>> > to be considered just.
>> >
>> > I am willing to further explain any of the above the [that] others have
>> > trouble understanding.
>> >
>> > Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
>>
>> Mr. Sherman's sophistry fails because it does not persuade. On the other
>> hand Joao DE Souza's modest presentation concerning the headers involved
>> more than convinces.
>>
>> Same old score:
>>
>> Joao DE Souza = 100; Tom Sherman = 0.
>>
>> Ed Dolan - Minnesota
>>
>> PS. By the way, there are real courts and then there is the court of
>> public
>> opinion. The latter is what prevails here on ARBR. Try not to confuse the
>> two.
>
> Mr. Ed Dolan is obviously not aware that there are SEVERAL potential
> candidates for being the HRS blog author. Mr. Ed Dolan does not need
> to take my word for it, since Jim McNaa has implied as much, stating
> that he thinks "it is a party of (at least) three."
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
Truth to tell, I have not even looked at the blog in question nor do I ever
intend to. I am only commenting on what is being said here on ARBR.
I regard Usenet as an infinitely higher forum than a blog, no matter who is
the author of the blog. My feeling about blogs is that you should get
someone to pay you for your writing at which point you will be a journalist
or commentator with some credentials. If you are just writing without being
paid, then why would anyone bother to read you. Either become a proper
writer or forget about it.
The foregoing does not apply to Usenet of course which was set up for
amateur correspondence. It is also the reason why Usenet should not be taken
too seriously, but at least we are not pretending to be something that we
are not.
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Dec 2005 13:02:52
From: Michael J. Klein
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Edward Dolan wrote:
so now its "Edward Dolan." This requires a new filter expression.
--
Michael J. Klein & Asian Castings Consortium
mklein@mousepotato.com
Yangmei Jen (Hukou), Taoyuan Hsien, Taiwan, ROC
Please replace mousepotato with asiancastings
Mozilla Thunderbird
|
| | | | |
Date: 04 Dec 2005 23:20:56
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
"Michael J. Klein" <mklein@mousepotato.com > wrote in message
news:dn0hjo$62e$1@netnews.hinet.net...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> so now its "Edward Dolan." This requires a new filter expression.
> --
> Michael J. Klein & Asian Castings Consortium
> mklein@mousepotato.com
> Yangmei Jen (Hukou), Taoyuan Hsien, Taiwan, ROC
Here is Michael, all the way from Taiwan, again posting a message which only
I will be able to decipher.
I urge Michael to put his brain into gear before he posts to ARBR. We are an
elite group here and we demand intelligence above all else. For examples of
how to post, please see my many posts and also those of Tom Sherman.
However, do not follow him on his footnote fetish. He is unintelligent on
that particular issue. No, for best results, you should follow only yours
truly, Edward Dolan.
Regards,
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
|
| | | | | |
Date: 05 Dec 2005 19:57:51
From: Mike Rice
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 23:20:56 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net >
wrote:
>
>"Michael J. Klein" <mklein@mousepotato.com> wrote in message
>news:dn0hjo$62e$1@netnews.hinet.net...
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>
>> so now its "Edward Dolan." This requires a new filter expression.
>> --
>> Michael J. Klein & Asian Castings Consortium
>> mklein@mousepotato.com
>> Yangmei Jen (Hukou), Taoyuan Hsien, Taiwan, ROC
>
>Here is Michael, all the way from Taiwan, again posting a message which only
>I will be able to decipher.
>
>I urge Michael to put his brain into gear before he posts to ARBR. We are an
>elite group here and we demand intelligence above all else. For examples of
>how to post, please see my many posts and also those of Tom Sherman.
>However, do not follow him on his footnote fetish. He is unintelligent on
>that particular issue. No, for best results, you should follow only yours
>truly, Edward Dolan.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ed Dolan - Minnesota
>
Forgive me, oh Great one, for my insolence. I thought I understood his
post.
Although I found it odd that his filtering seems to be based on
signature lines. Most irregular.
Your messages still appear to be authored by 'Ed Dolan' when I
retrieve headers, just the same as ever (at least up until that 5th
and final farewell fisaco).
Indiana Mike
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 05 Dec 2005 15:29:51
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
"Mike Rice" <jodymike@gte.net > wrote in message
news:jj69p1508huainlje968d90hgqesar6sqp@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 23:20:56 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Michael J. Klein" <mklein@mousepotato.com> wrote in message
>>news:dn0hjo$62e$1@netnews.hinet.net...
>>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>
>>> so now its "Edward Dolan." This requires a new filter expression.
>>> --
>>> Michael J. Klein & Asian Castings Consortium
>>> mklein@mousepotato.com
>>> Yangmei Jen (Hukou), Taoyuan Hsien, Taiwan, ROC
>>
>>Here is Michael, all the way from Taiwan, again posting a message which
>>only
>>I will be able to decipher.
>>
>>I urge Michael to put his brain into gear before he posts to ARBR. We are
>>an
>>elite group here and we demand intelligence above all else. For examples
>>of
>>how to post, please see my many posts and also those of Tom Sherman.
>>However, do not follow him on his footnote fetish. He is unintelligent on
>>that particular issue. No, for best results, you should follow only yours
>>truly, Edward Dolan.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Ed Dolan - Minnesota
>>
>
> Forgive me, oh Great one, for my insolence. I thought I understood his
> post.
>
> Although I found it odd that his filtering seems to be based on
> signature lines. Most irregular.
>
> Your messages still appear to be authored by 'Ed Dolan' when I
> retrieve headers, just the same as ever (at least up until that 5th
> and final farewell fisaco).
>
> Indiana Mike
Mike, it may be that different newsreaders display headers differently. I
have always seen my header in my OE newsreader as Edward Dolan, even though
I sign off as Ed Dolan.
My problem with Michael of Taiwan is that he all he ever writes about to
ARBR is that he is kill filing me when what I want to hear about is the
world's tallest skyscraper. I mean how does it appear in the cityscape of
Taipei? Do the esthetes of Taipei approve of it or not? Does it blend or
does it stand out like a sore thumb like the World Trade Center did in New
York City before the Muslim terrorists did the entire world a favor by
blowing that atrocity to kingdom come.
Anyone here but me notice how the New York City skyline has now been
improved 100% now that the execrable World Trade Center buildings no longer
disgrace the skyline. Those old movies from the 1940's that showed the lower
Manhattan skyline were just too perfect for it ever to have lasted. The iron
law of life is that nothing good ever lasts and everything terrible goes on
forever (unless the Muslim terrorists intervene of course). Thus spake
Zarathustra!
Regards,
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Dec 2005 22:09:13
From: Mike Rice
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 15:29:51 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net >
wrote:
<snip >
I stand corrected. Your headers show up as Edward Dolan in my Agent
newsreader as well.
>
>Mike, it may be that different newsreaders display headers differently. I
>have always seen my header in my OE newsreader as Edward Dolan, even though
>I sign off as Ed Dolan.
>
>My problem with Michael of Taiwan is that he all he ever writes about to
>ARBR is that he is kill filing me when what I want to hear about is the
>world's tallest skyscraper. I mean how does it appear in the cityscape of
>Taipei? Do the esthetes of Taipei approve of it or not? Does it blend or
>does it stand out like a sore thumb like the World Trade Center did in New
>York City before the Muslim terrorists did the entire world a favor by
>blowing that atrocity to kingdom come.
As long as you have a problem I guess all is not completely wrong with
the world.
>
>Anyone here but me notice how the New York City skyline has now been
>improved 100% now that the execrable World Trade Center buildings no longer
>disgrace the skyline. Those old movies from the 1940's that showed the lower
>Manhattan skyline were just too perfect for it ever to have lasted. The iron
>law of life is that nothing good ever lasts and everything terrible goes on
>forever (unless the Muslim terrorists intervene of course). Thus spake
>Zarathustra!
>
>Regards,
>
>Ed Dolan - Minnesota
>
Your switch from stinkbait to finess tactics is appreciated ;-) .
Indiana Mike
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Dec 2005 16:45:19
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
"Mike Rice" <jodymike@gte.net > wrote in message
news:7ee9p1h7r2t3rndifb6cs6h076kf3404ap@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 15:29:51 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net>
> wrote:
[...]
>>My problem with Michael of Taiwan is that he all he ever writes about to
>>ARBR is that he is kill filing me when what I want to hear about is the
>>world's tallest skyscraper. I mean how does it appear in the cityscape of
>>Taipei? Do the esthetes of Taipei approve of it or not? Does it blend or
>>does it stand out like a sore thumb like the World Trade Center did in New
>>York City before the Muslim terrorists did the entire world a favor by
>>blowing that atrocity to kingdom come.
>
> As long as you have a problem I guess all is not completely wrong with
> the world.
It is not easy to get a rise out of this newsgroup. I try my best by doing
ye olde curmudgeon bit. But still, I have to say outrageous things to just
get some attention. I wonder where Jeff Grippe went? He was if nothing else
grist for my mill.
>>Anyone here but me notice how the New York City skyline has now been
>>improved 100% now that the execrable World Trade Center buildings no
>>longer
>>disgrace the skyline. Those old movies from the 1940's that showed the
>>lower
>>Manhattan skyline were just too perfect for it ever to have lasted. The
>>iron
>>law of life is that nothing good ever lasts and everything terrible goes
>>on
>>forever (unless the Muslim terrorists intervene of course). Thus spake
>>Zarathustra!
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Ed Dolan - Minnesota
>>
>
> Your switch from stinkbait to finess tactics is appreciated ;-) .
Yes, but do you agree with me that the NYC skyline has been improved by the
removal of the World Trade Center buildings? Or am I the only person in the
world who looks at city skylines?
By the way, I have always thought that the San Francisco and the Seattle
city skylines are not bad. Most city skylines have been ruined by out of
scale skyscrapers. The Indianapolis city skyline like the Minneapolis city
skyline is a mess. Harmony and proportion is everything in city skylines as
in life.
Regards,
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Dec 2005 01:13:59
From: Mike Rice
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 16:45:19 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net >
wrote:
<snip >
>
>Yes, but do you agree with me that the NYC skyline has been improved by the
>removal of the World Trade Center buildings? Or am I the only person in the
>world who looks at city skylines?
>
>By the way, I have always thought that the San Francisco and the Seattle
>city skylines are not bad. Most city skylines have been ruined by out of
>scale skyscrapers. The Indianapolis city skyline like the Minneapolis city
>skyline is a mess. Harmony and proportion is everything in city skylines as
>in life.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ed Dolan - Minnesota
>
>
Can't say I've put much thought into the effect on the skyline, Ed.
Like most in this country I notice what is gone more than what is
left, at least in this case.
As for Minneapolis and Indianapolis I have to agree, Both look like a
squashed in version of a major city leaking ssprawl.
I grew up a half hour from Chicago, and have always enjoyed the
lakefront skyline there.
Side story...there is a mexican restaraunt in Indianapolis
(surprised?). No that's not the story. The founder of said restaraunt
was making his way from old Mexico to Minneapolis, where he had
relatives. His English, not so good, when poeple asked him where he
was bound his reply sounded something like 'Neeapolis'. So when his
transport made the Indianapolis stop, he was told 'Here you are!' and
given the boot. I imagine he eventually made contact with his more
northerly relations, but he did stick down here, his eatery is
festooned with old glory, and does a nice business, thank you very
much.
Indiana Mike
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Dec 2005 22:03:09
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
"Mike Rice" <jodymike@gte.net > wrote in message
news:jgo9p19pf1hsf4stesn33123380ppc1n9d@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 16:45:19 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net>
> wrote:
> <snip>
>>
>>Yes, but do you agree with me that the NYC skyline has been improved by
>>the
>>removal of the World Trade Center buildings? Or am I the only person in
>>the
>>world who looks at city skylines?
>>
>>By the way, I have always thought that the San Francisco and the Seattle
>>city skylines are not bad. Most city skylines have been ruined by out of
>>scale skyscrapers. The Indianapolis city skyline like the Minneapolis city
>>skyline is a mess. Harmony and proportion is everything in city skylines
>>as
>>in life.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Ed Dolan - Minnesota
>>
>>
>
> Can't say I've put much thought into the effect on the skyline, Ed.
> Like most in this country I notice what is gone more than what is
> left, at least in this case.
The city skyline is the first thing I notice about a city, and usually the
last thing too. I can readily identify most cities by just looking at their
skylines.
> As for Minneapolis and Indianapolis I have to agree, Both look like a
> squashed in version of a major city leaking ssprawl.
The less said about Minneapolis, the better, although Perry Butler of
Alexandria, Minnesota probably thinks it is a great city.
> I grew up a half hour from Chicago, and have always enjoyed the
> lakefront skyline there.
Chicago is not bad, but it always looks like a work in progress. I like
cities that have a more finished look. I am really most comfortable in the
old world in an old city that hasn't changed much in several centuries. My
culture has to have a patina on it or it is not worth bothering with. Anyone
on this group ever been to Fez, Morocco? Now there is a city with a skyline.
Regards,
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
|
| |
Date: 30 Nov 2005 11:53:34
From:
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Tom,
Well it's about time that you feel the heat. You should. Your terse
response was little more than a convenient means for you to avoid
addressing any issues raised. You are a master of the technique. As
concerns refutation of your contention that ownership of the HRS blog
is based on opinion rather than fact, I will agree that until proof of
ownership of the blog is firmly established, it is a given that the
readership can assume that accusations are opinions and not facts, but
opinions nonetheless with an undeniable wealth of credible
circumstantial evidence and as such opinions with some significant
weight. I guess I will have to repeat a few things that Teflon Tom
skirts over and over again.
1. FACT ... OPINION. How did you conveniently manage to miss the "in
my opinion" and "I suspect" verbiage of mine? Did I ever emphatically
state that something is a known and proven FACT? No, but I have
indicated that there is a preponderance of circumstantial evidence that
cannot and should not be ignored even though you would have us do so.
2. Offenses are not limited to the blog, but extend to objectionable
posts both past and present ... posts that are obvious to all but you
(Tom) to have originated from the same few sources.
3. Offenses are not limited solely to the owner of the blog, but rather
to all who participate by contributing to it.
4. The profiles of those involved and their distinctive, (readily
recognizable) writing styles establishes their culpability and links
the authors with their postings even though their specific identity is
cowardly cloaked by a multitude of pseudonyms. If they were proud of
what they do and if they had the courage to reveal their true identity,
they would use their real names and real email addresses, but they are
neither proud nor courageous. Surely you will not address this issue
for there is no room for argument, so don't even give me any nonsense
about there being a good reason for obscurity when you find no reason
to do so and their reason is so obvious that it needn't even be
mentioned.
5. Despite you assertion to the contrary, I didn't accuse Ed of
authorship of the blog, but there is no doubt in my mind regarding his
active participation in the blog or in his authorship of past and
present objectionable posts and this is an OPINION that is shared by
most here regardless of your drum beating about FACTS. Your logic
reads much like this. If you enter a room and lying on the floor is a
person dead from a gunshot wound and a person is standing over the body
holding a gun that is later found to have been purchased by and
registered in his name. IN his pocket is found a receipt for recently
purchased bullets and the open box, on the table, just happens to have
the same number of bullets missing that were chambered in the gun,
there still remains sufficient reason to consider that the person found
holding the gun was not the murderer simply because the preponderance
of evidence is purely circumstantial since the event was not captured
on videotape. Sorry, but I just buy your line of reasoning.
6. You persist in your inability to recognize that the circumstantial
evidence as formidable and telling. You also persist in your
unwillingness to condemn the nameless perpetrators who are responsible.
Why is that? Is it because if those responsible are ever identified,
that you know you that could very well have condemned those with whom
you are associated and allied?
7. Personally, it is my opinion (I know you're fond of that word) that
even you have little doubt as to who the culprits are. You as much as
said so when you indicated that we would likely produce similar lists
assuming of course that your convictions did not have you constrained
from doing so. Here's a concept. How about this? We could both
produce our lists with an appropriate escape clauses that our lists are
not to be misconstrued as FACT since they are OPINIONS substantiated
only by overwhelming circumstantial evidence. Then we could compare
notes. You game? We could even do so in a private email if you don't
want to go public.
8. From my perspective, you have sheltered the nameless guilty parties,
in a feigned defense of freedom of speech, innocent until proven guilty
and harmless parody/satire. Freedom of speech does not entitle one to
say anything and everything, like screaming fire in a theater. Oh
sure, one can say scandalous things for sure, but need I remind you
that the courts are packed full of libel suits. Frankly, I hope this
crap ends up in a courtroom so you will at long last have the proof
that you demand ... proof that no one else here seems to require.
Innocent until proven guilty is hard to quibble over, but the
accumulated circumstantial evidence leaves only a shadow of a doubt and
the blog and posts, both past and present, are way beyond parody,
satire or even that which is commonly considered acceptable (read
within the bounds of good taste) ... agreed?
9. To Tom's credit, he at least gave me kudos for tenacity and
determination. You are right Tom, I'll stick around and argue the
point as long as I feel that there is a point to argue over and it is
worthwhile to do so although admittedly this can become tiring quite
quickly. When an impasse is reached, however, and we can only agree to
disagree, I will likely just call it ... done and over with and move
on.
Jim McNaa
Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic wrote:
> jimmymac_4@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Tom,
> >
> > I see that Jim McNaa acknowledges that there are other possible
> > authors of the posts ["I was one that contended that Ed had a
> > couple of accomplices (not including sock puppets) and he still does"].
> > This is grounds for reasonable doubt - there are people that are not Ed
> > Gin that have been known to both use sock puppets and have a dislike
> > for highracers, Bacchetta and BROL (this statement should not be
> > interpreted to say that Ed Gin has done such things; rather it is
> > neutral on the matter).
> >
> > --> You should never use neutral and Ed Gin in the same sentence. They
> > are diametrically opposed to one another. Don't twist my words or
> > infer something that I never intended. I never claimed that Ed was the
> > only culprit. He is (in my opinion) the most malicious one and the one
> > who inspires his band of two. Is that clear enough for you now?
> > Granted, there are at least two other vocal individuals that I know of
> > that have been known to dislike highracers, Bacchetta, BROL and a whole
> > lot more including uprights and anyone who just happens to disagree
> > with their cycling philosophy, but allow me to repeat that which you
> > conveniently chose to ignore. Any participation on their part deemed
> > objectionable does not exonerate the third member of the ex-Monkey
> > Island consortium who is their mentor. In other words, this isn't
> > grounds for doubt so much as it is grounds to consider that there is
> > more than a single culprit.
> >
> > To support Jim McNaa's contention that I am an accomplice by
> > pointing out reasonable doubt as to the identity of the HRS blog author
> > is to condemn all defense lawyers as being accomplices to their
> > client's alleged crimes. Let us discard the concept of innocent until
> > proven guilty, and punish on the basis of mere suspicion without proof.
> >
> > --> Perhaps accomplice is too strong a word. In spite of all your
> > objections to the contrary you have discounted Ed's culpability with
> > doubts and excuses piled one on top of the other, so how about ally?.
> > Yep, ally works for me. I think that one suits you just fine.
> >
> > ...and I resent your having associated my name with the blog even
> > hypothetically.
> >
> > To quote the fictional character Bart Simpson, "Don't have a cow, man!"
> >
> > --> You need to have a fictional character do you talking for you?
> > Snappy comeback (read meaningless sound byte).
> >
> > The author of the HRS blog and posts COULD be The Dalai Lama, Nelson
> > Mandela, Pope Benedict XVI, Emperor Akihito, George Walker Bush, the
> > Nobel Peace Prize Committee, Usama bin Laden, Lance Armstrong, Alan
> > Greenspan or Vladimir Putin for all we KNOW. Not remotely probable, but
> > possible. Hell, for that matter, I could be the author - l live in
> > Chicagoland and have a SBC DSL connection.
> >
> > --> You span the gamut from the mundane to the ridiculous ... I'll give
> > you that. Diversionary disinformation aside, would you consider this a
> > viable list of candidates? Now if you changed Alan's last name
> > (Greenspan), we might be closer to the truth.
> >
> > It is interesting to note that Jim McNaa "resent[s] your having
> > associated my name with the blog even hypothetically", yet he is
> > willing to accuse someone else of being the author without having
> > proof.
> >
> > --> If anything I have indicated that I suspect three individuals to be
> > active participants, but I have not named an author as you have
> > wrongfully asserted. Did you notice though that when I made my first
> > post there was an immediate response of a threat to author a Jimmy
> > linseed blog, that old chestnut? I know that was jus a coincidence and
> > could very well have been posted by Dalai Lama, Nelson Mandela, Pope
> > Benedict XVI, Emperor Akihito, George Walker Bush, the Nobel Peace
> > Prize Committee, Usama bin Laden, Lance Armstrong, Alan Greenspan or
> > Vladimir Putin. You know what is really funny about all this. If the
> > gutless cowards who are responsible for the blog and the objectionable
> > past and present posts were to use their real names and email
> > addresses, then there would be no discussion about who is or who is not
> > responsible. That begs the question. If those responsible are so
> > proud of what they're doing, then why don't they step forward to be
> > recognized ... take pride in their accomplishments ... garner the
> > recognition they so richly deserve? The truth of the matter is that
> > they don't want to be known as the source of all this nonsense. That
> > begs still another question ... WHY??? Got an answer for that one? As
> > concerns accusations, this is exactly why the FBI does profiling. As
> > you so rightly indicated, there are only a couple of individuals who
> > just happen to fit the profile for this particular kind of conduct.
> > >From personal experience, I know that Ed Gin just happens to be one.
> > Another happens to be one whom I have done battle with along with Ed.
> > Anyone interested can find the banter. It is all archived. Tom you
> > needn't bother because you know of whom I speak. Now back to Ed. I
> > never specifically accused him as the author of the blog. In fact, I
> > heard another name mentioned as the author, someone who is a friend of
> > Eds. Understand, though that the author is only solely responsible for
> > the blog and its contents if he is the solely the one involved. Anyone
> > providing input into the blog is every bit as responsible as the
> > author. If you think for one moment that Ed is not a participant, then
> > there is just no hope for you, since you friendship has obscured you
> > objectivity. Whether you care to acknowledge it or not, the blog and
> > the nasty newsgroup posts are right up his alley. His track record
> > speaks for itself. He has been banished from several moderated forums.
> > That's one of the reasons Monkey Island came into being and when it
> > folded, Ed returned to the unmoderated arena of the newsgroup to run
> > his mouth cloaked in one of his many pseudonyms. I know the timing was
> > purely coincidental ... right? The blog came into being for very much
> > the same reason.
> >
> > Jim McNaa should be aware that it is possible to hack into any
> > computer connected to the Internet and to send email using the owner's
> > account without the owner's knowledge. While ISP records would be
> > strong CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE of the authoring of the HRS blog and
> > related posts, it is not ABSOLUTE PROOF of the author(s) identity.
> >
> > --> Possible ... yes, but farfetched ... for sure. So tell me is
> > someone breaking into Ed's house to use his PC (another one of you
> > theories) or is someone hacking into Ed's PC, or what will we hear
> > next, that for all you know I'm standing over him with a gun at his
> > head. Sound familiar. That's your style of argumentation. As their
> > self-appointed mouthpiece, just how far are you willing to stretch
> > things in your vain attempt mount a defense?
> >
> > Here Jim McNaa is presenting his BELIEF of the HRS bog authoring as
> > PROVEN FACT. The error in his logic is obvious.
> >
> > --> Flaw in my logic? The bog is a FACT. The blog has an unnamed
> > (note the keyword here) author because no one wants to take credit for
> > such trash and that too is a fact. What I am saying is that there are
> > several individuals that have an established profile and readily
> > identifiable writing style that makes them obvious candidates. Where's
> > the flaw in that logic? As you said ... there are people that are not
> > Ed Gin that have been known to both use sock puppets and have a dislike
> > for highracers, Bacchetta and BROL. It amazes me though that you
> > continue to exclude Ed as though he has not been known to use sock
> > puppets and have a dislike for highracers, Bacchetta and BROL. We all
> > know differently now, don't we?
> >
> > For the sake of argument, I have a SBC DSL line and could imitate the
> > style of the HRS blog quite easily. Again, CIRCUMSTANTIAL grounds for
> > further investigation, but not PROOF of authorship.
> >
> > --> And besides paving the way out for the guilty, what's your point?
> > What would imitation prove other than you could possibly do it? Those
> > responsible are not imitating anyone. They are just doing their thing.
> > For the sake of argument, I presume that you have more integrity than
> > this lot and consequently would not even consider authoring such a
> > blog, so your point is moot.
> >
> > See above. It is a known fact that Internet connected computers can be
> > hacked and emails sent and other activities conducted without the
> > computer owner's knowledge. Improbable, yes. Impossible, no.
> >
> > --> It is also a know fact that the skill set required is possessed by
> > only a small minority of people, so yes improbable is an appropriate
> > word.
> >
> > Note that I am NOT saying that Ed Gin is not the author of the HRS blog
> > and associated posts. I am merely pointing out that no one has PROVED
> > THE IDENTITY OF THE HRS blog author. I am defending the concept of
> > innocent until proven guilty (yes, I know it is an unpopular concept in
> > the 21st century United States) but one that is mandatory for a society
> > to be considered just.
> >
> > --> OK, we agree on the innocent until proven guilty thing, but you
> > have to admit that the circumstantial evidence accumulated over time is
> > formidable. You also have to admit that this conduct is inappropriate
> > and should not be condoned. You don't have to say so, but I suspect
> > that deep down you suspect the very same people that I do, but because
> > of your convictionc, you are not as predisposed to spit out a name. If
> > you notice ,I've only spit out one (and wasn't the first to do so),
> > but we've been at each other's throats for years now ... that's no
> > secret....
>
> A lot of heat but no light - nowhere in the above is there refutation
> of my position that accusations of authorship of the HRS blog are
> OPINIONS, not FACTS. Until someone has proof of authorship, they should
> qualify their accusations as opinions.
>
> To his credit, Jim McNaa will at stick around to argue his point,
> unlike others who fling out baseless accusations of delusions and
> illogic and then cut and run from the discussion.
> --
> Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
| |
Date: 30 Nov 2005 11:28:14
From:
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Tom,
Well it's about time that you feel the heat. You should. Your terse
response was little more than a convenient means for you to avoid
addressing any issues raised. You are a master of the technique. As
concerns refutation of your contention that ownership of the HRS blog
is based on opinion rather than fact, I will agree that until proof of
ownership of the blog is firmly established, it is a given that the
readership can assume that accusations are opinions and not facts, but
opinions nonetheless with an undeniable wealth of credible
circumstantial evidence and as such opinions with some significant
weight. I guess I will have to repeat a few things that Teflon Tom
skirts over and over again.
1. FACT ... OPINION. How did you conveniently manage to miss the "in
my opinion" and "I suspect" verbiage of mine? Did I ever emphatically
state that something is a known and proven FACT? No, but I have
indicated that there is a preponderance of circumstantial evidence that
cannot and should not be ignored even though you would have us do so.
2. Offenses are not limited to the blog, but extend to objectionable
posts both past and present ... posts that are obvious to all but you
(Tom) to have originated from the same few sources.
3. Offenses are not limited solely to the owner of the blog, but rather
to all who participate by contributing to it.
4. The profiles of those involved and their distinctive, (readily
recognizable) writing styles establishes their culpability and links
the authors with their postings even though their specific identity is
cowardly cloaked by a multitude of pseudonyms. If they were proud of
what they do and if they had the courage to reveal their true identity,
they would use their real names and real email addresses, but they are
neither proud nor courageous. Surely you will not address this issue
for there is no room for argument, so don't even give me any nonsense
about there being a good reason for obscurity when you find no reason
to do so and their reason is so obvious that it needn't even be
mentioned.
5. Despite you assertion to the contrary, I didn't accuse Ed of
authorship of the blog, but there is no doubt in my mind regarding his
active participation in the blog or in his authorship of past and
present objectionable posts and this is an OPINION that is shared by
most here regardless of your drum beating about FACTS. Your logic
reads much like this. If you enter a room and lying on the floor is a
person dead from a gunshot wound and a person is standing over the body
holding a gun that is later found to have been purchased by and
registered in his name. IN his pocket is found a receipt for recently
purchased bullets and the open box, on the table, just happens to have
the same number of bullets missing that were chambered in the gun,
there still remains sufficient reason to consider that the person found
holding the gun was not the murderer simply because the preponderance
of evidence is purely circumstantial since the event was not captured
on videotape. Sorry, but I just buy your line of reasoning.
6. You persist in your inability to recognize that the circumstantial
evidence as formidable and telling. You also persist in your
unwillingness to condemn the nameless perpetrators who are responsible.
Why is that? Is it because if those responsible are ever identified,
that you know you that could very well have condemned those with whom
you are associated and allied?
7. Personally, it is my opinion (I know you're fond of that word) that
even you have little doubt as to who the culprits are. You as much as
said so when you indicated that we would likely produce similar lists
assuming of course that your convictions did not have you constrained
from doing so. Here's a concept. How about this? We could both
produce our lists with an appropriate escape clauses that our lists are
not to be misconstrued as FACT since they are OPINIONS substantiated
only by overwhelming circumstantial evidence. Then we could compare
notes. You game? We could even do so in a private email if you don't
want to go public.
8. From my perspective, you have sheltered the nameless guilty parties,
in a feigned defense of freedom of speech, innocent until proven guilty
and harmless parody/satire. Freedom of speech does not entitle one to
say anything and everything, like screaming fire in a theater. Oh
sure, one can say scandalous things for sure, but need I remind you
that the courts are packed full of libel suits. Frankly, I hope this
crap ends up in a courtroom so you will at long last have the proof
that you demand ... proof that no one else here seems to require.
Innocent until proven guilty is hard to quibble over, but the
accumulated circumstantial evidence leaves only a shadow of a doubt and
the blog and posts, both past and present, are way beyond parody,
satire or even that which is commonly considered acceptable (read
within the bounds of good taste) ... agreed?
9. To Tom's credit, he at least gave me kudos for tenacity and
determination. You are right Tom, I'll stick around and argue the
point as long as I feel that there is a point to argue over and it is
worthwhile to do so although admittedly this can become tiring quite
quickly. When an impasse is reached, however, and we can only agree to
disagree, I will likely just call it ... done and over with and move
on.
Jim McNaa
Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic wrote:
> jimmymac_4@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Tom,
> >
> > I see that Jim McNaa acknowledges that there are other possible
> > authors of the posts ["I was one that contended that Ed had a
> > couple of accomplices (not including sock puppets) and he still does"].
> > This is grounds for reasonable doubt - there are people that are not Ed
> > Gin that have been known to both use sock puppets and have a dislike
> > for highracers, Bacchetta and BROL (this statement should not be
> > interpreted to say that Ed Gin has done such things; rather it is
> > neutral on the matter).
> >
> > --> You should never use neutral and Ed Gin in the same sentence. They
> > are diametrically opposed to one another. Don't twist my words or
> > infer something that I never intended. I never claimed that Ed was the
> > only culprit. He is (in my opinion) the most malicious one and the one
> > who inspires his band of two. Is that clear enough for you now?
> > Granted, there are at least two other vocal individuals that I know of
> > that have been known to dislike highracers, Bacchetta, BROL and a whole
> > lot more including uprights and anyone who just happens to disagree
> > with their cycling philosophy, but allow me to repeat that which you
> > conveniently chose to ignore. Any participation on their part deemed
> > objectionable does not exonerate the third member of the ex-Monkey
> > Island consortium who is their mentor. In other words, this isn't
> > grounds for doubt so much as it is grounds to consider that there is
> > more than a single culprit.
> >
> > To support Jim McNaa's contention that I am an accomplice by
> > pointing out reasonable doubt as to the identity of the HRS blog author
> > is to condemn all defense lawyers as being accomplices to their
> > client's alleged crimes. Let us discard the concept of innocent until
> > proven guilty, and punish on the basis of mere suspicion without proof.
> >
> > --> Perhaps accomplice is too strong a word. In spite of all your
> > objections to the contrary you have discounted Ed's culpability with
> > doubts and excuses piled one on top of the other, so how about ally?.
> > Yep, ally works for me. I think that one suits you just fine.
> >
> > ...and I resent your having associated my name with the blog even
> > hypothetically.
> >
> > To quote the fictional character Bart Simpson, "Don't have a cow, man!"
> >
> > --> You need to have a fictional character do you talking for you?
> > Snappy comeback (read meaningless sound byte).
> >
> > The author of the HRS blog and posts COULD be The Dalai Lama, Nelson
> > Mandela, Pope Benedict XVI, Emperor Akihito, George Walker Bush, the
> > Nobel Peace Prize Committee, Usama bin Laden, Lance Armstrong, Alan
> > Greenspan or Vladimir Putin for all we KNOW. Not remotely probable, but
> > possible. Hell, for that matter, I could be the author - l live in
> > Chicagoland and have a SBC DSL connection.
> >
> > --> You span the gamut from the mundane to the ridiculous ... I'll give
> > you that. Diversionary disinformation aside, would you consider this a
> > viable list of candidates? Now if you changed Alan's last name
> > (Greenspan), we might be closer to the truth.
> >
> > It is interesting to note that Jim McNaa "resent[s] your having
> > associated my name with the blog even hypothetically", yet he is
> > willing to accuse someone else of being the author without having
> > proof.
> >
> > --> If anything I have indicated that I suspect three individuals to be
> > active participants, but I have not named an author as you have
> > wrongfully asserted. Did you notice though that when I made my first
> > post there was an immediate response of a threat to author a Jimmy
> > linseed blog, that old chestnut? I know that was jus a coincidence and
> > could very well have been posted by Dalai Lama, Nelson Mandela, Pope
> > Benedict XVI, Emperor Akihito, George Walker Bush, the Nobel Peace
> > Prize Committee, Usama bin Laden, Lance Armstrong, Alan Greenspan or
> > Vladimir Putin. You know what is really funny about all this. If the
> > gutless cowards who are responsible for the blog and the objectionable
> > past and present posts were to use their real names and email
> > addresses, then there would be no discussion about who is or who is not
> > responsible. That begs the question. If those responsible are so
> > proud of what they're doing, then why don't they step forward to be
> > recognized ... take pride in their accomplishments ... garner the
> > recognition they so richly deserve? The truth of the matter is that
> > they don't want to be known as the source of all this nonsense. That
> > begs still another question ... WHY??? Got an answer for that one? As
> > concerns accusations, this is exactly why the FBI does profiling. As
> > you so rightly indicated, there are only a couple of individuals who
> > just happen to fit the profile for this particular kind of conduct.
> > >From personal experience, I know that Ed Gin just happens to be one.
> > Another happens to be one whom I have done battle with along with Ed.
> > Anyone interested can find the banter. It is all archived. Tom you
> > needn't bother because you know of whom I speak. Now back to Ed. I
> > never specifically accused him as the author of the blog. In fact, I
> > heard another name mentioned as the author, someone who is a friend of
> > Eds. Understand, though that the author is only solely responsible for
> > the blog and its contents if he is the solely the one involved. Anyone
> > providing input into the blog is every bit as responsible as the
> > author. If you think for one moment that Ed is not a participant, then
> > there is just no hope for you, since you friendship has obscured you
> > objectivity. Whether you care to acknowledge it or not, the blog and
> > the nasty newsgroup posts are right up his alley. His track record
> > speaks for itself. He has been banished from several moderated forums.
> > That's one of the reasons Monkey Island came into being and when it
> > folded, Ed returned to the unmoderated arena of the newsgroup to run
> > his mouth cloaked in one of his many pseudonyms. I know the timing was
> > purely coincidental ... right? The blog came into being for very much
> > the same reason.
> >
> > Jim McNaa should be aware that it is possible to hack into any
> > computer connected to the Internet and to send email using the owner's
> > account without the owner's knowledge. While ISP records would be
> > strong CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE of the authoring of the HRS blog and
> > related posts, it is not ABSOLUTE PROOF of the author(s) identity.
> >
> > --> Possible ... yes, but farfetched ... for sure. So tell me is
> > someone breaking into Ed's house to use his PC (another one of you
> > theories) or is someone hacking into Ed's PC, or what will we hear
> > next, that for all you know I'm standing over him with a gun at his
> > head. Sound familiar. That's your style of argumentation. As their
> > self-appointed mouthpiece, just how far are you willing to stretch
> > things in your vain attempt mount a defense?
> >
> > Here Jim McNaa is presenting his BELIEF of the HRS bog authoring as
> > PROVEN FACT. The error in his logic is obvious.
> >
> > --> Flaw in my logic? The bog is a FACT. The blog has an unnamed
> > (note the keyword here) author because no one wants to take credit for
> > such trash and that too is a fact. What I am saying is that there are
> > several individuals that have an established profile and readily
> > identifiable writing style that makes them obvious candidates. Where's
> > the flaw in that logic? As you said ... there are people that are not
> > Ed Gin that have been known to both use sock puppets and have a dislike
> > for highracers, Bacchetta and BROL. It amazes me though that you
> > continue to exclude Ed as though he has not been known to use sock
> > puppets and have a dislike for highracers, Bacchetta and BROL. We all
> > know differently now, don't we?
> >
> > For the sake of argument, I have a SBC DSL line and could imitate the
> > style of the HRS blog quite easily. Again, CIRCUMSTANTIAL grounds for
> > further investigation, but not PROOF of authorship.
> >
> > --> And besides paving the way out for the guilty, what's your point?
> > What would imitation prove other than you could possibly do it? Those
> > responsible are not imitating anyone. They are just doing their thing.
> > For the sake of argument, I presume that you have more integrity than
> > this lot and consequently would not even consider authoring such a
> > blog, so your point is moot.
> >
> > See above. It is a known fact that Internet connected computers can be
> > hacked and emails sent and other activities conducted without the
> > computer owner's knowledge. Improbable, yes. Impossible, no.
> >
> > --> It is also a know fact that the skill set required is possessed by
> > only a small minority of people, so yes improbable is an appropriate
> > word.
> >
> > Note that I am NOT saying that Ed Gin is not the author of the HRS blog
> > and associated posts. I am merely pointing out that no one has PROVED
> > THE IDENTITY OF THE HRS blog author. I am defending the concept of
> > innocent until proven guilty (yes, I know it is an unpopular concept in
> > the 21st century United States) but one that is mandatory for a society
> > to be considered just.
> >
> > --> OK, we agree on the innocent until proven guilty thing, but you
> > have to admit that the circumstantial evidence accumulated over time is
> > formidable. You also have to admit that this conduct is inappropriate
> > and should not be condoned. You don't have to say so, but I suspect
> > that deep down you suspect the very same people that I do, but because
> > of your convictionc, you are not as predisposed to spit out a name. If
> > you notice ,I've only spit out one (and wasn't the first to do so),
> > but we've been at each other's throats for years now ... that's no
> > secret....
>
> A lot of heat but no light - nowhere in the above is there refutation
> of my position that accusations of authorship of the HRS blog are
> OPINIONS, not FACTS. Until someone has proof of authorship, they should
> qualify their accusations as opinions.
>
> To his credit, Jim McNaa will at stick around to argue his point,
> unlike others who fling out baseless accusations of delusions and
> illogic and then cut and run from the discussion.
> --
> Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
| | |
Date: 09 Dec 2005 02:41:39
From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1134119921.325777.173370@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Edward Dolan wrote:
> >>...A Handel oratorio or opera is an
> >> acquired taste. It does not come naturally anymore as it once did back in
> >> his time. And even back in his time it was music written for the
> >> aristocrats, not for the general public.
> >
> > Here Ed Dolan reveals his ignorance. Handel's oratorios were written
> > for the entertainment of the emerging English middle class, and were
> > performed for paying audiences in public theaters. The religious
> > content allowed these upstanding Anglicans to enjoy the "glorious
> > noise" for its own sake, while paying lip service to piety.
>
> There is no middle class public that ever existed anywhere that liked
> Handel's operas. It is an art strictly for the aristocrats. His oratorios
> were a phenomenon in England for some strange reason. I think the English
> just liked choral music. Does anyone today like choral music?
Scandinavians and the English, I believe. Maybe Guy Chapman can comment
on the latter if he is following this rather lengthy thread.
> >...
> > Should the taste of the US public be used as an arbiter of quality? An
> > unbiased observed would have to conclude that contemporary US culture
> > is rather vulgar for the most part.
>
> Yes, alas, only too true, but the European culture for old music also
> strikes me as being very strange. Apparently there is a small audience for
> it there, but I am sure there is no great demand for it either. I think it
> is music mainly being driven by musicians.
>
> >> I have the complete keyboard music of Bach on LP records. This includes
> >> both
> >> for the piano and the organ. I have plowed through it on several
> >> occasions,
> >> but no more. Yes, some of it is great music, but it is music that is
> >> foreign
> >> to me. I will never love that music. From Haydn on I love music. That is
> >> the
> >> difference for me at least.
> >>
> >> Yes, you do have to vel at that old music, but do you truly love it?
> >> That
> >> is the question.
> >
> > When performed properly, the best keyboard works of J. S. Bach can
> > induce a rapturous, near hypnotic state. The listener's surroundings
> > disappear from consciousness, and only the music remains.
>
> Yes, that is true, but still I do not really relate to this music. I always
> thought Glen Gould (a great specialist in the Bach keyboard music) was crazy
> the way he carried on....
I prefer pianists who are vocally silent.
> I do think musicians like Bach better than
> non-musicians. I think one of the main problems that a modern listener will
> have with Bach is that his music is too intellectual. I do vel at it, but
> I don't like it.
J. S. Bach wrote his music for the glory of God and for posterity.
> >> ...
> >> When I was going to college back in the 50's and 60's it was the cheapest
> >> thing a young person could do. I probably stayed in college longer than I
> >> should have but it was just so cheap. And I enjoyed the life style, even
> >> though I never had any money...
> >
> > For the total economic cost of obtaining a graduate degree, I could
> > attend every CSO concert for the rest of my life of purchase a new,
> > high quality recumbent bicycle or trike every year. The cost puts the
> > lie to the notion of equal economic opportunity.
>
> Tom, I believe the cost of higher education is going to be reevaluated in
> the grand scheme of things. Many young people are going to decide to forego
> college because of the expense. It will not make economic sense for them to
> attend. I understand this and sympathize with them.
>
> Back in the 50's the great California universities were in effect free.
> There was a small student fee and that was it. We thought at the time it
> would go on forever, but it all came to a screeching halt rather suddenly.
> Too bad, but nothing is free forever I guess.
The University of Illinois will cost a frugal undergraduate student
$5,000+ per semester. Of course this is inexpensive compared to
comparable private institutions such as Northwestern which would be
more on the order of $20,000 a semester.
> Now that I am old I worry more about the cost of health care than I do
> anything else. There are many unresolved problems in our society that are
> going to have to get taken care of sooner or later. The Dems could come back
> big time if the Repubs do not respond to social problems that continue to
> fester.
Family heath insurance will cost a family with no history of major
problems $7,000 to $9,000 per year. Only 60% of full time employed
workers in the US have employer provided coverage. Excessive medical
bills are the cause for over 50% of personal bankruptcy filing.
Meanwhile, real wages for all but top management are falling, as more
jobs are exported. Most people are in debt. When the next recession
comes, life will become ugly for many people who are both willing and
able to work.
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Dec 2005 05:39:21
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
"Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1134124899.911777.211610@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1134119921.325777.173370@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Edward Dolan wrote:
>> >>...A Handel oratorio or opera is an
>> >> acquired taste. It does not come naturally anymore as it once did back
>> >> in
>> >> his time. And even back in his time it was music written for the
>> >> aristocrats, not for the general public.
>> >
>> > Here Ed Dolan reveals his ignorance. Handel's oratorios were written
>> > for the entertainment of the emerging English middle class, and were
>> > performed for paying audiences in public theaters. The religious
>> > content allowed these upstanding Anglicans to enjoy the "glorious
>> > noise" for its own sake, while paying lip service to piety.
>>
>> There is no middle class public that ever existed anywhere that liked
>> Handel's operas. It is an art strictly for the aristocrats. His
>> oratorios
>> were a phenomenon in England for some strange reason. I think the English
>> just liked choral music. Does anyone today like choral music?
>
> Scandinavians and the English, I believe. Maybe Guy Chapman can comment
> on the latter if he is following this rather lengthy thread.
Guy Chapman got disgusted with us and left long ago. Besides, he just wants
to talk about helmets.
>> >...
>> > Should the taste of the US public be used as an arbiter of quality? An
>> > unbiased observed would have to conclude that contemporary US culture
>> > is rather vulgar for the most part.
>>
>> Yes, alas, only too true, but the European culture for old music also
>> strikes me as being very strange. Apparently there is a small audience
>> for
>> it there, but I am sure there is no great demand for it either. I think
>> it
>> is music mainly being driven by musicians.
>>
>> >> I have the complete keyboard music of Bach on LP records. This
>> >> includes
>> >> both
>> >> for the piano and the organ. I have plowed through it on several
>> >> occasions,
>> >> but no more. Yes, some of it is great music, but it is music that is
>> >> foreign
>> >> to me. I will never love that music. From Haydn on I love music. That
>> >> is
>> >> the
>> >> difference for me at least.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, you do have to vel at that old music, but do you truly love
>> >> it?
>> >> That
>> >> is the question.
>> >
>> > When performed properly, the best keyboard works of J. S. Bach can
>> > induce a rapturous, near hypnotic state. The listener's surroundings
>> > disappear from consciousness, and only the music remains.
>>
>> Yes, that is true, but still I do not really relate to this music. I
>> always
>> thought Glen Gould (a great specialist in the Bach keyboard music) was
>> crazy
>> the way he carried on....
>
> I prefer pianists who are vocally silent.
Yes, me too. I never bought any of his recordings for precisely that reason.
>> I do think musicians like Bach better than
>> non-musicians. I think one of the main problems that a modern listener
>> will
>> have with Bach is that his music is too intellectual. I do vel at it,
>> but
>> I don't like it.
>
> J. S. Bach wrote his music for the glory of God and for posterity.
I could not have said that better myself!
>> >> ...
>> >> When I was going to college back in the 50's and 60's it was the
>> >> cheapest
>> >> thing a young person could do. I probably stayed in college longer
>> >> than I
>> >> should have but it was just so cheap. And I enjoyed the life style,
>> >> even
>> >> though I never had any money...
>> >
>> > For the total economic cost of obtaining a graduate degree, I could
>> > attend every CSO concert for the rest of my life of purchase a new,
>> > high quality recumbent bicycle or trike every year. The cost puts the
>> > lie to the notion of equal economic opportunity.
>>
>> Tom, I believe the cost of higher education is going to be reevaluated in
>> the grand scheme of things. Many young people are going to decide to
>> forego
>> college because of the expense. It will not make economic sense for them
>> to
>> attend. I understand this and sympathize with them.
>>
>> Back in the 50's the great California universities were in effect free.
>> There was a small student fee and that was it. We thought at the time it
>> would go on forever, but it all came to a screeching halt rather
>> suddenly.
>> Too bad, but nothing is free forever I guess.
>
> The University of Illinois will cost a frugal undergraduate student
> $5,000+ per semester. Of course this is inexpensive compared to
> comparable private institutions such as Northwestern which would be
> more on the order of $20,000 a semester.
>
>> Now that I am old I worry more about the cost of health care than I do
>> anything else. There are many unresolved problems in our society that are
>> going to have to get taken care of sooner or later. The Dems could come
>> back
>> big time if the Repubs do not respond to social problems that continue to
>> fester.
>
> Family heath insurance will cost a family with no history of major
> problems $7,000 to $9,000 per year. Only 60% of full time employed
> workers in the US have employer provided coverage. Excessive medical
> bills are the cause for over 50% of personal bankruptcy filing.
> Meanwhile, real wages for all but top management are falling, as more
> jobs are exported. Most people are in debt. When the next recession
> comes, life will become ugly for many people who are both willing and
> able to work.
The only real question I have at the moment is what are you doing still up?
Do you realize we have been up all night? Don't you have to go to work
today? I don't want to be responsible for you not getting a good night's
sleep. Mr. McNaa wants you to go to bed too, something I think he did at
least several hours ago.
Best Regards,
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
PS. I think we showed all the dunderheads here on ARBR that there is some
Kulture present on this newsgroup even if you do have to stay up all night
to get in on it.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Dec 2005 01:18:41
From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1134101999.778211.316620@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >...Claudio Monteverdi is of course the first great
> > dramatic composer, and while Orfeo is not the first opera, it is the
> > first great opera. Could there be a better introduction to the new art
> > form than the sublime toccata that opens Orfeo?
>
> Nonetheless, this is all very historical by now and is becoming increasingly
> remote. To like this kind of music takes study. To like Mozart and Beethoven
> takes no study at all.
When Orfeo was first performed in 1608 it would have struck the court
audience the way Beethoven astounded the early 19th Century Vienna
audience the first time they heard one of his scherzos. To quote John
Wallace on the Toccata "[it] seems to be the herald of a New Age, its
heroic confidence underlining Monteverdi's own unique importance."
> ...
> > However, Ludwig van Beethoven wrote of Handel: "Handel is the
> > unattained master of all masters. Go to him and learn how to produce
> > great effects with scant deploy of means."
> >
> > Upon being given a complete set of Handel's published works, Beethoven
> > commented: "I have wished to own them for a long time because Handel is
> > the greatest, the most solid of composers; from him I still can learn
> > something. Fetch the books over to me!" and "In the future, I shall
> > write after the manner of my grand master Handel".
> >
> > I will choose the judgment of Beethoven over Mr. Ed Dolan of
> > Worthington, Minnesota.
>
> But Beethoven was using Handel merely to build on and he far exceeded
> anything Handel could ever even dream of. None of Beethoven's music sounds
> even remotely like any of Handel's music. A Handel oratorio or opera is an
> acquired taste. It does not come naturally anymore as it once did back in
> his time. And even back in his time it was music written for the
> aristocrats, not for the general public.
Here Ed Dolan reveals his ignorance. Handel's oratorios were written
for the entertainment of the emerging English middle class, and were
performed for paying audiences in public theaters. The religious
content allowed these upstanding Anglicans to enjoy the "glorious
noise" for its own sake, while paying lip service to piety.
> Music for our sensibilities really does begin with Haydn and Mozart. J.C.
> Bach was transitional, not Bach and Handel. The Baroque masters of music
> perfected those forms but they do not speak to us today. Much of that music
> only sounds right in a church setting.
>
> I have never understood all these ancient music recordings of that era. I
> think perhaps only other musicians listen to that kind of music. I do not
> think the general public has any interest in it. All major conert halls
> would go empty if they programmed it. You have to give the public what they
> want and I assure you, they do not want much of Bach or Handel, at least not
> here in America.
Should the taste of the US public be used as an arbiter of quality? An
unbiased observed would have to conclude that contemporary US culture
is rather vulgar for the most part.
> I have the complete keyboard music of Bach on LP records. This includes both
> for the piano and the organ. I have plowed through it on several occasions,
> but no more. Yes, some of it is great music, but it is music that is foreign
> to me. I will never love that music. From Haydn on I love music. That is the
> difference for me at least.
>
> Yes, you do have to vel at that old music, but do you truly love it? That
> is the question.
When performed properly, the best keyboard works of J. S. Bach can
induce a rapturous, near hypnotic state. The listener's surroundings
disappear from consciousness, and only the music remains.
> ...
> When I was going to college back in the 50's and 60's it was the cheapest
> thing a young person could do. I probably stayed in college longer than I
> should have but it was just so cheap. And I enjoyed the life style, even
> though I never had any money...
For the total economic cost of obtaining a graduate degree, I could
attend every CSO concert for the rest of my life of purchase a new,
high quality recumbent bicycle or trike every year. The cost puts the
lie to the notion of equal economic opportunity.
>Paris is a beautiful city. That no one can deny.
One can only hope that Ed Dolan is not referring to Paris, Illinois.;)
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Dec 2005 06:09:37
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
"Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1134119921.325777.173370@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
[...]
Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>>Paris is a beautiful city. That no one can deny.
>
> One can only hope that Ed Dolan is not referring to Paris, Illinois.;)
Apparently there is also a Paris, Texas. I learned of this from watching a
movie on my new digital cable TV subscription which was entitled
"Paris,Texas". This is a real sleeper of a movie and quite good. It is very
different from the usual Hollywood crap and actually manages to strike some
deep chords. It always surprises me whenever I encounter a movie like this
as I have gotten used to what you will normally see on the TV. I stopped
going to movies in theaters some 40 years ago.
Regards,
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Dec 2005 04:24:06
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
"Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1134119921.325777.173370@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1134101999.778211.316620@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> >...Claudio Monteverdi is of course the first great
>> > dramatic composer, and while Orfeo is not the first opera, it is the
>> > first great opera. Could there be a better introduction to the new art
>> > form than the sublime toccata that opens Orfeo?
>>
>> Nonetheless, this is all very historical by now and is becoming
>> increasingly
>> remote. To like this kind of music takes study. To like Mozart and
>> Beethoven
>> takes no study at all.
>
> When Orfeo was first performed in 1608 it would have struck the court
> audience the way Beethoven astounded the early 19th Century Vienna
> audience the first time they heard one of his scherzos. To quote John
> Wallace on the Toccata "[it] seems to be the herald of a New Age, its
> heroic confidence underlining Monteverdi's own unique importance."
>> Nonetheless, this is all very historical by now and is becoming
>> increasingly
>> remote. To like this kind of music takes study. To like Mozart and
>> Beethoven
>> takes no study at all.
>> ...
>> > However, Ludwig van Beethoven wrote of Handel: "Handel is the
>> > unattained master of all masters. Go to him and learn how to produce
>> > great effects with scant deploy of means."
>> >
>> > Upon being given a complete set of Handel's published works, Beethoven
>> > commented: "I have wished to own them for a long time because Handel is
>> > the greatest, the most solid of composers; from him I still can learn
>> > something. Fetch the books over to me!" and "In the future, I shall
>> > write after the manner of my grand master Handel".
>> >
>> > I will choose the judgment of Beethoven over Mr. Ed Dolan of
>> > Worthington, Minnesota.
>>
>> But Beethoven was using Handel merely to build on and he far exceeded
>> anything Handel could ever even dream of. None of Beethoven's music
>> sounds
>> even remotely like any of Handel's music. A Handel oratorio or opera is
>> an
>> acquired taste. It does not come naturally anymore as it once did back in
>> his time. And even back in his time it was music written for the
>> aristocrats, not for the general public.
>
> Here Ed Dolan reveals his ignorance. Handel's oratorios were written
> for the entertainment of the emerging English middle class, and were
> performed for paying audiences in public theaters. The religious
> content allowed these upstanding Anglicans to enjoy the "glorious
> noise" for its own sake, while paying lip service to piety.
There is no middle class public that ever existed anywhere that liked
Handel's operas. It is an art strictly for the aristocrats. His oratorios
were a phenomenon in England for some strange reason. I think the English
just liked choral music. Does anyone today like choral music?
>> Music for our sensibilities really does begin with Haydn and Mozart. J.C.
>> Bach was transitional, not Bach and Handel. The Baroque masters of music
>> perfected those forms but they do not speak to us today. Much of that
>> music
>> only sounds right in a church setting.
>>
>> I have never understood all these ancient music recordings of that era. I
>> think perhaps only other musicians listen to that kind of music. I do not
>> think the general public has any interest in it. All major conert halls
>> would go empty if they programmed it. You have to give the public what
>> they
>> want and I assure you, they do not want much of Bach or Handel, at least
>> not
>> here in America.
>
> Should the taste of the US public be used as an arbiter of quality? An
> unbiased observed would have to conclude that contemporary US culture
> is rather vulgar for the most part.
Yes, alas, only too true, but the European culture for old music also
strikes me as being very strange. Apparently there is a small audience for
it there, but I am sure there is no great demand for it either. I think it
is music mainly being driven by musicians.
>> I have the complete keyboard music of Bach on LP records. This includes
>> both
>> for the piano and the organ. I have plowed through it on several
>> occasions,
>> but no more. Yes, some of it is great music, but it is music that is
>> foreign
>> to me. I will never love that music. From Haydn on I love music. That is
>> the
>> difference for me at least.
>>
>> Yes, you do have to vel at that old music, but do you truly love it?
>> That
>> is the question.
>
> When performed properly, the best keyboard works of J. S. Bach can
> induce a rapturous, near hypnotic state. The listener's surroundings
> disappear from consciousness, and only the music remains.
Yes, that is true, but still I do not really relate to this music. I always
thought Glen Gould (a great specialist in the Bach keyboard music) was crazy
the way he carried on. I do think musicians like Bach better than
non-musicians. I think one of the main problems that a modern listener will
have with Bach is that his music is too intellectual. I do vel at it, but
I don't like it.
>> ...
>> When I was going to college back in the 50's and 60's it was the cheapest
>> thing a young person could do. I probably stayed in college longer than I
>> should have but it was just so cheap. And I enjoyed the life style, even
>> though I never had any money...
>
> For the total economic cost of obtaining a graduate degree, I could
> attend every CSO concert for the rest of my life of purchase a new,
> high quality recumbent bicycle or trike every year. The cost puts the
> lie to the notion of equal economic opportunity.
Tom, I believe the cost of higher education is going to be reevaluated in
the grand scheme of things. Many young people are going to decide to forego
college because of the expense. It will not make economic sense for them to
attend. I understand this and sympathize with them.
Back in the 50's the great California universities were in effect free.
There was a small student fee and that was it. We thought at the time it
would go on forever, but it all came to a screeching halt rather suddenly.
Too bad, but nothing is free forever I guess.
Now that I am old I worry more about the cost of health care than I do
anything else. There are many unresolved problems in our society that are
going to have to get taken care of sooner or later. The Dems could come back
big time if the Repubs do not respond to social problems that continue to
fester.
Regards,
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
|
| | |
Date: 08 Dec 2005 23:04:26
From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1134105176.215938.32300@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >...
> > This is a revisionist lie promoted by right-wing "pundits". The
> > National Socialists, while adopting some language of socialism, were
> > the party of the industrial cartels, in particular Fritz Thyssen [1]
> > who controlled German coal production and I. G. Farben which controlled
> > the German chemical industry during the Wei Republic and Third
> > Reich. Without the bankrolling by the industrial cartels, the National
> > Socialist Party would have collapsed in the 1920's, and could not have
> > consolidated power after the death of President Paul von Hindenburg in
> > 1934.
> >
> > Hitler and the National Socialists crushed organized labor by banning
> > strikes. Hitler and the National Socialists increased taxes on small
> > businesses while lowering those on the dominant cartels, destroying the
> > middle class. After destroying the labor unions, Hitler and the
> > National Socialists repaid the cartels for their support by supplying
> > them with millions of Jewish, Polish and Russian slave workers.
> >
> > Subsidies to the largest corporations, elimination of anti-trust and
> > other government regulation, reduction and/or elimination of taxes on
> > unearned income and inheritance of fortunes (all policies of Hitler and
> > Mussolini) are start of the slippery slope from democracy to fascism.
>
> Any political party that calls itself National SOCIALISM derives from the
> Left...
Note what I said - the National Socialist adopted some of the LANGUAGE
of socialism. This was mere propaganda on their part, and part of the
long tradition of politicians lying.
> and was not much different than Communism in the effects it had on its
> own people and on the world. They were both in the nature of Oriental
> Despotisms in their practical operations, but they justified themselves with
> ideologies of the Left.
>
> Ideologies of the Right spring from the theory of the divine right of kings
> and such regimes are usually far less murderous than the leftist regimes of
> the past century. It is insane to want to discredit National Socialism and
> not at the same time want to discredit Communism. However, the Cold War is
> over and ALL ideologies of the Left have been totally discredited for all
> time....
The two systems (Communism/Leninism/Maoism and Fascism/National
Socialism) have political repression in common, but were totally
different economically. The former is a centralized command economy,
with all assets controlled by government bureaucrats, while the latter
is the government colluding with the very wealthy plutocracy to exploit
and repress the working classes.
> Same old score:
>
> Ed Dolan - Republican - Conservative....
...Ignorance = 100.
Republican and conservative have become two different things over the
last three decades. The current right-wing Republican philosophy (while
the traditional conservative moderates are ginalized within the
party) is to repudiate the Enlightenment and return to a
pre-Reformation/pre-Renaissance social order where the power of
theocracy is merged with the inherited wealth and privilege of
plutocracy/aristocracy. It is a very anti-American philosophy and
repudiates the ideals of the founders of the United States.
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Dec 2005 02:09:52
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
"Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1134111866.041692.253870@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1134105176.215938.32300@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >...
>> > This is a revisionist lie promoted by right-wing "pundits". The
>> > National Socialists, while adopting some language of socialism, were
>> > the party of the industrial cartels, in particular Fritz Thyssen [1]
>> > who controlled German coal production and I. G. Farben which controlled
>> > the German chemical industry during the Wei Republic and Third
>> > Reich. Without the bankrolling by the industrial cartels, the National
>> > Socialist Party would have collapsed in the 1920's, and could not have
>> > consolidated power after the death of President Paul von Hindenburg in
>> > 1934.
>> >
>> > Hitler and the National Socialists crushed organized labor by banning
>> > strikes. Hitler and the National Socialists increased taxes on small
>> > businesses while lowering those on the dominant cartels, destroying the
>> > middle class. After destroying the labor unions, Hitler and the
>> > National Socialists repaid the cartels for their support by supplying
>> > them with millions of Jewish, Polish and Russian slave workers.
>> >
>> > Subsidies to the largest corporations, elimination of anti-trust and
>> > other government regulation, reduction and/or elimination of taxes on
>> > unearned income and inheritance of fortunes (all policies of Hitler and
>> > Mussolini) are start of the slippery slope from democracy to fascism.
>>
>> Any political party that calls itself National SOCIALISM derives from the
>> Left...
>
> Note what I said - the National Socialist adopted some of the LANGUAGE
> of socialism. This was mere propaganda on their part, and part of the
> long tradition of politicians lying.
But that is how THEY thought of themselves. Hitler was a Lefty in his youth
when it mattered. Hitler would never have come to power if he could not have
roused national socialist sentiment. Admittedly, the national part was
equally important because National Socialism's worse enemy was Communism,
its very close cousin.
But like all Lefties, Hitler had nothing but murder in his heart and that
was what finally won out. Same goes for Lenin and Stalin and all those old
Bolsheviks. Kill, kill kill! That is your Far Left legacy from the 20th
century.
>> and was not much different than Communism in the effects it had on its
>> own people and on the world. They were both in the nature of Oriental
>> Despotisms in their practical operations, but they justified themselves
>> with
>> ideologies of the Left.
>>
>> Ideologies of the Right spring from the theory of the divine right of
>> kings
>> and such regimes are usually far less murderous than the leftist regimes
>> of
>> the past century. It is insane to want to discredit National Socialism
>> and
>> not at the same time want to discredit Communism. However, the Cold War
>> is
>> over and ALL ideologies of the Left have been totally discredited for all
>> time....
>
> The two systems (Communism/Leninism/Maoism and Fascism/National
> Socialism) have political repression in common, but were totally
> different economically. The former is a centralized command economy,
> with all assets controlled by government bureaucrats, while the latter
> is the government colluding with the very wealthy plutocracy to exploit
> and repress the working classes.
I really do not see much difference in the economic models since all freedom
has been squeezed out of both. It is how they operate in practice that
counts. Enslavement was their common denominator. That is why I call them
Oriental Despotisms. They were both left wing ideologies which were tried as
hard as it is possible to try anything in this world. And they both failed
miserably. That right there ought to tell you something.
>> Same old score:
>>
>> Ed Dolan - Republican - Conservative....
>
> ...Ignorance = 100.
>
> Republican and conservative have become two different things over the
> last three decades. The current right-wing Republican philosophy (while
> the traditional conservative moderates are ginalized within the
> party) is to repudiate the Enlightenment and return to a
> pre-Reformation/pre-Renaissance social order where the power of
> theocracy is merged with the inherited wealth and privilege of
> plutocracy/aristocracy. It is a very anti-American philosophy and
> repudiates the ideals of the founders of the United States.
Well, yes, there is not much relationship anymore to where it all came from.
But still we know where most leftist ideology comes from - x and Lenin.
Ah, for the good old days of the Berlin Wall. Damn that Reagan anyway for
winning the Cold War for America and the West!
Score:
Ed Dolan - In favor of the Divine Right of Kings (provided Ed Dolan is the
King of course).
Tom Sherman - In favor of peasants revolting forever against their accursed
lot in life.
Regards,
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
|
| | |
Date: 08 Dec 2005 21:36:14
From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Edward Dolan wrote:
> ...
> Hmmm, I wonder what we should do about the Muslim Terrorists? Cardinal
> Ximinez would know exactly what to do about them....
"NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!... Amongst our weaponry are
such diverse elements as: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an
almost fanatical devotion to the Pope, and nice red uniforms - Oh
damn!" - Cardinal Ximinez
Mr. Ed Dolan should be aware that Cardinal Ximinez is a character from
a Monty Python skit, and therefore better qualified to deal with
"Muslim Terrorists" than the average politician. ;)
> PS. Does Tom Sherman post his idiocies just to give me something to do on a
> cold winter's night?
Someone has to take pity on the old anti-social Minnesota hermit/coot.
;)
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
| | |
Date: 08 Dec 2005 21:12:56
From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Edward Dolan wrote:
> ...
> Also, by the way, Mr. Ed (the talking horse) is Mr. Tom Sherman's favorite
> show, not mine....
A show ("Mr. Ed) that I only watched a portion of one (1) episode,
while waiting in a public place.
>...
> For instance, I think Muslim culture, where ever it is found, is just plain
> horrible, and it mostly springs from their abominable religion as well as
> having primitive Arab roots....
An unlettered 40 year old man, in less than two (2) decades not only
founds one of the world's major religion in his lifetime (unlike Jesus
who had very few followers until centuries after his death), but also
establishes an empire that is the most technically advanced and
cultured for several centuries to come. Whether or not you accept
Mohammad as the final Prophet of God, or merely as a man, his story and
accomplishments are incredible.
> ...It is too bad Germany fell under the
> influence of an evil ideology (one derived from the Left I might mention)....
Let it be noted that here Edward Dolan initiates right-wing political
commentary.
This is a revisionist lie promoted by right-wing "pundits". The
National Socialists, while adopting some language of socialism, were
the party of the industrial cartels, in particular Fritz Thyssen [1]
who controlled German coal production and I. G. Farben which controlled
the German chemical industry during the Wei Republic and Third
Reich. Without the bankrolling by the industrial cartels, the National
Socialist Party would have collapsed in the 1920's, and could not have
consolidated power after the death of President Paul von Hindenburg in
1934.
Hitler and the National Socialists crushed organized labor by banning
strikes. Hitler and the National Socialists increased taxes on small
businesses while lowering those on the dominant cartels, destroying the
middle class. After destroying the labor unions, Hitler and the
National Socialists repaid the cartels for their support by supplying
them with millions of Jewish, Polish and Russian slave workers.
Subsidies to the largest corporations, elimination of anti-trust and
other government regulation, reduction and/or elimination of taxes on
unearned income and inheritance of fortunes (all policies of Hitler and
Mussolini) are start of the slippery slope from democracy to fascism.
[1] Prescott Bush, son in law of George Herbert Walker and father of
George Herbert Walker Bush and grandfather of George Walker Bush, made
much of his fortune working with businesses controlled by Fritz
Thyssen, including some that used Jewish slave labor.
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Dec 2005 00:18:39
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
"Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1134105176.215938.32300@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
>> For instance, I think Muslim culture, where ever it is found, is just
>> plain
>> horrible, and it mostly springs from their abominable religion as well as
>> having primitive Arab roots....
>
> An unlettered 40 year old man, in less than two (2) decades not only
> founds one of the world's major religion in his lifetime (unlike Jesus
> who had very few followers until centuries after his death), but also
> establishes an empire that is the most technically advanced and
> cultured for several centuries to come. Whether or not you accept
> Mohammad as the final Prophet of God, or merely as a man, his story and
> accomplishments are incredible.
Islam conquered by the sword. Furthermore, the world lay open at that time
to any aggressive force, just as centuries later it lay open for the Mongol
conquest of most of Asia and Russia. The Mongols and the Arabs were about on
the same level of culture and not to be compared with the civilizations they
supplanted. After all, they were all just barbarians.
Islamic culture is also highly overrated, although I do admit I like Islamic
decoration and architectural forms, even though fundamentally derived from
the Greek and Roman world.
>> ...It is too bad Germany fell under the
>> influence of an evil ideology (one derived from the Left I might
>> mention)....
>
> Let it be noted that here Edward Dolan initiates right-wing political
> commentary.
But this was in response to something that was said previously, which as
usual you have edited out. I am way too lazy to ever go back and restore
what you leave out, so we will never know who initiated what, will we? Now
you see the importance of NOT editing.
> This is a revisionist lie promoted by right-wing "pundits". The
> National Socialists, while adopting some language of socialism, were
> the party of the industrial cartels, in particular Fritz Thyssen [1]
> who controlled German coal production and I. G. Farben which controlled
> the German chemical industry during the Wei Republic and Third
> Reich. Without the bankrolling by the industrial cartels, the National
> Socialist Party would have collapsed in the 1920's, and could not have
> consolidated power after the death of President Paul von Hindenburg in
> 1934.
>
> Hitler and the National Socialists crushed organized labor by banning
> strikes. Hitler and the National Socialists increased taxes on small
> businesses while lowering those on the dominant cartels, destroying the
> middle class. After destroying the labor unions, Hitler and the
> National Socialists repaid the cartels for their support by supplying
> them with millions of Jewish, Polish and Russian slave workers.
>
> Subsidies to the largest corporations, elimination of anti-trust and
> other government regulation, reduction and/or elimination of taxes on
> unearned income and inheritance of fortunes (all policies of Hitler and
> Mussolini) are start of the slippery slope from democracy to fascism.
Any political party that calls itself National SOCIALISM derives from the
Left and was not much different than Communism in the effects it had on its
own people and on the world. They were both in the nature of Oriental
Despotisms in their practical operations, but they justified themselves with
ideologies of the Left.
Ideologies of the Right spring from the theory of the divine right of kings
and such regimes are usually far less murderous than the leftist regimes of
the past century. It is insane to want to discredit National Socialism and
not at the same time want to discredit Communism. However, the Cold War is
over and ALL ideologies of the Left have been totally discredited for all
time.
Same old score:
Ed Dolan - Republican - Conservative = 100
Tom Sherman - Democrat - Liberal = 0
Regards,
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
|
| | |
Date: 08 Dec 2005 21:04:58
From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1134017991.340127.171030@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Edward Dolan wrote:
> > >...
> >> Horrors! I deeply regret that we even have the same first name. I may
> >> jettison my Ed for Edward in the future, maybe even Eddie.
> >
> > The majority of the regulars appear to prefer "Mr. Ed".
>
> This is an example of Mr. Sherman's juvenile sense of humor. I believe in a
> previous post in this thread he was touting how st he is, but as you can
> so plainly see he never fully developed. Apparently all that engineering
> study prevented him from achieving a fully rounded intelligence.
>
> I have no doubt whatsoever that he is similarly undeveloped in art and music
> appreciation. I have it on good authority that he prefers Renaissance and
> Baroque musak to the music of the Classical and Romantic eras. Imagine how
> anyone could prefer Monteverdi and Vivaldi to Mozart and Beethoven! Now you
> know why I call him a dunderhead.
Actually I find much of Vivaldi's music to be less than profound. While
the accusation of writing the same concerto 600 times is unfair, there
is a grain of truth. Claudio Monteverdi is of course the first great
dramatic composer, and while Orfeo is not the first opera, it is the
first great opera. Could there be a better introduction to the new art
form than the sublime toccata that opens Orfeo?
Who has achieved the level of rigor and intellect combined with joy in
expression to match Johan Sebastian Bach? And has there ever been a
composer more attuned to the potential of the human voice than Georg
Frederick Handel?
To be fair, J. C. W. A. Mozart took the classical forms to perfection,
and his best works (e.g. his collaboration with Lorenzo Da Ponte) are
the peak of dramatic achievement. And Beethoven dramatically expanded
on the traditional classical forms in his late works to a
transcendental level that no composer has been successfully follow.
However, Ludwig van Beethoven wrote of Handel: "Handel is the
unattained master of all masters. Go to him and learn how to produce
great effects with scant deploy of means."
Upon being given a complete set of Handel's published works, Beethoven
commented: "I have wished to own them for a long time because Handel is
the greatest, the most solid of composers; from him I still can learn
something. Fetch the books over to me!" and "In the future, I shall
write after the manner of my grand master Handel".
I will choose the judgment of Beethoven over Mr. Ed Dolan of
Worthington, Minnesota.
> In other words, he has no taste at all. For that you have to come to me.
> After all, I did not waste my youth studying science and engineering. No, I
> pursued the higher arts and became a fully developed human being, one who
> would not be caught dead looking at a TV program about a talking horse. I
> mean, just how idiotic can you get? I think he also likes Monty Python,
> another idiotic comedy act which I also have never heard of due to my good
> breeding and exquisite artistic sensibilities.
I once saw about 5 minutes of an episode of "Mr. Ed" in a waiting room.
"The Holy Grail" is the only good King Arthur movie, and anyone who can
not appreciate it is a cranky old coot.
> But Mr. Sherman is as one with this newsgroup. He was no doubt the first in
> his family ever to have gotten a college education and he has never
> recovered from the trauma of it....
Financially traumatic to be sure, thanks to the tuition increases and
financial aid reductions that occurred thanks priily to the policies
promoted by Republican Party (and the recent minor tax cuts will never
compensate for the difference).
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
"are there stones on distant mountain decents king the gored and
deceased? arms and wrists broken ?
or is this unreported?" - G. Daniels
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Dec 2005 01:15:44
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
"Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1134101999.778211.316620@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1134017991.340127.171030@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Edward Dolan wrote:
>> > >...
>> >> Horrors! I deeply regret that we even have the same first name. I may
>> >> jettison my Ed for Edward in the future, maybe even Eddie.
>> >
>> > The majority of the regulars appear to prefer "Mr. Ed".
>>
>> This is an example of Mr. Sherman's juvenile sense of humor. I believe in
>> a
>> previous post in this thread he was touting how st he is, but as you
>> can
>> so plainly see he never fully developed. Apparently all that engineering
>> study prevented him from achieving a fully rounded intelligence.
>>
>> I have no doubt whatsoever that he is similarly undeveloped in art and
>> music
>> appreciation. I have it on good authority that he prefers Renaissance and
>> Baroque musak to the music of the Classical and Romantic eras. Imagine
>> how
>> anyone could prefer Monteverdi and Vivaldi to Mozart and Beethoven! Now
>> you
>> know why I call him a dunderhead.
>
> Actually I find much of Vivaldi's music to be less than profound. While
> the accusation of writing the same concerto 600 times is unfair, there
> is a grain of truth. Claudio Monteverdi is of course the first great
> dramatic composer, and while Orfeo is not the first opera, it is the
> first great opera. Could there be a better introduction to the new art
> form than the sublime toccata that opens Orfeo?
Nonetheless, this is all very historical by now and is becoming increasingly
remote. To like this kind of music takes study. To like Mozart and Beethoven
takes no study at all.
> Who has achieved the level of rigor and intellect combined with joy in
> expression to match Johan Sebastian Bach? And has there ever been a
> composer more attuned to the potential of the human voice than Georg
> Frederick Handel?
Again, this now belongs to history. Their musical forms are remote from our
sensibilities. The only music of theirs that truly live are just a few of
their pieces which have become popular due to their melodies. Most people
today do not truly like Bach and Handel and find them both to be great
bores.
> To be fair, J. C. W. A. Mozart took the classical forms to perfection,
> and his best works (e.g. his collaboration with Lorenzo Da Ponte) are
> the peak of dramatic achievement. And Beethoven dramatically expanded
> on the traditional classical forms in his late works to a
> transcendental level that no composer has been successfully follow.
>
> However, Ludwig van Beethoven wrote of Handel: "Handel is the
> unattained master of all masters. Go to him and learn how to produce
> great effects with scant deploy of means."
>
> Upon being given a complete set of Handel's published works, Beethoven
> commented: "I have wished to own them for a long time because Handel is
> the greatest, the most solid of composers; from him I still can learn
> something. Fetch the books over to me!" and "In the future, I shall
> write after the manner of my grand master Handel".
>
> I will choose the judgment of Beethoven over Mr. Ed Dolan of
> Worthington, Minnesota.
But Beethoven was using Handel merely to build on and he far exceeded
anything Handel could ever even dream of. None of Beethoven's music sounds
even remotely like any of Handel's music. A Handel oratorio or opera is an
acquired taste. It does not come naturally anymore as it once did back in
his time. And even back in his time it was music written for the
aristocrats, not for the general public.
Music for our sensibilities really does begin with Haydn and Mozart. J.C.
Bach was transitional, not Bach and Handel. The Baroque masters of music
perfected those forms but they do not speak to us today. Much of that music
only sounds right in a church setting.
I have never understood all these ancient music recordings of that era. I
think perhaps only other musicians listen to that kind of music. I do not
think the general public has any interest in it. All major conert halls
would go empty if they programmed it. You have to give the public what they
want and I assure you, they do not want much of Bach or Handel, at least not
here in America.
I have the complete keyboard music of Bach on LP records. This includes both
for the piano and the organ. I have plowed through it on several occasions,
but no more. Yes, some of it is great music, but it is music that is foreign
to me. I will never love that music. From Haydn on I love music. That is the
difference for me at least.
Yes, you do have to vel at that old music, but do you truly love it? That
is the question.
By the way, all art is perfect for its time. It does not develop like
science does. Baroque music was perfect music, but I do not like it.
Classical era music was also perfect and no better technically, although
maybe a bit more complex. But I love classical era and later music and I
never had to make a study of it either. I believe most folks who claim to
like Baroque music are not telling the truth. I do except professional
musicians from this because they will like almost anything that has the
sound of notes, no matter how screwed up.
>> In other words, he has no taste at all. For that you have to come to me.
>> After all, I did not waste my youth studying science and engineering. No,
>> I
>> pursued the higher arts and became a fully developed human being, one
>> who
>> would not be caught dead looking at a TV program about a talking horse. I
>> mean, just how idiotic can you get? I think he also likes Monty Python,
>> another idiotic comedy act which I also have never heard of due to my
>> good
>> breeding and exquisite artistic sensibilities.
>
> I once saw about 5 minutes of an episode of "Mr. Ed" in a waiting room.
>
> "The Holy Grail" is the only good King Arthur movie, and anyone who can
> not appreciate it is a cranky old coot.
>
>> But Mr. Sherman is as one with this newsgroup. He was no doubt the first
>> in
>> his family ever to have gotten a college education and he has never
>> recovered from the trauma of it....
>
> Financially traumatic to be sure, thanks to the tuition increases and
> financial aid reductions that occurred thanks priily to the policies
> promoted by Republican Party (and the recent minor tax cuts will never
> compensate for the difference).
When I was going to college back in the 50's and 60's it was the cheapest
thing a young person could do. I probably stayed in college longer than I
should have but it was just so cheap. And I enjoyed the life style, even
though I never had any money. I would have liked to have been a Bohemian in
Paris living on the Left Bank writing a novel about a hermit - if I didn't
hate the French so much. But no matter, Paris is a beautiful city. That no
one can deny.
Regards,
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
|
| | |
Date: 08 Dec 2005 20:27:39
From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
DD wrote:
> ...
> and other ramblings much resembling weak tea but smelling worse......
We could be drinking a beverage that is almost, but not completely
unlike tea.
> ...And, well, no one ever expects the Spanish Inquisition....
NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is
surprise!... Surprise and fear... fear and surprise... Our two weapons
are fear and surprise... and ruthless efficiency! Our three weapons are
fear, and surprise, and ruthless efficiency... and an almost fanatical
devotion to the Pope... Our four... no... Amongst our weapons... Hmf...
Amongst our weaponry... are such elements as fear, surpr...
Cardinal Ximinez
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Dec 2005 22:58:50
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
"Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1134102459.237247.64920@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> DD wrote:
>> ...
>> and other ramblings much resembling weak tea but smelling worse......
>
> We could be drinking a beverage that is almost, but not completely
> unlike tea.
>
>> ...And, well, no one ever expects the Spanish Inquisition....
>
> NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is
> surprise!... Surprise and fear... fear and surprise... Our two weapons
> are fear and surprise... and ruthless efficiency! Our three weapons are
> fear, and surprise, and ruthless efficiency... and an almost fanatical
> devotion to the Pope... Our four... no... Amongst our weapons... Hmf...
> Amongst our weaponry... are such elements as fear, surpr...
>
> Cardinal Ximinez
The main problem with the Spanish Inquisition is that it is never around
when needed. After all, the only purpose of it was to save souls for the
Kingdom of God. If the Spanish Armada had been successful, England today
would be a Catholic country instead of the apostate nation that it has
become.
Heresy is everywhere and the best way to combat it is to kill the heretics.
Trying to convert the unconvertible is a waste of time and effort. No, I say
kill them and have done with it. God will know what to do with their
abominable souls.
Hmmm, I wonder what we should do about the Muslim Terrorists? Cardinal
Ximinez would know exactly what to do about them, thereby saving
civilization, but I don't think Tom Sherman has a clue. He would try to
appease them, even at the point of decapitation of his own head. That is
what I like best about liberal know nothings - they are so stupid that they
will get themselves killed by the very people they are tying to help.
I just about die laughing when peace protesters are blown to hell, or
kidnapped and held hostage. Damned if I would ever bother to rescue them!
Repent or Be Damned!
The Grand Inquisitor
Spanish Inquisition
PS. Does Tom Sherman post his idiocies just to give me something to do on a
cold winter's night?
|
| | |
Date: 07 Dec 2005 20:59:51
From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Mike Rice" <jodymike@gte.net> wrote in message
> news:4v8fp110bfs3p1sash32dvqs92e11atpn2@4ax.com...
> > ...
> > I even wondered if Ed Gin was your sock puppet, can you believe that?
>
> Horrors! I deeply regret that we even have the same first name. I may
> jettison my Ed for Edward in the future, maybe even Eddie.
The majority of the regulars appear to prefer "Mr. Ed".
> ...
> I am an OK guy, but when others bring sexual and/or excretory allusions into
> the discussion, I will admit that I go berserk. I have always been in favor
> of good clean swearing, even to using the name of our Lord in vain, as I
> come from a long line of Irishmen who were world experts at it. But they and
> I never make allusions to the sexual function or the excretory function,
> except in retaliation of course. Why can't everyone just swear good and
> clean like me?
"...and a local creep/retard gives out some bs about my status in the
cum unity..." - G. Daniels
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Dec 2005 15:52:46
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
"Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1134017991.340127.171030@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "Mike Rice" <jodymike@gte.net> wrote in message
>> news:4v8fp110bfs3p1sash32dvqs92e11atpn2@4ax.com...
>> > ...
>> > I even wondered if Ed Gin was your sock puppet, can you believe that?
>>
>> Horrors! I deeply regret that we even have the same first name. I may
>> jettison my Ed for Edward in the future, maybe even Eddie.
>
> The majority of the regulars appear to prefer "Mr. Ed".
This is an example of Mr. Sherman's juvenile sense of humor. I believe in a
previous post in this thread he was touting how st he is, but as you can
so plainly see he never fully developed. Apparently all that engineering
study prevented him from achieving a fully rounded intelligence.
I have no doubt whatsoever that he is similarly undeveloped in art and music
appreciation. I have it on good authority that he prefers Renaissance and
Baroque musak to the music of the Classical and Romantic eras. Imagine how
anyone could prefer Monteverdi and Vivaldi to Mozart and Beethoven! Now you
know why I call him a dunderhead.
In other words, he has no taste at all. For that you have to come to me.
After all, I did not waste my youth studying science and engineering. No, I
pursued the higher arts and became a fully developed human being, one who
would not be caught dead looking at a TV program about a talking horse. I
mean, just how idiotic can you get? I think he also likes Monty Python,
another idiotic comedy act which I also have never heard of due to my good
breeding and exquisite artistic sensibilities.
But Mr. Sherman is as one with this newsgroup. He was no doubt the first in
his family ever to have gotten a college education and he has never
recovered from the trauma of it. I on the other hand come from a long line
of university educated gentlemen and so you can see we do not have much in
common. It is a difference in culture which can never be overcome except in
the course of many generations. He is new rich; I am old rich (anyone
remember the French terms for these expressions?).
To sum up, Ed Dolan is the most refined and cultured gentleman ever to show
up on this benighted newsgroup, otherwise known as ARBR. He ought to be
awarded a medal of valor for putting up with all low lifes that inhabit this
group. It takes someone of great mental courage like Ed Dolan to weather the
crudities that constantly assail one here on ARBR.
I am too good for this group, that is for sure, but it is part of my
noblesse oblige as a nobleman to favor it with my exalted presence. Maybe
some of my high mindedness will rub off on them and they will get some
culture and no longer speak of talking horses named Mr. Ed.
Regards,
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
PS. I am thinking of writing a very long message to ARBR in praise of
myself. Stay tuned.
|
| | | | |
Date: 09 Dec 2005 08:15:56
From: DD
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Edward Dolan wrote:
... I think he also likes Monty Python,
> another idiotic comedy act which I also have never heard of due to my good
> breeding and exquisite artistic sensibilities.
>
and other ramblings much resembling weak tea but smelling worse......
> I am too good for this group, that is for sure, but it is part of my
> noblesse oblige as a nobleman to favor it with my exalted presence. Maybe
> some of my high mindedness will rub off on them and they will get some
> culture and no longer speak of talking horses named Mr. Ed.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan - Minnesota
>
Unfortunately the culture you embrace made "Mr Ed" the horse a popular
character. How much better your culture would have been if you've
watched a bit, perhaps just one tiny wafer, of "the Life of Brian",that
epic "the Search for the Holy Grail" or "the Meaning of Life". I don't
know if you'd have replaced "Mr Ed" as your hero with Jabberwocky but at
least you'd have known what it was to be taking the piss out of your
self. Perhaps the Bristish humour doesn't reach you or is too humble or
even self-depreciating for your liking but Hollywood as a conveyance of
culture is too moralising, too prone to make their 'stars' into gods,
even their action films (anyone see "War of the Worlds", really two
movies in one? There was Steven Speilberg's movie and also Tom Cruise's
movie, all in one). So perhaps Mr Dolan is not cultured, more a symptom
of his culture, ready to moralise and deify. An unhappy spinoff of a
Hollywood-born theme.
Looking to other cultures, rather than disdaining them, is a survival
issue. It isn't so much a case of seeing that the grass is greener in my
paddock, more a way of seeing if I am making mistakes or creating
problems for myself. I'm sure that Nazi Germany thought as highly of
themselves as you Mr Dolan but they still lost the war and the Nuremburg
Trials. I'm sure others on ARBR look to the German culture of nowadays
for what they have produced in recumbent design, their HPV races, their
green technology and interesting legislation about bikes, autos and so
on. Amongst other cultures.
So please end the pontificating. Or the irreverence continues. And,
well, no one ever expects the Spanish Inquisition.
And now for something completely different.... recumbents! I once
Babblefished a German webpage to find out that my recumbent trike was a
couch bike.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 08 Dec 2005 21:07:00
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
"DD" <me@u.com > wrote in message
news:4398ccbf$0$22251$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
> ... I think he also likes Monty Python,
>> another idiotic comedy act which I also have never heard of due to my
>> good breeding and exquisite artistic sensibilities.
>>
> and other ramblings much resembling weak tea but smelling worse......
>
>> I am too good for this group, that is for sure, but it is part of my
>> noblesse oblige as a nobleman to favor it with my exalted presence. Maybe
>> some of my high mindedness will rub off on them and they will get some
>> culture and no longer speak of talking horses named Mr. Ed.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ed Dolan - Minnesota
>>
>
> Unfortunately the culture you embrace made "Mr Ed" the horse a popular
> character. How much better your culture would have been if you've watched
> a bit, perhaps just one tiny wafer, of "the Life of Brian",that epic "the
> Search for the Holy Grail" or "the Meaning of Life". I don't know if you'd
> have replaced "Mr Ed" as your hero with Jabberwocky but at least you'd
> have known what it was to be taking the piss out of your self. Perhaps the
> Bristish humour doesn't reach you or is too humble or even
> self-depreciating for your liking but Hollywood as a conveyance of culture
> is too moralising, too prone to make their 'stars' into gods, even their
> action films (anyone see "War of the Worlds", really two movies in one?
> There was Steven Speilberg's movie and also Tom Cruise's movie, all in
> one). So perhaps Mr Dolan is not cultured, more a symptom of his culture,
> ready to moralise and deify. An unhappy spinoff of a Hollywood-born theme.
What you say about Hollywood is, alas, only too true. However, British humor
does not travel well, whereas American humor does, no matter how bad it is.
I am probably one of the very few Americans who actually likes much of
British humor, but I can also see where its shortcomings lie.
By the way, Ed Dolan is NEVER a symptom of anything. Au contraire, he is
forever and a day a law unto himself.
Also, by the way, Mr. Ed (the talking horse) is Mr. Tom Sherman's favorite
show, not mine. I hardly know the horse, having glimpsed only brief coming
attractions notices on TV. Hells Bells, I don't even like horses. I like
cats, not horses. After all, a horse is a horse of course ... In short, I
do not acknowledge horses.
Jackie Mason, the Jewish comedian, once quipped he would rather be ried
to a horse or a chair than to a woman. Now, that is funny!
> Looking to other cultures, rather than disdaining them, is a survival
> issue. It isn't so much a case of seeing that the grass is greener in my
> paddock, more a way of seeing if I am making mistakes or creating problems
> for myself. I'm sure that Nazi Germany thought as highly of themselves as
> you Mr Dolan but they still lost the war and the Nuremburg Trials. I'm
> sure others on ARBR look to the German culture of nowadays for what they
> have produced in recumbent design, their HPV races, their green technology
> and interesting legislation about bikes, autos and so on. Amongst other
> cultures.
> So please end the pontificating. Or the irreverence continues. And, well,
> no one ever expects the Spanish Inquisition.
Every culture can make a claim to fame, but still not all cultures are
created equal. We should discriminate among cultures the same way we
discriminate when it comes to picking friends. To understand all is not to
forgive all. On the contrary. Understanding can just as easily lead to
condemnation as to anything else.
For instance, I think Muslim culture, where ever it is found, is just plain
horrible, and it mostly springs from their abominable religion as well as
having primitive Arab roots. When ever you get to thinking Christianity is
bad, all you ever have to do is look around you at other religions to get
some perspective, at which point you realize that Christianity is the only
religion that is deserving of becoming the universal religion.
As to Nazi Germany, the Germans should have been destined to rule all of
Europe as a super power since they had the superior culture among Europeans.
What was there to stand in their way? Certainly not the despicable French
and the other Mediterranean cultures. It is too bad Germany fell under the
influence of an evil ideology (one derived from the Left I might mention).
Germany properly understood could have become synonymous with Europe. Maybe
it still will, unless the Muslims from North Africa take over the continent.
Demography is destiny in the long run and it is only the third world peoples
who are breeding and emigrating. Tom Sherman and I are going the way of the
Dodo Bird, bound for extinction because we are not breeding. How about you,
DD?
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
PS. Yea! Ed Dolan is THE great pontificator. That is what I was put in the
world to do - and I do it extremely well, if I do say so myself!
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 Dec 2005 23:51:33
From: Mike Rice
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 15:52:46 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net >
wrote:
<snip >
>
>To sum up, Ed Dolan is the most refined and cultured gentleman ever to show
>up on this benighted newsgroup, otherwise known as ARBR. He ought to be
>awarded a medal of valor for putting up with all low lifes that inhabit this
>group. It takes someone of great mental courage like Ed Dolan to weather the
>crudities that constantly assail one here on ARBR.
Do I detect storm clouds on the horizon? Or only paridy?
Just as I was hoping the black rainbows were going to stay away for a
while, too.
>
>I am too good for this group, that is for sure, but it is part of my
>noblesse oblige as a nobleman to favor it with my exalted presence. Maybe
>some of my high mindedness will rub off on them and they will get some
>culture and no longer speak of talking horses named Mr. Ed.
Only when some equine backside is showing.
I, for one, have stayed away from that apellation since your civil
return. Even in your less pleasant visitations one thing I have
thought admirable in your posting style was your (sometimes)
willingness to respond in kind. I hit some of your buttons and got
railed over, called some harsh (and likely untrue-you didn't know much
of me then) expletives, but when I posted again with rationality (or
at least less offensive humour) you treated me accordingly.
I seem to remember some others weren't so lucky, but then once you
turned on them they fought back. Last words and all.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ed Dolan - Minnesota
>
>PS. I am thinking of writing a very long message to ARBR in praise of
>myself. Stay tuned.
>
>
'Ode to an Ed'.
Could fit right in with a Mont Python athon.
But this sounds like a step backwards, more along the ravings of the
Ed Dolan gleefully anticipating his numerical toppling of the ARBR
jaugernaut. That was not your finest hour, Ed.
Go ahead, you'll do as you please, as always. But if you fall on your
face and start being hounded by the gnats who used to pounce on your
every post, know the reason why.
Indiana Mike
>
|
| | | | | |
Date: 08 Dec 2005 20:12:46
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
"Mike Rice" <jodymike@gte.net > wrote in message
news:uqghp119qb9mhfgq2384u2okpqmemq3h76@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 15:52:46 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net>
> wrote:
[...]
> I, for one, have stayed away from that apellation since your civil
> return. Even in your less pleasant visitations one thing I have
> thought admirable in your posting style was your (sometimes)
> willingness to respond in kind. I hit some of your buttons and got
> railed over, called some harsh (and likely untrue-you didn't know much
> of me then) expletives, but when I posted again with rationality (or
> at least less offensive humour) you treated me accordingly.
>
> I seem to remember some others weren't so lucky, but then once you
> turned on them they fought back. Last words and all.
Every message is sui generis with me. I do note who it is from, but far more
important is what is being said regardless of who it is from. I will always
respond in kind of course. Everyone knows at least that much about me by
now.
But the bottom line is that I have absolutely no interest in any one here,
at least not as individual persons. I am always thinking in terms of
prototypes. For instance, "Slugger" stands in for pure unadulterated
stupidity (even though he knows a lot about computers). "Skip" stands in for
pure unadulterated sharp wit. And that is the way I respond to them - as
prototypes. I do not KNOW anyone in cyber space and I never will. Everyone
here on ARBR is nothing more or less than a prototype to me.
At this point I could tell you what Tom Sherman represents to me, in terms
of a prototype, but that would be another story which would take us too far
afield.
[...]
> Go ahead, you'll do as you please, as always. But if you fall on your
> face and start being hounded by the gnats who used to pounce on your
> every post, know the reason why.
There is no one left on this newsgroup thanks to the criminal vandal troll.
I wonder that you stick around. I think the group is pretty much dead right
now. There aren't even any gnats left for me to swat.
Regards,
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
|
| | |
Date: 01 Dec 2005 00:27:22
From: Mike Rice
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Jim,
Sorry about the unconventional formatiing of this post, your top
posting and the length and repetive nature of this thread have
confounded me enough to break with normal etiquette this time.
I suspect that TS has strong suspicions as to the identity of the
perpetrator in question. I don't think he has misled us about this.
Saying that there is not positve proof of said identity is merely
stating factual information.
The most telling statement I believe I recal from TS's posts is the
one about clean hands. I am not privy to much of these shenanigans,
but am willing to concede TS may have more information than I care to
know about some of the individuals on both sides.
As far as I can tell Tom is taking the high ground here by refusing to
engage in personal attacks, even when (strong?) circumstantial
evidence may suggest said attacks may not be far off target.
Myself, I'm all for more riding and less attacking ;-) .
Indiana Mike
|
| |
Date: 30 Nov 2005 02:04:03
From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
jimmymac_4@yahoo.com wrote:
> Tom,
>
> I see that Jim McNaa acknowledges that there are other possible
> authors of the posts ["I was one that contended that Ed had a
> couple of accomplices (not including sock puppets) and he still does"].
> This is grounds for reasonable doubt - there are people that are not Ed
> Gin that have been known to both use sock puppets and have a dislike
> for highracers, Bacchetta and BROL (this statement should not be
> interpreted to say that Ed Gin has done such things; rather it is
> neutral on the matter).
>
> --> You should never use neutral and Ed Gin in the same sentence. They
> are diametrically opposed to one another. Don't twist my words or
> infer something that I never intended. I never claimed that Ed was the
> only culprit. He is (in my opinion) the most malicious one and the one
> who inspires his band of two. Is that clear enough for you now?
> Granted, there are at least two other vocal individuals that I know of
> that have been known to dislike highracers, Bacchetta, BROL and a whole
> lot more including uprights and anyone who just happens to disagree
> with their cycling philosophy, but allow me to repeat that which you
> conveniently chose to ignore. Any participation on their part deemed
> objectionable does not exonerate the third member of the ex-Monkey
> Island consortium who is their mentor. In other words, this isn't
> grounds for doubt so much as it is grounds to consider that there is
> more than a single culprit.
>
> To support Jim McNaa's contention that I am an accomplice by
> pointing out reasonable doubt as to the identity of the HRS blog author
> is to condemn all defense lawyers as being accomplices to their
> client's alleged crimes. Let us discard the concept of innocent until
> proven guilty, and punish on the basis of mere suspicion without proof.
>
> --> Perhaps accomplice is too strong a word. In spite of all your
> objections to the contrary you have discounted Ed's culpability with
> doubts and excuses piled one on top of the other, so how about ally?.
> Yep, ally works for me. I think that one suits you just fine.
>
> ...and I resent your having associated my name with the blog even
> hypothetically.
>
> To quote the fictional character Bart Simpson, "Don't have a cow, man!"
>
> --> You need to have a fictional character do you talking for you?
> Snappy comeback (read meaningless sound byte).
>
> The author of the HRS blog and posts COULD be The Dalai Lama, Nelson
> Mandela, Pope Benedict XVI, Emperor Akihito, George Walker Bush, the
> Nobel Peace Prize Committee, Usama bin Laden, Lance Armstrong, Alan
> Greenspan or Vladimir Putin for all we KNOW. Not remotely probable, but
> possible. Hell, for that matter, I could be the author - l live in
> Chicagoland and have a SBC DSL connection.
>
> --> You span the gamut from the mundane to the ridiculous ... I'll give
> you that. Diversionary disinformation aside, would you consider this a
> viable list of candidates? Now if you changed Alan's last name
> (Greenspan), we might be closer to the truth.
>
> It is interesting to note that Jim McNaa "resent[s] your having
> associated my name with the blog even hypothetically", yet he is
> willing to accuse someone else of being the author without having
> proof.
>
> --> If anything I have indicated that I suspect three individuals to be
> active participants, but I have not named an author as you have
> wrongfully asserted. Did you notice though that when I made my first
> post there was an immediate response of a threat to author a Jimmy
> linseed blog, that old chestnut? I know that was jus a coincidence and
> could very well have been posted by Dalai Lama, Nelson Mandela, Pope
> Benedict XVI, Emperor Akihito, George Walker Bush, the Nobel Peace
> Prize Committee, Usama bin Laden, Lance Armstrong, Alan Greenspan or
> Vladimir Putin. You know what is really funny about all this. If the
> gutless cowards who are responsible for the blog and the objectionable
> past and present posts were to use their real names and email
> addresses, then there would be no discussion about who is or who is not
> responsible. That begs the question. If those responsible are so
> proud of what they're doing, then why don't they step forward to be
> recognized ... take pride in their accomplishments ... garner the
> recognition they so richly deserve? The truth of the matter is that
> they don't want to be known as the source of all this nonsense. That
> begs still another question ... WHY??? Got an answer for that one? As
> concerns accusations, this is exactly why the FBI does profiling. As
> you so rightly indicated, there are only a couple of individuals who
> just happen to fit the profile for this particular kind of conduct.
> >From personal experience, I know that Ed Gin just happens to be one.
> Another happens to be one whom I have done battle with along with Ed.
> Anyone interested can find the banter. It is all archived. Tom you
> needn't bother because you know of whom I speak. Now back to Ed. I
> never specifically accused him as the author of the blog. In fact, I
> heard another name mentioned as the author, someone who is a friend of
> Eds. Understand, though that the author is only solely responsible for
> the blog and its contents if he is the solely the one involved. Anyone
> providing input into the blog is every bit as responsible as the
> author. If you think for one moment that Ed is not a participant, then
> there is just no hope for you, since you friendship has obscured you
> objectivity. Whether you care to acknowledge it or not, the blog and
> the nasty newsgroup posts are right up his alley. His track record
> speaks for itself. He has been banished from several moderated forums.
> That's one of the reasons Monkey Island came into being and when it
> folded, Ed returned to the unmoderated arena of the newsgroup to run
> his mouth cloaked in one of his many pseudonyms. I know the timing was
> purely coincidental ... right? The blog came into being for very much
> the same reason.
>
> Jim McNaa should be aware that it is possible to hack into any
> computer connected to the Internet and to send email using the owner's
> account without the owner's knowledge. While ISP records would be
> strong CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE of the authoring of the HRS blog and
> related posts, it is not ABSOLUTE PROOF of the author(s) identity.
>
> --> Possible ... yes, but farfetched ... for sure. So tell me is
> someone breaking into Ed's house to use his PC (another one of you
> theories) or is someone hacking into Ed's PC, or what will we hear
> next, that for all you know I'm standing over him with a gun at his
> head. Sound familiar. That's your style of argumentation. As their
> self-appointed mouthpiece, just how far are you willing to stretch
> things in your vain attempt mount a defense?
>
> Here Jim McNaa is presenting his BELIEF of the HRS bog authoring as
> PROVEN FACT. The error in his logic is obvious.
>
> --> Flaw in my logic? The bog is a FACT. The blog has an unnamed
> (note the keyword here) author because no one wants to take credit for
> such trash and that too is a fact. What I am saying is that there are
> several individuals that have an established profile and readily
> identifiable writing style that makes them obvious candidates. Where's
> the flaw in that logic? As you said ... there are people that are not
> Ed Gin that have been known to both use sock puppets and have a dislike
> for highracers, Bacchetta and BROL. It amazes me though that you
> continue to exclude Ed as though he has not been known to use sock
> puppets and have a dislike for highracers, Bacchetta and BROL. We all
> know differently now, don't we?
>
> For the sake of argument, I have a SBC DSL line and could imitate the
> style of the HRS blog quite easily. Again, CIRCUMSTANTIAL grounds for
> further investigation, but not PROOF of authorship.
>
> --> And besides paving the way out for the guilty, what's your point?
> What would imitation prove other than you could possibly do it? Those
> responsible are not imitating anyone. They are just doing their thing.
> For the sake of argument, I presume that you have more integrity than
> this lot and consequently would not even consider authoring such a
> blog, so your point is moot.
>
> See above. It is a known fact that Internet connected computers can be
> hacked and emails sent and other activities conducted without the
> computer owner's knowledge. Improbable, yes. Impossible, no.
>
> --> It is also a know fact that the skill set required is possessed by
> only a small minority of people, so yes improbable is an appropriate
> word.
>
> Note that I am NOT saying that Ed Gin is not the author of the HRS blog
> and associated posts. I am merely pointing out that no one has PROVED
> THE IDENTITY OF THE HRS blog author. I am defending the concept of
> innocent until proven guilty (yes, I know it is an unpopular concept in
> the 21st century United States) but one that is mandatory for a society
> to be considered just.
>
> --> OK, we agree on the innocent until proven guilty thing, but you
> have to admit that the circumstantial evidence accumulated over time is
> formidable. You also have to admit that this conduct is inappropriate
> and should not be condoned. You don't have to say so, but I suspect
> that deep down you suspect the very same people that I do, but because
> of your convictionc, you are not as predisposed to spit out a name. If
> you notice ,I've only spit out one (and wasn't the first to do so),
> but we've been at each other's throats for years now ... that's no
> secret....
A lot of heat but no light - nowhere in the above is there refutation
of my position that accusations of authorship of the HRS blog are
OPINIONS, not FACTS. Until someone has proof of authorship, they should
qualify their accusations as opinions.
To his credit, Jim McNaa will at stick around to argue his point,
unlike others who fling out baseless accusations of delusions and
illogic and then cut and run from the discussion.
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
| | |
Date: 30 Nov 2005 12:40:39
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
"Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1133345043.013723.27280@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[...]
> A lot of heat but no light - nowhere in the above is there refutation
> of my position that accusations of authorship of the HRS blog are
> OPINIONS, not FACTS. Until someone has proof of authorship, they should
> qualify their accusations as opinions.
The ARBR readership came to a conclusion about this mess long ago. It is
only you who continues to have a reservation. That right there ought to tell
you something, but it doesn't because you are stubborn and willful. You
should try to become more like me, a good soul with malice toward none,
except criminal vandal trolls of course. It is OK to dislike a criminal
vandal troll and to speak out against him. But I have never yet known you to
have your priorities in order.
> To his credit, Jim McNaa will at stick around to argue his point,
> unlike others who fling out baseless accusations of delusions and
> illogic and then cut and run from the discussion.
I believe I am like Jim that way too. I will argue about something until the
cows come home, unless and until I am bested by a superior intelligence. The
likelihood of that ever happening on this group is very remote.
I ask that all of you left here on ARBR cultivate my virtues of modesty and
humility and above all, rationality. Try to think clearly about who might be
causing what without demanding that we get lawyers involved.
Regards,
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
|
| |
Date: 29 Nov 2005 22:52:25
From:
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Tom,
I see that Jim McNaa acknowledges that there are other possible
authors of the posts ["I was one that contended that Ed had a
couple of accomplices (not including sock puppets) and he still does"].
This is grounds for reasonable doubt - there are people that are not Ed
Gin that have been known to both use sock puppets and have a dislike
for highracers, Bacchetta and BROL (this statement should not be
interpreted to say that Ed Gin has done such things; rather it is
neutral on the matter).
-- > You should never use neutral and Ed Gin in the same sentence. They
are diametrically opposed to one another. Don't twist my words or
infer something that I never intended. I never claimed that Ed was the
only culprit. He is (in my opinion) the most malicious one and the one
who inspires his band of two. Is that clear enough for you now?
Granted, there are at least two other vocal individuals that I know of
that have been known to dislike highracers, Bacchetta, BROL and a whole
lot more including uprights and anyone who just happens to disagree
with their cycling philosophy, but allow me to repeat that which you
conveniently chose to ignore. Any participation on their part deemed
objectionable does not exonerate the third member of the ex-Monkey
Island consortium who is their mentor. In other words, this isn't
grounds for doubt so much as it is grounds to consider that there is
more than a single culprit.
To support Jim McNaa's contention that I am an accomplice by
pointing out reasonable doubt as to the identity of the HRS blog author
is to condemn all defense lawyers as being accomplices to their
client's alleged crimes. Let us discard the concept of innocent until
proven guilty, and punish on the basis of mere suspicion without proof.
-- > Perhaps accomplice is too strong a word. In spite of all your
objections to the contrary you have discounted Ed's culpability with
doubts and excuses piled one on top of the other, so how about ally?.
Yep, ally works for me. I think that one suits you just fine.
...and I resent your having associated my name with the blog even
hypothetically.
To quote the fictional character Bart Simpson, "Don't have a cow, man!"
-- > You need to have a fictional character do you talking for you?
Snappy comeback (read meaningless sound byte).
The author of the HRS blog and posts COULD be The Dalai Lama, Nelson
Mandela, Pope Benedict XVI, Emperor Akihito, George Walker Bush, the
Nobel Peace Prize Committee, Usama bin Laden, Lance Armstrong, Alan
Greenspan or Vladimir Putin for all we KNOW. Not remotely probable, but
possible. Hell, for that matter, I could be the author - l live in
Chicagoland and have a SBC DSL connection.
-- > You span the gamut from the mundane to the ridiculous ... I'll give
you that. Diversionary disinformation aside, would you consider this a
viable list of candidates? Now if you changed Alan's last name
(Greenspan), we might be closer to the truth.
It is interesting to note that Jim McNaa "resent[s] your having
associated my name with the blog even hypothetically", yet he is
willing to accuse someone else of being the author without having
proof.
-- > If anything I have indicated that I suspect three individuals to be
active participants, but I have not named an author as you have
wrongfully asserted. Did you notice though that when I made my first
post there was an immediate response of a threat to author a Jimmy
linseed blog, that old chestnut? I know that was jus a coincidence and
could very well have been posted by Dalai Lama, Nelson Mandela, Pope
Benedict XVI, Emperor Akihito, George Walker Bush, the Nobel Peace
Prize Committee, Usama bin Laden, Lance Armstrong, Alan Greenspan or
Vladimir Putin. You know what is really funny about all this. If the
gutless cowards who are responsible for the blog and the objectionable
past and present posts were to use their real names and email
addresses, then there would be no discussion about who is or who is not
responsible. That begs the question. If those responsible are so
proud of what they're doing, then why don't they step forward to be
recognized ... take pride in their accomplishments ... garner the
recognition they so richly deserve? The truth of the matter is that
they don't want to be known as the source of all this nonsense. That
begs still another question ... WHY??? Got an answer for that one? As
concerns accusations, this is exactly why the FBI does profiling. As
you so rightly indicated, there are only a couple of individuals who
just happen to fit the profile for this particular kind of conduct.
>From personal experience, I know that Ed Gin just happens to be one.
Another happens to be one whom I have done battle with along with Ed.
Anyone interested can find the banter. It is all archived. Tom you
needn't bother because you know of whom I speak. Now back to Ed. I
never specifically accused him as the author of the blog. In fact, I
heard another name mentioned as the author, someone who is a friend of
Eds. Understand, though that the author is only solely responsible for
the blog and its contents if he is the solely the one involved. Anyone
providing input into the blog is every bit as responsible as the
author. If you think for one moment that Ed is not a participant, then
there is just no hope for you, since you friendship has obscured you
objectivity. Whether you care to acknowledge it or not, the blog and
the nasty newsgroup posts are right up his alley. His track record
speaks for itself. He has been banished from several moderated forums.
That's one of the reasons Monkey Island came into being and when it
folded, Ed returned to the unmoderated arena of the newsgroup to run
his mouth cloaked in one of his many pseudonyms. I know the timing was
purely coincidental ... right? The blog came into being for very much
the same reason.
Jim McNaa should be aware that it is possible to hack into any
computer connected to the Internet and to send email using the owner's
account without the owner's knowledge. While ISP records would be
strong CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE of the authoring of the HRS blog and
related posts, it is not ABSOLUTE PROOF of the author(s) identity.
-- > Possible ... yes, but farfetched ... for sure. So tell me is
someone breaking into Ed's house to use his PC (another one of you
theories) or is someone hacking into Ed's PC, or what will we hear
next, that for all you know I'm standing over him with a gun at his
head. Sound familiar. That's your style of argumentation. As their
self-appointed mouthpiece, just how far are you willing to stretch
things in your vain attempt mount a defense?
Here Jim McNaa is presenting his BELIEF of the HRS bog authoring as
PROVEN FACT. The error in his logic is obvious.
-- > Flaw in my logic? The bog is a FACT. The blog has an unnamed
(note the keyword here) author because no one wants to take credit for
such trash and that too is a fact. What I am saying is that there are
several individuals that have an established profile and readily
identifiable writing style that makes them obvious candidates. Where's
the flaw in that logic? As you said ... there are people that are not
Ed Gin that have been known to both use sock puppets and have a dislike
for highracers, Bacchetta and BROL. It amazes me though that you
continue to exclude Ed as though he has not been known to use sock
puppets and have a dislike for highracers, Bacchetta and BROL. We all
know differently now, don't we?
For the sake of argument, I have a SBC DSL line and could imitate the
style of the HRS blog quite easily. Again, CIRCUMSTANTIAL grounds for
further investigation, but not PROOF of authorship.
-- > And besides paving the way out for the guilty, what's your point?
What would imitation prove other than you could possibly do it? Those
responsible are not imitating anyone. They are just doing their thing.
For the sake of argument, I presume that you have more integrity than
this lot and consequently would not even consider authoring such a
blog, so your point is moot.
See above. It is a known fact that Internet connected computers can be
hacked and emails sent and other activities conducted without the
computer owner's knowledge. Improbable, yes. Impossible, no.
-- > It is also a know fact that the skill set required is possessed by
only a small minority of people, so yes improbable is an appropriate
word.
Note that I am NOT saying that Ed Gin is not the author of the HRS blog
and associated posts. I am merely pointing out that no one has PROVED
THE IDENTITY OF THE HRS blog author. I am defending the concept of
innocent until proven guilty (yes, I know it is an unpopular concept in
the 21st century United States) but one that is mandatory for a society
to be considered just.
-- > OK, we agree on the innocent until proven guilty thing, but you
have to admit that the circumstantial evidence accumulated over time is
formidable. You also have to admit that this conduct is inappropriate
and should not be condoned. You don't have to say so, but I suspect
that deep down you suspect the very same people that I do, but because
of your convictionc, you are not as predisposed to spit out a name. If
you notice ,I've only spit out one (and wasn't the first to do so),
but we've been at each other's throats for years now ... that's no
secret.
I am willing to further explain any of the above the others have
trouble understanding.
-- > I'm having trouble understanding your sentence ;^)
Jim
Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic wrote:
> jimmymac_4@yahoo.com (Jim McNaa) wrote:
> > Tom,
> >
> > As concerns doubt and you your score keeping ... Sufficient doubt about
> > what? Let me see if I've got this right. You can recall TWO ... count
> > 'em ... TWO instances when the majority was wrong. Then it logically
> > follows that that majority was right the majority of the time and the
> > minority was wrong the most all of the time. I was one that contented
> > that Ed had a couple of accomplices (not including sock puppets) and he
> > still does, but even you have to admit. In the past and in the present
> > Ed Gin remains the priy troll and driving force at the heart of all
> > this and you can't deny that. To defend him is unconscionable and in
> > so doing, that makes you tantamount to being an accomplice the only
> > difference being that you at least have to courage to use your real
> > name and email address.
>
> I see that Jim McNaa acknowledges that there are other possible
> authors of the posts ["I was one that contented (sic) that Ed had a
> couple of accomplices (not including sock puppets) and he still does"].
> This is grounds for reasonable doubt - there are people that are not Ed
> Gin that have been known to both use sock puppets and have a dislike
> for highracers, Bacchetta and BROL (this statement should not be
> interpreted to say that Ed Gin has done such things; rather it is
> neutral on the matter).
>
> To support Jim McNaa's contention that I am an accomplice by
> pointing out reasonable doubt as to the identity of the HRS blog author
> is to condemn all defense lawyers as being accomplices to their
> client's alleged crimes. Let us discard the concept of innocent until
> proven guilty, and punish on the basis of mere suspicion without proof.
>
> > As concerns the author of the blog ... Talk about twisted logic. Let's
> > get things straight. I don't have to do anything to make Ed Gin look
> > bad. He is his own worst enemy and does a bang up job of that all by
> > himself. I have already gone on record in a previous post stating that
> > I would not stoop to Ed's level and author a disgusting, denigrating
> > blog, one which you excuse away as satire protected by the 1st
> > amendment ... fiddle-faddle! I suppose you could make the same
> > argument in defense of the "I fuck my mother" too, but I suspect you
> > might just see things differently if you were on the receiving end
> > (read victim). It was most inappropriate for you to postulate the
> > improbable. FACT .... If I were to author a blog, Ed Gin would be my
> > focus ... not the Aero highracer, not the Bacchetta company and not
> > designer Rich Pinto, all of whom I happen to have respect.
> > Entertaining the ludicrous notion that I could callously use Bachetta
> > and Rich Pinto as a stepping-stone to trash Ed Gin is patently absurd
> > and I resent your having associated my name with the blog even
> > hypothetically.
>
> To quote the fictional character Bart Simpson, "Don't have a cow, man!"
>
> The author of the HRS blog and posts COULD be The Dalai Lama, Nelson
> Mandela, Pope Benedict XVI, Emperor Akihito, George Walker Bush, the
> Nobel Peace Prize Committee, Usama bin Laden, Lance Armstrong, Alan
> Greenspan or Vladimir Putin for all we KNOW. Not remotely probable, but
> possible. Hell, for that matter, I could be the author - l live in
> Chicagoland and have a SBC DSL connection.
>
> It is interesting to note that Jim McNaa "resent[s] your having
> associated my name with the blog even hypothetically", yet he is
> willing to accuse someone else of being the author without having
> proof.
>
> > As concerns evidence ... What does "rigged" have to do with this or
> > even jury or bench trial for that matter? How did what I say escape
> > you powers of perception or was this all deliberately misconstrued?
> > What I basically asked was if subpoenaed records from an ISP serve as
> > sufficient proof. Since they would in a court of law the point was
> > moot and the question rhetorical in nature.
>
> Jim McNaa should be aware that it is possible to hack into any
> computer connected to the Internet and to send email using the owner's
> account without the owner's knowledge. While ISP records would be
> strong CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE of the authoring of the HRS blog and
> related posts, it is not ABSOLUTE PROOF of the author(s) identity.
>
> > As concerns names ... You and I would probably come up with two that
> > would match and several other people who have posted here could likely
> > do the same. Lets face it; I referred to the ex-Monkey Island
> > consortium for good reason because there are priily three
> > individuals that are involved in the blog and posts in the past and
> > present. They are no less guilty than Ed Gin, but their involvement
> > does not diminish Ed's guilt either....
>
> Here Jim McNaa is presenting his BELIEF of the HRS blog authoring as
> PROVEN FACT. The error in his logic is obvious.
>
> > I received some private emails
> > today from the email address on the blog. The writing style was
> > unmistakable and the originating ISP address (which cannot be forged)
> > when run though a program to discombobulate the numbers, indicated a
> > broadband DSL connection through Ameritech.net in Chicago, Illinois.
> > Ed's provider is sbcblobal.net. SBC bought Ameritech and apparently
> > left some of the existing network architecture place. Coincidence?...
>
> For the sake of argument, I have a SBC DSL line and could imitate the
> style of the HRS blog quite easily. Again, CIRCUMSTANTIAL grounds for
> further investigation, but not PROOF of authorship.
>
> > I think not, but I know that you dismissed all the previous email header
> > analysis stating that it was feasible that someone else could be using
> > Ed's PC and you demanded videotape proof. Balderdash. To my way of
> > thinking, if someone else was allowed to use Ed's PC, that alone
> > proves his involvement....
>
> See above. It is a known fact that Internet connected computers can be
> hacked and emails sent and other activities conducted without the
> computer owner's knowledge. Improbable, yes. Impossible, no.
>
> > Take your blinders off Tom. I'm not saying
> > that Ed is the only culprit, just the priy one with at least 2
> > accomplices and you know who they are just as well as I do. I have no
> > use for any of them, but focus on Ed because he is their mentor, their
> > guiding light to the dark side and they are his devoted disciples (read
> > lemmings).
>
> Note that I am NOT saying that Ed Gin is not the author of the HRS blog
> and associated posts. I am merely pointing out that no one has PROVED
> THE IDENTITY OF THE HRS blog author. I am defending the concept of
> innocent until proven guilty (yes, I know it is an unpopular concept in
> the 21st century United States) but one that is mandatory for a society
> to be considered just.
>
> I am willing to further explain any of the above the others have
> trouble understanding.
> --
> Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
| | |
Date: 07 Dec 2005 20:38:32
From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Mike Rice wrote:
> On 7 Dec 2005 18:46:00 -0800, "Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic"
> <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <Big snip>
> ...
> >I have no interest in continuing this argument in private, as that
> >would not entertain me in the least.
>
> And the readership, I suppose, is perfectly capable of ignoring this
> thread, or even filtering it if we find it that bad. Am I jumping the
> fence here?
>
> I think my comment was more along the lines of 'I imagine some wish
> you would..' than 'you two should..' regarding taking this to private
> e-mail. I have a difficult time believing either of you would bother
> this long without an audience. I wouldn't be too surprised if the
> length & depth of this arguement wound up reviewed as a feature in the
> blog site.
I am disinterested in Jim McNaa's opinion of me, so why should I
discuss this over email? Without the argument being public, there would
be no point. After all, we are discussing public accusations (that lack
proof) towards certain individuals.
> <snip>
> >
> >I was looking for a public fight, so I could demonstrate that Mr. Pinto
> >could not back up his insults. Mr. Pinto disappointed me by cutting and
> >running. Ask Ed Dolan if I am the type to back down. See
> ><http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent/browse_frm/thread/e543438ebd2cd4a5/a51b6598f00906d3?q=flammable&rnum=1#a51b6598f00906d3>.
> >;)
> >
>
> That's Tom, all right, always looking for a public fight.
Hey, I could go over to a certain moderated forum and play nice with
all the self-congratulatory "Killer B's", but that would be boring and
mentally stifling.
Give me real discussion, or give me sleep!
> Sorry, Mr. Sherman, but I've been accused of only picking on one side
> here.
>
> <snip>
> >>
> >> Ah, the truism!
> >>
> <snip>
> >
> >But where is the proof? The world wonders [1]?
> >
> >[1] Gratuitous Task Force 34 reference.
>
> Thought I'd leave the important part.
Yes, Admiral Halsey was peeved. Too bad he died over four (4) decades
before he had the opportunity to enjoy the Velokraft NoCom [Fastest
Unfaired Bike in the Known Universe], the Earth Cycles Sunset Lowracer
[Most Fun Bike in the Known Universe] and even the ReBike [Slowest Bike
in the Known Universe]. ;)
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
"are there stones on distant mountain decents king the gored and
deceased? arms and wrists broken ?
or is this unreported?" - G. Daniels
|
| |
Date: 29 Nov 2005 00:47:03
From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
jimmymac_4@yahoo.com (Jim McNaa) wrote:
> Tom,
>
> As concerns doubt and you your score keeping ... Sufficient doubt about
> what? Let me see if I've got this right. You can recall TWO ... count
> 'em ... TWO instances when the majority was wrong. Then it logically
> follows that that majority was right the majority of the time and the
> minority was wrong the most all of the time. I was one that contented
> that Ed had a couple of accomplices (not including sock puppets) and he
> still does, but even you have to admit. In the past and in the present
> Ed Gin remains the priy troll and driving force at the heart of all
> this and you can't deny that. To defend him is unconscionable and in
> so doing, that makes you tantamount to being an accomplice the only
> difference being that you at least have to courage to use your real
> name and email address.
I see that Jim McNaa acknowledges that there are other possible
authors of the posts ["I was one that contented (sic) that Ed had a
couple of accomplices (not including sock puppets) and he still does"].
This is grounds for reasonable doubt - there are people that are not Ed
Gin that have been known to both use sock puppets and have a dislike
for highracers, Bacchetta and BROL (this statement should not be
interpreted to say that Ed Gin has done such things; rather it is
neutral on the matter).
To support Jim McNaa's contention that I am an accomplice by
pointing out reasonable doubt as to the identity of the HRS blog author
is to condemn all defense lawyers as being accomplices to their
client's alleged crimes. Let us discard the concept of innocent until
proven guilty, and punish on the basis of mere suspicion without proof.
> As concerns the author of the blog ... Talk about twisted logic. Let's
> get things straight. I don't have to do anything to make Ed Gin look
> bad. He is his own worst enemy and does a bang up job of that all by
> himself. I have already gone on record in a previous post stating that
> I would not stoop to Ed's level and author a disgusting, denigrating
> blog, one which you excuse away as satire protected by the 1st
> amendment ... fiddle-faddle! I suppose you could make the same
> argument in defense of the "I fuck my mother" too, but I suspect you
> might just see things differently if you were on the receiving end
> (read victim). It was most inappropriate for you to postulate the
> improbable. FACT .... If I were to author a blog, Ed Gin would be my
> focus ... not the Aero highracer, not the Bacchetta company and not
> designer Rich Pinto, all of whom I happen to have respect.
> Entertaining the ludicrous notion that I could callously use Bachetta
> and Rich Pinto as a stepping-stone to trash Ed Gin is patently absurd
> and I resent your having associated my name with the blog even
> hypothetically.
To quote the fictional character Bart Simpson, "Don't have a cow, man!"
The author of the HRS blog and posts COULD be The Dalai Lama, Nelson
Mandela, Pope Benedict XVI, Emperor Akihito, George Walker Bush, the
Nobel Peace Prize Committee, Usama bin Laden, Lance Armstrong, Alan
Greenspan or Vladimir Putin for all we KNOW. Not remotely probable, but
possible. Hell, for that matter, I could be the author - l live in
Chicagoland and have a SBC DSL connection.
It is interesting to note that Jim McNaa "resent[s] your having
associated my name with the blog even hypothetically", yet he is
willing to accuse someone else of being the author without having
proof.
> As concerns evidence ... What does "rigged" have to do with this or
> even jury or bench trial for that matter? How did what I say escape
> you powers of perception or was this all deliberately misconstrued?
> What I basically asked was if subpoenaed records from an ISP serve as
> sufficient proof. Since they would in a court of law the point was
> moot and the question rhetorical in nature.
Jim McNaa should be aware that it is possible to hack into any
computer connected to the Internet and to send email using the owner's
account without the owner's knowledge. While ISP records would be
strong CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE of the authoring of the HRS blog and
related posts, it is not ABSOLUTE PROOF of the author(s) identity.
> As concerns names ... You and I would probably come up with two that
> would match and several other people who have posted here could likely
> do the same. Lets face it; I referred to the ex-Monkey Island
> consortium for good reason because there are priily three
> individuals that are involved in the blog and posts in the past and
> present. They are no less guilty than Ed Gin, but their involvement
> does not diminish Ed's guilt either....
Here Jim McNaa is presenting his BELIEF of the HRS blog authoring as
PROVEN FACT. The error in his logic is obvious.
> I received some private emails
> today from the email address on the blog. The writing style was
> unmistakable and the originating ISP address (which cannot be forged)
> when run though a program to discombobulate the numbers, indicated a
> broadband DSL connection through Ameritech.net in Chicago, Illinois.
> Ed's provider is sbcblobal.net. SBC bought Ameritech and apparently
> left some of the existing network architecture place. Coincidence?...
For the sake of argument, I have a SBC DSL line and could imitate the
style of the HRS blog quite easily. Again, CIRCUMSTANTIAL grounds for
further investigation, but not PROOF of authorship.
> I think not, but I know that you dismissed all the previous email header
> analysis stating that it was feasible that someone else could be using
> Ed's PC and you demanded videotape proof. Balderdash. To my way of
> thinking, if someone else was allowed to use Ed's PC, that alone
> proves his involvement....
See above. It is a known fact that Internet connected computers can be
hacked and emails sent and other activities conducted without the
computer owner's knowledge. Improbable, yes. Impossible, no.
> Take your blinders off Tom. I'm not saying
> that Ed is the only culprit, just the priy one with at least 2
> accomplices and you know who they are just as well as I do. I have no
> use for any of them, but focus on Ed because he is their mentor, their
> guiding light to the dark side and they are his devoted disciples (read
> lemmings).
Note that I am NOT saying that Ed Gin is not the author of the HRS blog
and associated posts. I am merely pointing out that no one has PROVED
THE IDENTITY OF THE HRS blog author. I am defending the concept of
innocent until proven guilty (yes, I know it is an unpopular concept in
the 21st century United States) but one that is mandatory for a society
to be considered just.
I am willing to further explain any of the above the others have
trouble understanding.
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
| | |
Date: 05 Dec 2005 19:04:10
From:
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Mike,
I see I confused you. No, I'm not saying that I am one of the
unfortunate people who are being attacked in the HRS blog. If I rode a
highracer, undoubtedly I would be inducted in a heartbeat. They've
threatened to honor me with a separate blog, but they know that I could
care less what these fools do to piss away their time. What I was
specifically referring to was said during the Johnny NoCom post
periods. Among other things, I was accused of drinking their cum wads
(their vulgar words not mine). You see these guys are real sweethearts.
The fact of the matter is, that I have done battle with them in many
forums over the years. The blog phenomenon I just a new wrinkle. I'd
like to refer you to my observations as to why the blog format is so
popular with these malcontents. Read my recent post about the failure
of their efforts and the increase in Bacchetta sales. Understand that
you'll find many here that also post on moderated forums. Those that I
have condemned here do not, because forum after moderated forum have
kicked them off. Ask yourself why the common denominator is and better
yet as those as some of these forum, such as BROL who they are and you
will find that they are the very same that I have fingered as those
responsible. Did you hear what I just said Mr. Sherman? In know just
more coincidence. How high does the coincidental and the
circumstantial have to be stacked before you can acknowledge that there
just might be something to all this.
Jim McNaa
|
| | |
Date: 05 Dec 2005 18:00:37
From:
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Mike,
Apology accepted.
Understand that I have restated my position simply because Tom restates
his. I address what he says and he ignores, sidesteps much of what I
have said. In all fairness, I have tried to introduce something new
and different with each iteration. I can't' say the same for Tom. I
find that with Tom, like Ed Dolan said, you find yourself hammering
your point home again and again in an effort to get Tom to take a stand
and commit, and he seldom does unless it just happens to be some shred
of something from which to hide behind in order not to have to go on
record as making a stand, but I digress.
Mike, if you only viewed some of the blog, you don't really have a good
feel for just how offensive it really is. It's pretty nasty and that
is specifically why I resent it being glossed over as acceptable
parody. Tom may find it acceptable, but I'm thinking that if he was
the object of focus, he'd have an entirely different take on it.
Hopefully this thread will not go on much longer. I've grown tired of
it too. Tom and I may just have to agree to disagree and having
reached an impasse, move on. I just didn't want some of what he had to
say on behalf of his associates to go uncontested. I know where you
stand on the proof issue, but I can tell you that I am familiar with
two of the three that I suspect and have had first hand experience with
them for many years now. In other word this may be new to others but
this is old familiar territory of many years gone by and the more of it
you hear the more it all sounds the same and for good reason ... same
old crap from the same people.
Jim McNaa
|
| | |
Date: 05 Dec 2005 17:56:29
From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Mike Rice wrote:
> On 5 Dec 2005 17:16:18 -0800, jimmymac_4@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >I was parroting what these buffoons
> >said of me as an example of just how far these depraved individuals are
> >willing to go. Now do you understand?
> >
>
> Jim,
>
> I never gave much of a look at that blog, just one quick glance was
> more than it deserved. Are you saying that you are one of the poeple
> being attacked over there?
>
> No wonder you are so upset.
>
> Sorry,
The HRS blog did not refer to Jim McNaa in a derogatory manner, but
this recent post did:
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent/msg/3034748f582d05c4?dmode=source&hl=en >.
Jim McNaa is likely also be referring to this past post by "Johnny
NoCom":
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent/msg/8e465e8932cd2e13?dmode=source >.
It appears that Jim McNaa believes that the same person(s) is (are)
behind both "Johnny NoCom" and the HRS blog.
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Dec 2005 22:08:00
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
"Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1133834189.849077.219140@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Mike Rice wrote:
>> On 5 Dec 2005 17:16:18 -0800, jimmymac_4@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> >I was parroting what these buffoons
>> >said of me as an example of just how far these depraved individuals are
>> >willing to go. Now do you understand?
>> >
>>
>> Jim,
>>
>> I never gave much of a look at that blog, just one quick glance was
>> more than it deserved. Are you saying that you are one of the poeple
>> being attacked over there?
>>
>> No wonder you are so upset.
>>
>> Sorry,
>
> The HRS blog did not refer to Jim McNaa in a derogatory manner, but
> this recent post did:
> <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent/msg/3034748f582d05c4?dmode=source&hl=en>.
>
> Jim McNaa is likely also be referring to this past post by "Johnny
> NoCom":
> <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent/msg/8e465e8932cd2e13?dmode=source>.
>
> It appears that Jim McNaa believes that the same person(s) is (are)
> behind both "Johnny NoCom" and the HRS blog.
Yes, and that person is Ed Gin.
Next query please!
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
|
| | |
Date: 29 Nov 2005 23:44:55
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
"Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1133254023.942998.273460@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[...]
> For the sake of argument, I have a SBC DSL line and could imitate the
> style of the HRS blog quite easily. Again, CIRCUMSTANTIAL grounds for
> further investigation, but not PROOF of authorship.
Actually it is a lot of work to try to imitate someone else's style of
writing. It also requires quite a bit of intelligence. For instance, I do
not believe I could ever imitate Mr. Sherman's turgid style (unless I were
to die first and come back from the grave as a ghoul) or Gin's brainless
exuberant style.
Further, I don't believe anyone in this world could ever imitate my
inimitable style. You would have to get inside my head and think like I do
in order to succeed. But admittedly it would be easier to imitate Gin than
it would be me, Mr. Sherman or, most particularly, Jim McNaa. Jim has a
very distinctive style which I have never seen before on Usenet. He deserves
better than Mr. Sherman and Gin.
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Nov 2005 08:38:15
From: Tony Raven
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> For instance, I do
> not believe I could ever imitate Mr. Sherman's turgid style (unless I were
> to die first and come back from the grave as a ghoul) or Gin's brainless
> exuberant style.
>
having written earlier:
> This newsgroup gets worse and worse every year. It has become nothing but a
> repository of vituperation and vileness. It is like we are in a contest to
> see who can outdo one another in insult and denigration.
See what you mean Ed.
--
Tony
"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
|
| | | | |
Date: 30 Nov 2005 12:19:56
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
"Tony Raven" <junk@raven-family.com > wrote in message
news:3v56npF13ipr4U1@individual.net...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>
>> For instance, I do not believe I could ever imitate Mr. Sherman's turgid
>> style (unless I were to die first and come back from the grave as a
>> ghoul) or Gin's brainless exuberant style.
>>
>
> having written earlier:
>
>> This newsgroup gets worse and worse every year. It has become nothing but
>> a repository of vituperation and vileness. It is like we are in a contest
>> to see who can outdo one another in insult and denigration.
>
> See what you mean Ed.
It is quite unfair to hold me accountable for anything I ever say to this
newsgroup. You wouldn't like it if I did it to you. But surely you have
noted my gentler and kinder words lately respecting Mr. Sherman.
The truth is that Mr. Sherman and I have been going round and round from day
one, saying confounded things to one another ad infinitum ad nauseam - and I
don't think that is ever going to change. However, I will allow no one, not
even the redoubtable Mr. Sherman, to get to the right of me on the stupidity
question. This group at least deserves that much from the Great Ed Dolan,
aka Saint Edward the Great, Order of the Perpetual Sorrows, Minnesota.
Regards,
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
|
| | | | | |
Date: 30 Nov 2005 20:22:26
From: Tony Raven
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Edward Dolan wrote:
> This group at least deserves that much from the Great Ed Dolan,
> aka Saint Edward the Great, Order of the Perpetual Sorrows, Minnesota.
>
Nurse! Another dose of lithium for Mr Dolan please. He's having
another delusional episode ;-)
--
Tony
"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
|
| | |
Date: 29 Nov 2005 23:09:59
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
"Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1133254023.942998.273460@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[...]
> Note that I am NOT saying that Ed Gin is not the author of the HRS blog
> and associated posts. I am merely pointing out that no one has PROVED
> THE IDENTITY OF THE HRS blog author. I am defending the concept of
> innocent until proven guilty (yes, I know it is an unpopular concept in
> the 21st century United States) but one that is mandatory for a society
> to be considered just.
>
> I am willing to further explain any of the above the [that] others have
> trouble understanding.
>
> Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
Mr. Sherman's sophistry fails because it does not persuade. On the other
hand Joao DE Souza's modest presentation concerning the headers involved
more than convinces.
Same old score:
Joao DE Souza = 100; Tom Sherman = 0.
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
PS. By the way, there are real courts and then there is the court of public
opinion. The latter is what prevails here on ARBR. Try not to confuse the
two.
|
| |
Date: 28 Nov 2005 21:42:24
From:
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Tom,
As concerns doubt and you your score keeping ... Sufficient doubt about
what? Let me see if I've got this right. You can recall TWO ... count
'em ... TWO instances when the majority was wrong. Then it logically
follows that that majority was right the majority of the time and the
minority was wrong the most all of the time. I was one that contented
that Ed had a couple of accomplices (not including sock puppets) and he
still does, but even you have to admit. In the past and in the present
Ed Gin remains the priy troll and driving force at the heart of all
this and you can't deny that. To defend him is unconscionable and in
so doing, that makes you tantamount to being an accomplice the only
difference being that you at least have to courage to use your real
name and email address.
As concerns the author of the blog ... Talk about twisted logic. Let's
get things straight. I don't have to do anything to make Ed Gin look
bad. He is his own worst enemy and does a bang up job of that all by
himself. I have already gone on record in a previous post stating that
I would not stoop to Ed's level and author a disgusting, denigrating
blog, one which you excuse away as satire protected by the 1st
amendment ... fiddle-faddle! I suppose you could make the same
argument in defense of the "I fuck my mother" too, but I suspect you
might just see things differently if you were on the receiving end
(read victim). It was most inappropriate for you to postulate the
improbable. FACT .... If I were to author a blog, Ed Gin would be my
focus ... not the Aero highracer, not the Bacchetta company and not
designer Rich Pinto, all of whom I happen to have respect.
Entertaining the ludicrous notion that I could callously use Bachetta
and Rich Pinto as a stepping-stone to trash Ed Gin is patently absurd
and I resent your having associated my name with the blog even
hypothetically.
As concerns evidence ... What does "rigged" have to do with this or
even jury or bench trial for that matter? How did what I say escape
you powers of perception or was this all deliberately misconstrued?
What I basically asked was if subpoenaed records from an ISP serve as
sufficient proof. Since they would in a court of law the point was
moot and the question rhetorical in nature.
As concerns names ... You and I would probably come up with two that
would match and several other people who have posted here could likely
do the same. Lets face it; I referred to the ex-Monkey Island
consortium for good reason because there are priily three
individuals that are involved in the blog and posts in the past and
present. They are no less guilty than Ed Gin, but their involvement
does not diminish Ed's guilt either. I received some private emails
today from the email address on the blog. The writing style was
unmistakable and the originating ISP address (which cannot be forged)
when run though a program to discombobulate the numbers, indicated a
broadband DSL connection through Ameritech.net in Chicago, Illinois.
Ed's provider is sbcblobal.net. SBC bought Ameritech and apparently
left some of the existing network architecture place. Coincidence? I
think not, but I know that you dismissed all the previous email header
analysis stating that it was feasible that someone else could be using
Ed's PC and you demanded videotape proof. Balderdash. To my way of
thinking, if someone else was allowed to use Ed's PC, that alone
proves his involvement. Take your blinders off Tom. I'm not saying
that Ed is the only culprit, just the priy one with at least 2
accomplices and you know who they are just as well as I do. I have no
use for any of them, but focus on Ed because he is their mentor, their
guiding light to the dark side and they are his devoted disciples (read
lemmings).
Jim McNaa
|
| |
Date: 28 Nov 2005 16:19:24
From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
jimmymac_4@yahoo.com (Jim McNaa) wrote:
> Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic wrote:
>
> > I will point out that no one has yet PROVED the identity of the
> > person(s) behind the HRS blog. Without proof, accusations of identity
> > should not be made.
>
> Tom,
>
> It appears that even without that which you would consider to be
> definitive proof, it is generally accepted by the majority (from
> circumstantial evidence) that the identity of those responsible are
> known, with little room for doubt....
The majority has been wrong in the past. I can recall at least two (2)
cases when Ed Gin was blamed for posts where I know for certain that
the poster was not Ed Gin. This leaves sufficient room for doubt in my
mind.
> No one has yet DISPROVED the identity of the person(s) responsible for the HRS blog > or recent posts here and in the past....
The only way to DISPROVE that someone is behind the HRS blog is to
prove someone else responsible. Case in point; it is POSSIBLE that the
HRS blog and related posts are by Jim McNaa in an attempt to make Ed
Gin look bad.
Do I believe this to be true?
No, but it shows where the burden of proof needs to lie.
> If this nonsense ever spills over into a courtroom, ISP records could be subpoenaed
> and proof would be established. Would that be acceptable enough for you?
In the absence of evidence of a rigged trial, I would accept the
conclusions reached by the jury (or judge in a bench trial).
> It sound like you are trying to be objective and fair in all this, but
> reading between the lines, it is apparent with whom you are allied....
Based on past events, I can think of several people who names have not
been mentioned on this thread who might be responsible for the HRS blog
and postings. (I suspect that Jim McNaa might well come up with a
similar list.) This is another reason why there is reasonable doubt as
to the identity of the person(s) behind HRS.
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
| | |
Date: 05 Dec 2005 17:43:05
From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Mike Rice from Indiana wrote:
> On 5 Dec 2005 12:49:48 -0800, jimmymac_4@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> ...
> >Yeah, I top-posted here for goo reason. Eeverything is self contained
> >and in sequence, including the reinstatement of #1 that had been
> >omitted in the reply..
>
> As long as you had a goo reason...speaking of long, you certainly do
> go on, don't you?
ROTFLMO!
> ...
> The boundaries of good taste fall far short than those of protected
> parody. Remember Larry Flint vs Jerry Fallwell?
>
> >Lest I remind you
> >again, I'm the guy who fucks his mother.
>
> And you complain about crossing the boundaries of good taste?
A rather appropriate example, since Jerry Falwell sued Larry Flynt for
publishing a parody liquor advertisement where Falwell talks about
losing his virginity to his mother in an outhouse.
>
> >--> See my response to your first paragraph. The offer was made with
> >an escape clause to cover you ass and even provided with a private
> >email exchange option and yet still you weaseled out. The offer still
> >stands by the way.
> >
>
> Some of us wish you would take this to private e-mail, I guess it must
> not be worth the effort. I believe you only get responses here because
> the lurkers need to know there is more than one viewpoint....
Discussing this over private email would be pointless, since the crux
of the matter revolves over voicing suspicions and/or accusations in
this public forum.
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Dec 2005 01:47:30
From: Mike Rice
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
On 5 Dec 2005 17:43:05 -0800, "Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic"
<sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
>Discussing this over private email would be pointless, since the crux
>of the matter revolves over voicing suspicions and/or accusations in
>this public forum.
This was the point I was trying to make.
Thanks for stating it clearly.
Indiana Mike
|
| | |
Date: 05 Dec 2005 17:16:18
From:
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Inidana Mike Rice,
Since only you will be interested in this response I top-posted but
will make every effort to keep this succinct and precise to minimize
further offense. Sorry about "how I go on". Yes, I can be verbose,
but I often find that it takes more than a few words to say what needs
to be said especially when your adversary is someone like Tom Sherman.
Ask Ed Dolan.
You said you recall Tom's 2 posts. I simply overlooked them. Your,
"There are none so blind..." rek is rather unfair since I expressed
interest in those post.
You asked ... "and you complain about crossing the boundaries of good
taste?" ... in reference to the I fuck my mother rek. What didn't
you understand about what I said? I was parroting what these buffoons
said of me as an example of just how far these depraved individuals are
willing to go. Now do you understand?
When someone commits a crime, the media always refers to that person as
the "alleged" perpetrator so that it cannot ever be claimed that the
because of the media a person cannot be given a fair trial. This is as
obvious a legal technicality as you question was rhetorical.
Nonetheless a videotape of the criminal activity may be introduced as
evidence that a crime was committed.
OK, I will stop saying no one else here needs a real level of proof.
You can count yourself among the minority of two ... you and Tom.
Satisfied?
Your condensed synopsis is so miserably inadequate as to converge on
uselessness. You have yet to even recognize that the lack of humor in
what I've written is inherent because I don't find this the least bit
humorous and it is not my intent to entertain the readership. This is
not comedy central. How is it that you failed to cite Tom's endless
repetition when you cited mine? How is it that you failed to label Tom
a troll when you labeled me one? Correct me if I'm wrong, but unlike
the HRS blog this is a dialogue not a monologue. Look, Tom and I are
having disagreement and we are debating an issue in a public forum ...
nothing more ... nothing less. I don't consider Tom to be troll
anymore than I consider myself to be one. Your label simply doesn't
fit. I refer you to Ed Dolan's reks in this regard.
Jim McNaa
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Dec 2005 13:58:00
From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1134117142.096208.236370@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Edward Dolan wrote:
> >> ...
> >> Well, yes, there is not much relationship anymore to where it all came
> >> from.
> >> But still we know where most leftist ideology comes from - x and
> >> Lenin.
> >
> > Groucho x? ;)
> >
> >> Ah, for the good old days of the Berlin Wall. Damn that Reagan anyway =
for
> >> winning the Cold War for America and the West!....
> >
> > Ed Dolan must mean Gorbachev as the person responsible for ending the
> > cold war [1]. The cold war could have ended a decade earlier, but
> > certain people in the Ford administration deliberately sabotaged
> > detente' in the 1970's. They were Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
> > and White House Chief of Staff Richard Cheney - I wonder what ever
> > happened to those two?
> >
> > [1] Fearless prediction. As time passes, Gorbachev's reputation will
> > gain luster, while Reagan's will become more tarnished.
>
> All of the above is absurd! Any more Presidents like Carter and the US wo=
uld
> have been defeated. Reagan came along just in the nick of time to save us
> from the liberal folly. The idea of d=E9tente with the Evil Empire just t=
urns
> my stomach!
>
> Gorbachev is destined to be either forgotten altogether if Russia becomes=
a
> success or to be reviled if Russia fails. The Russians will then hold
> Gorbachev responsible for not adequately defending the old Soviet Union.
>
> However the liberals want to play it, the fact is that the Soviet Union d=
id
> not fall of itself. The US had everything to do with it. The Cold War was
> real and all the proxy wars that the US fought on behalf of the West,
> particularly in Korea and Vietnam, had everything to do with the final
> victory.
Hey Eddie,
Go easy on your diet of right-wing talk radio and commentary. It is bad
for you mental health.
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
"the bacteria people tuned in-as to bioengineering at the correct
wave=20
Point" - G. Daniels
|
| | | | |
Date: 10 Dec 2005 21:44:43
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
"Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1134251880.190703.68720@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1134117142.096208.236370@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Edward Dolan wrote:
> >> ...
> >> Well, yes, there is not much relationship anymore to where it all came
> >> from.
> >> But still we know where most leftist ideology comes from - x and
> >> Lenin.
> >
> > Groucho x? ;)
> >
> >> Ah, for the good old days of the Berlin Wall. Damn that Reagan anyway
> >> for
> >> winning the Cold War for America and the West!....
> >
> > Ed Dolan must mean Gorbachev as the person responsible for ending the
> > cold war [1]. The cold war could have ended a decade earlier, but
> > certain people in the Ford administration deliberately sabotaged
> > detente' in the 1970's. They were Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
> > and White House Chief of Staff Richard Cheney - I wonder what ever
> > happened to those two?
> >
> > [1] Fearless prediction. As time passes, Gorbachev's reputation will
> > gain luster, while Reagan's will become more tarnished.
>
> All of the above is absurd! Any more Presidents like Carter and the US
> would
> have been defeated. Reagan came along just in the nick of time to save us
> from the liberal folly. The idea of détente with the Evil Empire just
> turns
> my stomach!
>
> Gorbachev is destined to be either forgotten altogether if Russia becomes
> a
> success or to be reviled if Russia fails. The Russians will then hold
> Gorbachev responsible for not adequately defending the old Soviet Union.
>
> However the liberals want to play it, the fact is that the Soviet Union
> did
> not fall of itself. The US had everything to do with it. The Cold War was
> real and all the proxy wars that the US fought on behalf of the West,
> particularly in Korea and Vietnam, had everything to do with the final
> victory.
Tom Sherman wrote:
Hey Eddie,
Go easy on your diet of right-wing talk radio and commentary. It is bad
for you[r] mental health.
Edward Dolan wrote:
The liberal media no longer have the news all to themselves like they used
to when old Walter Cronkite was pontificating on CBS. The execrable NY Times
and Washington Post have lots of competition now. Talk radio has changed
everything for the better as has Fox News and innumerable other conservative
media which hardly existed during the Vietnam War.
This forum, ARBR, was also overrun by liberal know nothings before I showed
up, but that is no longer the case thanks to me. Those who formerly thought
it was a grand thing to do nothing but bash Bush and the Republicans have
learned that they will now be rebutted. We have some balance here where
before there was none.
Liberals like Mr. Sherman would prefer that they be able to spout their
political nonsense without being heckled by the likes of me. However, that
isn't going to happen if I have anything to say about it. I don't listen to
Limbaugh and O'Reilly for nothing you know. Scarborough and Hannity are
pretty good too, but for a real dose of reality you have to go to Mike
Savage. Damn! I can't get him anymore. I think he has been canceled. He was
just too raw for most.
Regards,
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Dec 2005 01:38:50
From: Mike Rice
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
On 5 Dec 2005 17:16:18 -0800, jimmymac_4@yahoo.com wrote:
>I was parroting what these buffoons
>said of me as an example of just how far these depraved individuals are
>willing to go. Now do you understand?
>
Jim,
I never gave much of a look at that blog, just one quick glance was
more than it deserved. Are you saying that you are one of the poeple
being attacked over there?
No wonder you are so upset.
Sorry,
Indiana Mike
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Dec 2005 01:34:59
From: Mike Rice
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
On 5 Dec 2005 17:16:18 -0800, jimmymac_4@yahoo.com wrote:
>Inidana Mike Rice,
>
>Since only you will be interested in this response I top-posted but
>will make every effort to keep this succinct and precise to minimize
>further offense. Sorry about "how I go on". Yes, I can be verbose,
>but I often find that it takes more than a few words to say what needs
>to be said especially when your adversary is someone like Tom Sherman.
>Ask Ed Dolan.
>
>You said you recall Tom's 2 posts. I simply overlooked them. Your,
>"There are none so blind..." rek is rather unfair since I expressed
>interest in those post.
>
>You asked ... "and you complain about crossing the boundaries of good
>taste?" ... in reference to the I fuck my mother rek. What didn't
>you understand about what I said? I was parroting what these buffoons
>said of me as an example of just how far these depraved individuals are
>willing to go. Now do you understand?
>
>When someone commits a crime, the media always refers to that person as
>the "alleged" perpetrator so that it cannot ever be claimed that the
>because of the media a person cannot be given a fair trial. This is as
>obvious a legal technicality as you question was rhetorical.
>Nonetheless a videotape of the criminal activity may be introduced as
>evidence that a crime was committed.
>
>OK, I will stop saying no one else here needs a real level of proof.
>You can count yourself among the minority of two ... you and Tom.
>Satisfied?
>
>Your condensed synopsis is so miserably inadequate as to converge on
>uselessness. You have yet to even recognize that the lack of humor in
>what I've written is inherent because I don't find this the least bit
>humorous and it is not my intent to entertain the readership. This is
>not comedy central. How is it that you failed to cite Tom's endless
>repetition when you cited mine? How is it that you failed to label Tom
>a troll when you labeled me one? Correct me if I'm wrong, but unlike
>the HRS blog this is a dialogue not a monologue. Look, Tom and I are
>having disagreement and we are debating an issue in a public forum ...
>nothing more ... nothing less. I don't consider Tom to be troll
>anymore than I consider myself to be one. Your label simply doesn't
>fit. I refer you to Ed Dolan's reks in this regard.
>
>Jim McNaa
Sorry if I ruffled your feathers Jim.
I had hoped that the constant restating of your (this pronoun is not
necessarily singular, you know) positions was fading off somewhat. I
myself found the blog offensive and would rather not see more
attention drawn to it, although I fail to see that it rises to the
level of criminal activity.
I knew I was making unfair reks, sometimes I do get carried away.
I don't believe I am alone in this category.
The trolling reference was for Ed's benefit, I retract the percieved
jab, and hope you will accept my apology.
In any regards, it does appear this thread may go on, although I doubt
any new information will be unfolding therein.
I will attempt to refrain from adding useless commentary.
Indiana Mike
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 Dec 2005 21:24:29
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
"Mike Rice" <jodymike@gte.net > wrote in message
news:dvp9p1topisb5m9hiadbq720fd255dogl3@4ax.com...
[...]
> I had hoped that the constant restating of your (this pronoun is not
> necessarily singular, you know) positions was fading off somewhat. I
> myself found the blog offensive and would rather not see more
> attention drawn to it, although I fail to see that it rises to the
> level of criminal activity.
Mike, you need to have a look at last winter's messages on ARBR to see the
criminal activity. Names of real persons were being forged by Ed Gin. I can
take almost anything, but I cannot take criminal activity. Only Ed Gin has
been guilty of this so far as I know.
[...]
Regards,
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
|
| | | | | |
Date: 06 Dec 2005 03:48:14
From: Mike Rice
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 21:24:29 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net >
wrote:
>
>"Mike Rice" <jodymike@gte.net> wrote in message
>news:dvp9p1topisb5m9hiadbq720fd255dogl3@4ax.com...
>[...]
>> I had hoped that the constant restating of your (this pronoun is not
>> necessarily singular, you know) positions was fading off somewhat. I
>> myself found the blog offensive and would rather not see more
>> attention drawn to it, although I fail to see that it rises to the
>> level of criminal activity.
>
>Mike, you need to have a look at last winter's messages on ARBR to see the
>criminal activity. Names of real persons were being forged by Ed Gin. I can
>take almost anything, but I cannot take criminal activity. Only Ed Gin has
>been guilty of this so far as I know.
>[...]
>
>Regards,
>
>Ed Dolan - Minnesota
>
>
I remember the posts you mention.
In another lifetime I toyed with anonymous posting, enjoying
conversation with a group I believed my best interest would not be
served by doing so in public. At that time I learned of a little
program that would ping & chain remailers, encrypt the post, send it
off into the ether to be forwarded to multiple remailers, stripping
all headers and source info at each adress en route. As each remailer
had a unique encryption key, the message only became decipherable at
the final forwarding.
A newbie turned up in the group, asking advice on how to post
anonymously, and I told him about the program.
Within a few weeks many, many posts began appearing with forged
signatures of most of the regulars in the group. The only thing they
had in common were an ad line imposed by the program.
Prior to the newbie, I had been the only one in that group using the
program.
Fortunately, in this instance, a single post pointing out this fact
(while not naming names) brought a quick apology and an end to the
offending posts.
Would that all rapscallions were so easily removed.
Indiana Mike
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 05 Dec 2005 23:00:56
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
"Mike Rice" <jodymike@gte.net > wrote in message
news:vj1ap194jkgkuqb42cnbfee4tt12d2gjbl@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 21:24:29 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Rice" <jodymike@gte.net> wrote in message
>>news:dvp9p1topisb5m9hiadbq720fd255dogl3@4ax.com...
>>[...]
>>> I had hoped that the constant restating of your (this pronoun is not
>>> necessarily singular, you know) positions was fading off somewhat. I
>>> myself found the blog offensive and would rather not see more
>>> attention drawn to it, although I fail to see that it rises to the
>>> level of criminal activity.
>>
>>Mike, you need to have a look at last winter's messages on ARBR to see the
>>criminal activity. Names of real persons were being forged by Ed Gin. I
>>can
>>take almost anything, but I cannot take criminal activity. Only Ed Gin has
>>been guilty of this so far as I know.
>>[...]
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Ed Dolan - Minnesota
>>
>>
>
> I remember the posts you mention.
>
> In another lifetime I toyed with anonymous posting, enjoying
> conversation with a group I believed my best interest would not be
> served by doing so in public. At that time I learned of a little
> program that would ping & chain remailers, encrypt the post, send it
> off into the ether to be forwarded to multiple remailers, stripping
> all headers and source info at each adress en route. As each remailer
> had a unique encryption key, the message only became decipherable at
> the final forwarding.
>
>
> A newbie turned up in the group, asking advice on how to post
> anonymously, and I told him about the program.
>
> Within a few weeks many, many posts began appearing with forged
> signatures of most of the regulars in the group. The only thing they
> had in common were an ad line imposed by the program.
>
> Prior to the newbie, I had been the only one in that group using the
> program.
>
> Fortunately, in this instance, a single post pointing out this fact
> (while not naming names) brought a quick apology and an end to the
> offending posts.
>
> Would that all rapscallions were so easily removed.
>
> Indiana Mike
Mike, what you say about going anonymous is very interesting and I was not
aware of what was possible in that direction. I guess we could all do that ,
but it just seems so pointless. After all, I want to be known by my name. I
simply have too much ego to ever want to be anonymous.
But more importantly, I only want to talk to other law abiding decent human
beings. I do not mind if others want to use user names. I may end up doing
that myself one of these days. But the names should stay the same, whether
your real name or a user name.
To play around with names is a form of insanity. We all need to know who is
who so we can appropriately respond to one another. Nevertheless, to use
another person's name not your own in either your signature or your header
address is the sign of a real stinker. Once I have determined someone is
doing this I will have nothing further to do with him except to cuss him
out.
Apparently the use of sock puppets is not quite the same thing as you are
describing above. However, I do not like that subterfuge either. I like to
be open and above board. That is the beauty of Usenet for me. I will say
things to this group that I would never say to anyone that I actually know
in real life. I simply do not understand why anyone would want to ruin a
newsgroup.
Best Regards,
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Dec 2005 03:22:11
From: Mike Rice
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 23:00:56 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net >
wrote:
<snip >
>
>Mike, what you say about going anonymous is very interesting and I was not
>aware of what was possible in that direction. I guess we could all do that ,
>but it just seems so pointless. After all, I want to be known by my name. I
>simply have too much ego to ever want to be anonymous.
>
>But more importantly, I only want to talk to other law abiding decent human
>beings. I do not mind if others want to use user names. I may end up doing
>that myself one of these days. But the names should stay the same, whether
>your real name or a user name.
I should add that I had an alias name that I used every time when I
was dabbling in this area. In part I got started because I was new to
computers and a very knowledgable friend told me there was no way I
could send him an e-mail that he would be unable to trace back to me.
It was fun to show him that a newbie could learn something he hadn't
thought of.
>
>To play around with names is a form of insanity. We all need to know who is
>who so we can appropriately respond to one another. Nevertheless, to use
>another person's name not your own in either your signature or your header
>address is the sign of a real stinker. Once I have determined someone is
>doing this I will have nothing further to do with him except to cuss him
>out.
>
>Apparently the use of sock puppets is not quite the same thing as you are
>describing above. However, I do not like that subterfuge either. I like to
>be open and above board. That is the beauty of Usenet for me. I will say
>things to this group that I would never say to anyone that I actually know
>in real life. I simply do not understand why anyone would want to ruin a
>newsgroup.
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Ed Dolan - Minnesota
>
>
For a while I thought you might be using a sock puppet, during that
time when you were talking to yourself in some of the posts. I usually
feel you are above that sort of behaviour, k my words.
I even wondered if Ed Gin was your sock puppet, can you believe that?
The current incarnation of Ed Dolan has me pretty well convinced that
my suspitions were ill-founded. Either you have won some respect, or
fooled me.
Indiana Mike
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Dec 2005 22:10:37
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
"Mike Rice" <jodymike@gte.net > wrote in message
news:4v8fp110bfs3p1sash32dvqs92e11atpn2@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 23:00:56 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net>
> wrote:
> <snip>
>>
>>Mike, what you say about going anonymous is very interesting and I was not
>>aware of what was possible in that direction. I guess we could all do that
>>,
>>but it just seems so pointless. After all, I want to be known by my name.
>>I
>>simply have too much ego to ever want to be anonymous.
>>
>>But more importantly, I only want to talk to other law abiding decent
>>human
>>beings. I do not mind if others want to use user names. I may end up doing
>>that myself one of these days. But the names should stay the same, whether
>>your real name or a user name.
>
> I should add that I had an alias name that I used every time when I
> was dabbling in this area. In part I got started because I was new to
> computers and a very knowledgable friend told me there was no way I
> could send him an e-mail that he would be unable to trace back to me.
> It was fun to show him that a newbie could learn something he hadn't
> thought of.
Still, I am under the impression that it is not really possible to hide your
Internet address. Your ISP will have it no matter what efforts you go
through via proxies, etc.
>>To play around with names is a form of insanity. We all need to know who
>>is
>>who so we can appropriately respond to one another. Nevertheless, to use
>>another person's name not your own in either your signature or your header
>>address is the sign of a real stinker. Once I have determined someone is
>>doing this I will have nothing further to do with him except to cuss him
>>out.
>>
>>Apparently the use of sock puppets is not quite the same thing as you are
>>describing above. However, I do not like that subterfuge either. I like to
>>be open and above board. That is the beauty of Usenet for me. I will say
>>things to this group that I would never say to anyone that I actually know
>>in real life. I simply do not understand why anyone would want to ruin a
>>newsgroup.
>>
>>Best Regards,
>>
>>Ed Dolan - Minnesota
>>
>>
> For a while I thought you might be using a sock puppet, during that
> time when you were talking to yourself in some of the posts. I usually
> feel you are above that sort of behaviour, k my words.
I will on occasion post a message to a previous message of mine when I am in
high good humour, but I am not hiding who I am. Therefore, I am not behaving
like a sock puppet. It is all open and above board and everyone can see
exactly what I am doing. I talk to myself in real life all the time - and
out loud too.
> I even wondered if Ed Gin was your sock puppet, can you believe that?
Horrors! I deeply regret that we even have the same first name. I may
jettison my Ed for Edward in the future, maybe even Eddie.
> The current incarnation of Ed Dolan has me pretty well convinced that
> my suspitions were ill-founded. Either you have won some respect, or
> fooled me.
>
> Indiana Mike
I am an OK guy, but when others bring sexual and/or excretory allusions into
the discussion, I will admit that I go berserk. I have always been in favor
of good clean swearing, even to using the name of our Lord in vain, as I
come from a long line of Irishmen who were world experts at it. But they and
I never make allusions to the sexual function or the excretory function,
except in retaliation of course. Why can't everyone just swear good and
clean like me?
Regards,
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
|
| | |
Date: 01 Dec 2005 11:00:34
From:
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Indiana Mike Rice,
> Be careful with those apologies. Remeber that tihis is usenet, we are
> expected to flame on, not apologize.
--- > I stand corrected and retract my apology. That reminds me. It's
time to get my asbestos suit out of the cleaners ;~)
> I use the Agent newsreader and when I click on 'post a followup' the
> post I am responding to appears in blue, with the added number of '>'
> ks denoting the layers of quoted text. My cursor is not present
> until I click wherever I choose to insert my (not-so-humble) reks.
>
> This makes it very easy to scroll down to whichever point I care to
> adress. Placing my comments directly below the points I am adressing
> makes it easy for the reader to follow the flow of the conversation.
>
> If the post I am adressing has become very long, I am likely to edit
> out significant portions to minimize the amount of srolling one must
> do to get to the meat of the matter. It is considerate to indicate
> that a cut has been made (<snip>, ... , whatever).
--- > I know it's a great application, but I prefer not to add layers
of software unless absolutely necessary. I've been hanging around on
the internet now for 15 years or more, so I understand about <snip >,
but I don't' generally bother in a 2-way cyber-conversation. Besides,
I didn't snip any of what you wrote here. I generally do emails the
way you do posts, but use ... instead of --- > like I did here. It
works for me, but there are those who don't like the interspersed
technique, which arguably can get confusing if a give and take ensues.
What I did this go around, was to just cut and paste (highlighted >
CTR-C > CTRL-V) your post into Word so that I could edit your post,
compose my response and take advantage of the spell checker. Then, I
deleted the quoted text and cut and pasted the word document as my
posted reply. It works for me. I hope it works for you too.
> I am two hours south of you, very similar weather.
--- > Well, then you are likely beyond the fringe of lake effect
weather, but I suspect that your weather is still not significantly
different than ours.
> And I am sad to report that health complications have impacted
> my riding these last two months :-( .
--- > Do we live in a parallel universe? Since mi-August, I have
suffered from acute bacterial prostates, which I attempted to treat
with cranberry juice and numerous herbal alternatives to no avail.
Generally I ride about the same number of miles on my upright that I do
on my recumbent, but I had to dismount from the upright so as not to
aggravate the condition. Yesterday I finally threw in the towel and
went to the doctor. I'm taking Bactrim D/S (a double strength sufa
drug). That worked well for me when I had this condition 4 1/2 years
ago. Twice I have had a kidney stone, prostatitis and urniary tract
infection all at the same time ... no fun at all. I wouldn't wish
that on anyone ... well maybe one guy here, but I digress. It has been
refreshing change of pace to have a pleasant discourse instead of
engaging in cyber-warfare.
Jim
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Dec 2005 20:10:58
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
<jimmymac_4@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1133463634.211358.46600@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Indiana Mike Rice,
[...]
>> And I am sad to report that health complications have impacted
>> my riding these last two months :-( .
>
> ---> Do we live in a parallel universe? Since mi-August, I have
> suffered from acute bacterial prostates, which I attempted to treat
> with cranberry juice and numerous herbal alternatives to no avail.
> Generally I ride about the same number of miles on my upright that I do
> on my recumbent, but I had to dismount from the upright so as not to
> aggravate the condition. Yesterday I finally threw in the towel and
> went to the doctor. I'm taking Bactrim D/S (a double strength sufa
> drug). That worked well for me when I had this condition 4 1/2 years
> ago. Twice I have had a kidney stone, prostatitis and urniary tract
> infection all at the same time ... no fun at all. I wouldn't wish
> that on anyone ... well maybe one guy here, but I digress. It has been
> refreshing change of pace to have a pleasant discourse instead of
> engaging in cyber-warfare.
Not to get too far off the subject, but health problems have always
interested me greatly since I have had more than my share too.
I am convinced that riding an upright bike can cause all kinds of health
problems in the groin area. Bike saddles are murder on all the sensitive
tissues located there. I am not even altogether sure that Lance Armstrong
did not somehow contract his testicular cancer from riding his bike.
There have been many reports of penile numbness over the years from bike
riders and that is a sure sign to stop doing whatever it is that you are
doing. Most men will get an enlarged prostate with increasing age which will
impact the bladder function, but again I am not sure if riding an upright
bike does not make all these problems worse than they would otherwise be.
It cannot be right to sit on a bike saddle when it can cause so much misery
and pain, especially if done for prolonged periods of time. The recumbent
bike solves all groin problems as it is a seat and not a saddle. Once I
switched over permanently to a recumbent seat as opposed to a bike saddle, I
never had any more groin problems.
Regards,
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
|
| | |
Date: 28 Nov 2005 21:46:06
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
"Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1133223564.829939.13890@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[...]
>> No one has yet DISPROVED the identity of the person(s) responsible for
>> the HRS blog > or recent posts here and in the past....
I do not know about the HRS blog, but I certainly do not have any difficulty
at all in identifying the criminal vandal troll when he shows his ugly face
here on ARBR. He is ked by his style as are you and I. Circumstantial
evidence is more than enough to convict anyone of anything. It is far, far
better that ten innocent men go to the gallows than that one guilty man go
free.
[...]
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
PS. We shall soon see if anyone is paying attention to any of this.
|
| |
Date: 28 Nov 2005 10:52:43
From:
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic wrote:
> I will point out that no one has yet PROVED the identity of the
> person(s) behind the HRS blog. Without proof, accusations of identity
> should not be made.
> --
> Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
Tom,
It appears that even without that which you would consider to be
definitive proof, it is generally accepted by the majority (from
circumstantial evidence) that the identity of those responsible are
known, with little room for doubt. No one has yet DISPROVED the
identity of the person(s) responsible for the HRS blog or recent posts
here and in the past. If this nonsense ever spills over into a
courtroom, ISP records could be subpoenaed and proof would be
established. Would that be acceptable enough for you?
It sound like you are trying to be objective and fair in all this, but
reading between the lines, it is apparent with whom you are allied.
You know ... there comes a moment in childhood when a door swings open,
lets the future in and we venture forth into the unknown ... the realm
of adulthood. This threshold has yet to be encountered by the impudent
Monkey Island toddlers who remain confined to their Lilliputian,
infantile domain ... shackled by their prejudices ... constrained by
their myopic visions. Hopefully one day, they too will grow up, get a
life and move on and their insolence will be but a distant memory. In
the interim, we will have to endure their unmoderated mayhem and
patiently wait for them to succumb to the process of maturation. Will
this day ever come to pass? Probably not, but it doesn't hurt to
engage in wishful thinking.
We had a brief respite after Johnny NoCom and the band of sock puppets
disappeared, but I knew it was just a matter of time before the
pernicious blather would be heard once again from these unruly
malcontents.
Jim McNaa
|
| | |
Date: 10 Dec 2005 16:30:30
From:
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Tom,
First order of business - the quoting is a mess due to the nonstandard
method employed by the program Mr. McNaa is using.
This has become a nighte to follow, but it is not because of a
newsreader program that Mr. McNaa is using. I am not using a
program, just the Google Groups facility. So as not to add to the
confusion, I will just address a few issues right here at the top
rather than interspersed:
1. For what it is worth, unlike you, I have refrained from pointing out
many of your writing shortcomings (grammatical errors, misspellings,
mistakes, and keyboard slips) (egg "test" when you meant "text")
because your intent was communicated clearly enough and this is about
communication ... nothing more ... nothing less.
2. I am not in a contest with Mr. Dolan and appreciate his humor as
well, but understand, as Mr. Dolan so rightly pointed out it is not my
intention to amuse or entertain you.
3. When I have said something qualified with "as I know it", the
operative word being "I", it should be apparent that I understand this
means that I know something to be a fact. This does not imply that
said fact is not privy to someone else who does not know something "as
I know it". I didn't think that statement was in need of
clarification, but apparently you were again in need of interpreter and
I was happy to have been able to assist you in the clarification of
this rudimentary concept ... and, to think that you are someone who
regards himself as intelligent and logical.
4. As pointed out previously, there is nothing dishonest in having
employed a surname initial in order to facilitate communication that
would only be understood by those in or near the inner circle of the
JAG alliance. Just how was I being dishonest by complying with your
mandate that names not be mentioned until those names can be linked
conclusively to the events for which they have been accused? You
really do like putting your adversary in a damned if you do, damned if
you don't predicament don't you? Your finding that, with me, it is a
bit more difficult than it ordinarily is, aren't you?
5. I will not address your preposterous hypothetical story here since I
have already done so in another thread, but I will add that I have no
need or intention to prove that your possible conjecture is impossible
any more than you have any intention to prove that that my conjecture
is impossible. What is a "possible" conjecture? It either is or it is
not.
6. The Johnny NoCom posts and HRS blog have similarities other than
those that you selectively mentioned. I have faith in the readership's
ability to realize that without me having to enumerate. The clamoring
heard from them supports my contention.
7. The reason I have now been included in the blog only remotely has
something to do with accusing people without having proof. Those
involved need little provocation for them to spring into action and
their anticipated response serves to indicate that those whom I have
suspected all along are the ones responsible. It should be obvious,
even to you, that if it were someone other that those whom I suspect
... whose surname initials I provided and whose first initials you
provided (thanks again), there would have been no cause for a response.
The predictable and telling response in and of itself, in addition to
the inherent attributes of the response, serve as an indictment of the
culpable.
8. Readers, do not be led astray. This is another one of Tom's baffle
'em with bullshit replies to confuse the issue. Defining a public
figure from a moral perspective is absurd. Morality has nothing to do
with how a public figure is define where it matters ... in a court
room. Tom, since you are admittedly not a lawyer or a judge then why
not consider what the constitutional law professionals and the Supreme
Court have to say in this matter. Public figures are defined as
follows ... Those who by reason of the notoriety of their achievements
or the vigor and success with which they seek the public's attention,
or those who occupy positions of persuasive power and influence, or
those who have assumed roles of especial prominence in the affairs of
society and have assumed special prominence in the resolution of public
questions, or those who have thrust themselves to the forefront of
particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of
the issues involved are classified as public figures under the First
Amendment. Nonetheless, determination of public figure status is a
question of law, not fact. It is the trial judge who makes that
determination. It does not appear that the targeted individuals fall
into the category of "public figures" as defined, including myself. It
should also be noted that private individuals need only show that a
defamatory falsehood was made negligently (with reckless disregard as
to its truth). Demonstration of malice is not required. If someone
believes that a defamation has occurred through publication of a known
falsehood, the victim can initiate a civil action of libel against the
offending party and collect both compensatory and punitive damages.
The bottom line is that libel and libelous statements are beyond First
Amendment protection. Please note that nowhere do constitutional law
professionals or the Supreme Court include morality in its definition
of a public person, as does Mr. Sherman
9. I've said all that I intend to say with regard to retaliation and
violence and even litigation (again conveniently and deliberately
overlooked). As said previously, I don't have to answer to Mr. Sherman
for feeling as I do. He is free to pass judgment. His opinion in this
regards matters not. I don't answer to him.
10. I see that it is time to enlighten the unenlightened obtuse one ...
Mr. Sherman. The notion that one cannot be convicted on circumstantial
evidence is, of course, FALSE. Most criminal convictions are based on
circumstantial evidence because most criminals are careful not to
generate any direct evidence during the commission of a crime. Courts
often rely on circumstantial evidence to determine the facts of a case.
The laws regarding circumstantial evidence are complex and can vary by
case, but his much can be said. It is a popularly held (particularly
by Tom Sherman) that direct evidence is more important than
circumstantial evidence, however, the two are equal in weight in the
eyes of the law. Some legal experts would even argue that
circumstantial evidence can carry more weight in a case than direct
evidence. Criminal prosecutors often rely heavily on circumstantial
evidence to prove their case. Civil cases are often based solely, or
priily, on circumstantial evidence, particularly in cases involving
liability. Circumstantial evidence must prove beyond reasonable doubt
the guilt of a criminal defendant in order to elicit a conviction, the
keyword here being "reasonable", something that Tom is not. I trust
this clears things up regarding circumstantial evidence being
insufficient for conviction since this is an everyday occurrence in our
courtrooms. I think we can now put this one to rest. Tom can now quit
harping on this issue unless he wants to further embarrass himself.
Just a reminder, Tom ... don't forget to enroll in that basic logic
course.
11. Mr. McNaa did not misinterpret the "tongue in cheek" smiley
emoticon. I am well acquainted with the smiley as a staple of internet
culture. It should be noted that Mr. Sherman's statement could just as
easily have been made without the inclusion of a number (200), so
naturally assumed that the number had some degree of significance, at
least to Tom. I am convinced that Mr. Sherman would never compose a
sentence comprised of even the most minute, single detail that he would
deem insignificant. Consequently, my question still stands and remains
unanswered. I really am starting to question Tom's judgment. It makes
me wonder about his real mental state (note: a question, not an
accusation). On the other hand, Mr. Sherman consistently lives up to
my expectations.
12. Mr. Sherman has asked that I provide him with un-doctored
videotapes of those I accuse typing the HRS blog text into a computer
and then prove the blog was posted from that computer. He knows
perfectly well that direct evidence of this nature would be difficult,
if not impossible to obtain and might even require violation of the law
in the process and I'll not go there simply because that is what he
requires of me. I refer the readers, and Mr. Sherman, to #8 above. I
am sorry that Mr. Sherman is still having a problem grasping the very
rudimentary concept that circumstantial evidence is grounds not just
for suspicion, but also for conviction. The insistent Mr. Sherman
continually obliges me to conform to a higher a standard than is
required by law. To my disappointment, Mr. Sherman fails to comprehend
that I am under no obligation to jump through a hoop simply because he
has placed in front of me. DUH!!!
Jim McNaa
|
| | |
Date: 05 Dec 2005 17:11:31
From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Edward Dolan wrote:
> ...
> Anyone here but me notice how the New York City skyline has now been
> improved 100% now that the execrable World Trade Center buildings no longer
> disgrace the skyline. Those old movies from the 1940's that showed the lower
> Manhattan skyline were just too perfect for it ever to have lasted....
Here is the proposed replacement for WTC 1 and 2:
<http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/freedom_tower/default.asp >.
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Dec 2005 21:50:49
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
"Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1133831491.501106.88030@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> ...
>> Anyone here but me notice how the New York City skyline has now been
>> improved 100% now that the execrable World Trade Center buildings no
>> longer
>> disgrace the skyline. Those old movies from the 1940's that showed the
>> lower
>> Manhattan skyline were just too perfect for it ever to have lasted....
>
> Here is the proposed replacement for WTC 1 and 2:
> <http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/freedom_tower/default.asp>.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
OK, thanks Tom. I think the Freedom Tower will be an improvement as it does
come to a slight taper. I hate tall buildings (skyscrapers) which just have
that chopped off look like the WTC did. A skyscraper should have a
beginning, a middle and an end.
Another skyscraper that is an abomination is the Chase Manhattan Bank
building, also in Lower Manhattan. These type of buildings are designed this
way strictly to make money. But buildings this big have a responsibility to
add some beauty to our lives and to the cities in which we live.
One of my very favorite skyscrapers in the world is the Chrysler Building in
Midtown Manhattan. Damn, they knew how to build them back then. Also the
Empire State and Rockefeller Center are not bad either. I think we are
finally getting away from the style of architecture which prevailed for
several decades following W.W.II. We again want our skyscrapers to say
something about our culture and not to be just money makers for the
developers and owners.
Regards,
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
|
| |
Date: 27 Nov 2005 18:35:40
From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1133141069.186230.184040@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > ...
> > If it was libel that was not obviously parody, or extended to
> > harassment outside of the newsgroup forum, I would be consulting a
> > lawyer and/or law enforcement agencies to determine my legal remedies.
>
> Well, yes, but it never quite goes that far either. We want to know what you
> will do when he uses your name and address without your permission to post
> vileness on Usenet. Remember, it will appear as though it is coming from
> you. What would you do about it?...
In this hypothetical scenario, a quick glance at the full header would
reveal the post as a forgery.
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
| | |
Date: 27 Nov 2005 21:11:05
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
"Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1133145340.012480.322760@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1133141069.186230.184040@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > ...
>> > If it was libel that was not obviously parody, or extended to
>> > harassment outside of the newsgroup forum, I would be consulting a
>> > lawyer and/or law enforcement agencies to determine my legal remedies.
>>
>> Well, yes, but it never quite goes that far either. We want to know what
>> you
>> will do when he uses your name and address without your permission to
>> post
>> vileness on Usenet. Remember, it will appear as though it is coming from
>> you. What would you do about it?...
>
> In this hypothetical scenario, a quick glance at the full header would
> reveal the post as a forgery.
Yes, but unsophisticated readers will not know to do this. They will think
it is coming from you and then you will have to defend yourself against
their accusations. Besides, who wants the Google archive cluttered up with
lies that seem to come from you.
Do you really not care that your name can be associated with lies and
villainy? You stand for something and so does your good name. How can you
not care what happens to your good name? Now you began to see the extent of
the villainy that is being perpetrated against some of us.
Let anyone say whatever they want, but let them say it under their own name
and not someone else's name. The use of sock puppets, while not on the same
level of criminality, is also very juvenile and tiresome in the extreme.
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
|
| |
Date: 27 Nov 2005 18:06:03
From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
jimmymac_4@yahoo.com wrote:
> Tom et. al.,
>
> The notion that we should be united by what we do rather than be
> divided by what we do it on (read unity through diversity) is a concept
> that has eluded some in the recumbent arena where platform prejudice
> and platform pejoratives abound.
>
> I have been absent for a few days that matters not. In many ways, this
> newsgroup is much like a soap opera. Over time, little changes and
> it's easy to pick up right where you left off
>
> Near as I can tell the lowracer contingent continue to disrespect the
> high racer contingent and Tom Sherman, much to the dismay of those who
> fail to understand why, persists in defending the very conduct that the
> majority here disdain and I count myself among that majority.
As I said before, the disrespect runs both ways. I have been falsely
accused on different occasions by proclaimed "Killer B's", so excuse me
if I do not view them as faultless shining knights. I should also note
that very recently Rich Pinto of Bacchetta accused me of being
delusional and illogical. Mr. Pinto has ignored my request to address
the online behavior of certain "Killer B's", nor has he presented
evidence to back up his accusations against myself or Ed Gin.
> Tom, if you've read any of what I've written in my past encounters with
> the malcontent Monkey Island consortium, then you should know that I
> don't count myself among those that can't hold his own in an argument
> or who has to retreat to the sanctuary of BROL. I have bested Ed and
> his sock puppets time and time again in countless cyber-skirmishes over
> the years.
>
> I concur with Rich Pinto's contention that Ed Gin is a pathological
> liar as are his sock puppets. I've caught them in many a lie and have
> been a victim of their outlandish prevarications, the least endearing
> utterance being ... I fuck my mother. Now there's a vulgar sentiment
> that transcends the acceptable. I also concur with Kevin
> (MagillaGorilla) regarding your defense of the indefensible,
> denigrating blog. Then again, this is entirely consistent with their
> instantiated abhorrent conduct in the past.
To quote KK, "And the[ir] satirical site should be ignored. "
I was not defending the content of the Highracer Recumbents SUCK (HRS)
blog, but instead was contesting the notion that it was responsible for
the "demise" of this forum. There are many similar posts on other
Usenet forums, yet the participants do not go scurrying for the
protection of a moderator. While the posts promoting the HRS blog do
not appear to contribute to positive discussion, they can be ignored
(as such posts are for the most part on other forums).
As for the content offensive or not, parody of public figures is
accepted in societies with free speech (including the US). At this
point I will state that the most recent posts on HRS have crossed the
line in attacking private individuals (those not being principals in
recumbent selling or publishing companies), which is not acceptable.
I will point out that no one has yet PROVED the identity of the
person(s) behind the HRS blog. Without proof, accusations of identity
should not be made.
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
| | |
Date: 01 Dec 2005 06:06:06
From:
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Indiana Mike Rice & magillagorilla,
I guess I never understood what this business about top posting was all
about and why people objected to it, that is until now. I just did a
Google search and now understand and offer my apologies in this regard.
I think the problem is that by default the quoted text of the post one
is responding to is beneath where the cursor is positioned for one's
reply. I'll get it right eventually since apparently this is considered
improper etiquette. Feel free to offer any advice in this regards.
I totally agree that TS has strong suspicions as to the identity of the
perpetrator in question as do I, but I think it is a party of (at
least) three. I agree that saying that there is not positive proof of
said identity is merely stating factual information and I have as much
as said that and I agree that TS likely has a significant amount of
information about the individuals involved, on one side at least. As
concerns the high ground, that is Tom's stomping ground. He is most
comfortable in such environs. What bothers me the most is Tom's
unwillingness to take a stand. He won't even condemn the indefensible
behavior in their nameless (yet to be positively identified) state.
There was really no need to place a question k after strong. Those
who know the history, the individuals and previous archived banter,
consider the circumstantial evidence to be on target.
Allow me to address the cowards who prefer to remain nameless. You have
opted for anonymity for very good reason ... a reason that is obvious
to us all. In every life, there comes moments that define who and what
we are. Those who participate in the denigrating blog and who have
posted similar objectionable posts, both in the present and in the
past, are engaged in just such a defining moment. Henceforth, you will
be branded with and immortalized by your callous, defamatory clamoring.
As concerns your being in favor of more riding and less attacking,
sounds good to me but at 8:00 am in the morning here in Chicago on this
1st day of December, it is 27 degrees with snow falling 8-( If you can
ride where you're at, I envy you.
All and all, I'd have to agree with magillagorilla ... sensible post.
He may have found this scrap between Tom and me somewhat entertaining,
but admittedly this can become tiresome over time..
If you do ride today, have a good one.
Jim McNaa
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Dec 2005 17:01:06
From: Mike Rice
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
On 1 Dec 2005 06:06:06 -0800, jimmymac_4@yahoo.com wrote:
>Indiana Mike Rice & magillagorilla,
>
>I guess I never understood what this business about top posting was all
>about and why people objected to it, that is until now. I just did a
>Google search and now understand and offer my apologies in this regard.
>I think the problem is that by default the quoted text of the post one
>is responding to is beneath where the cursor is positioned for one's
>reply. I'll get it right eventually since apparently this is considered
>improper etiquette. Feel free to offer any advice in this regards.
Be careful with those apologies. Remeber that tihis is usenet, we are
expected to flame on, not apologize.
I use the Agent newsreader and when I click on 'post a followup' the
post I am responding to appears in blue, with the added number of ' >'
ks denoting the layers of quoted text. My cursor is not present
until I click wherever I choose to insert my (not-so-humble) reks.
This makes it very easy to scroll down to whichever point I care to
adress. Placing my comments directly below the points I am adressing
makes it easy for the reader to follow the flow of the conversation.
If the post I am adressing has become very long, I am likely to edit
out significant portions to minimize the amount of srolling one must
do to get to the meat of the matter. It is considerate to indicate
that a cut has been made (<snip >, ... , whatever).
<snip >
>
>Allow me to address the cowards who prefer to remain nameless. You have
>opted for anonymity for very good reason ... a reason that is obvious
>to us all. In every life, there comes moments that define who and what
>we are. Those who participate in the denigrating blog and who have
>posted similar objectionable posts, both in the present and in the
>past, are engaged in just such a defining moment. Henceforth, you will
>be branded with and immortalized by your callous, defamatory clamoring.
>
>As concerns your being in favor of more riding and less attacking,
>sounds good to me but at 8:00 am in the morning here in Chicago on this
>1st day of December, it is 27 degrees with snow falling 8-( If you can
>ride where you're at, I envy you.
I am two hours south of you, very similar weather. And I am sad to
report that health complications have impacted my riding these last
two months :-( .
>
>All and all, I'd have to agree with magillagorilla ... sensible post.
>He may have found this scrap between Tom and me somewhat entertaining,
>but admittedly this can become tiresome over time..
>
>If you do ride today, have a good one.
>
>Jim McNaa
Thanks,
Indiana Mike
|
| | | | |
Date: 01 Dec 2005 19:44:07
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
"Mike Rice" <jodymike@gte.net > wrote in message
news:icauo19rpuqkkg8l65qm3ns5ajdmrqn1ed@4ax.com...
> On 1 Dec 2005 06:06:06 -0800, jimmymac_4@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>Indiana Mike Rice & magillagorilla,
>>
>>I guess I never understood what this business about top posting was all
>>about and why people objected to it, that is until now. I just did a
>>Google search and now understand and offer my apologies in this regard.
>>I think the problem is that by default the quoted text of the post one
>>is responding to is beneath where the cursor is positioned for one's
>>reply. I'll get it right eventually since apparently this is considered
>>improper etiquette. Feel free to offer any advice in this regards.
>
> Be careful with those apologies. Remeber that tihis is usenet, we are
> expected to flame on, not apologize.
>
> I use the Agent newsreader and when I click on 'post a followup' the
> post I am responding to appears in blue, with the added number of '>'
> ks denoting the layers of quoted text. My cursor is not present
> until I click wherever I choose to insert my (not-so-humble) reks.
>
> This makes it very easy to scroll down to whichever point I care to
> adress. Placing my comments directly below the points I am adressing
> makes it easy for the reader to follow the flow of the conversation.
There is no one on this group who has been harder on top posters than
myself. However, the thought now occurs to me that not all newsreaders are
the same. I now begin to understand how some can end up top posting without
intending to do so.
I know when I resorted to the Google website a few weeks ago that I ended up
top posting because I was not doing the required cutting and pasting.
Horrors! Ed Dolan top posting. How totally mortifying!
[...]
Regards,
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
|
| | |
Date: 30 Nov 2005 23:51:55
From:
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Indiana Mike,
A most senseable post dude!!!
I ignor all this stuff and just ride my bike.
But it was entertaining just as the "highracer" blog is entertaining.
But reality strikes. Trek has a whole new line up of fast bikes from
there "project one" people and I saw the prototypes a while back. Fast
and light and recumbent's and there bikes are once again back in the
stone age.
STONE FUCKING AGE!!!
Stone age and recumbent go together....
MG
|
| |
Date: 27 Nov 2005 17:24:29
From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Edward Dolan wrote:
> ...
> By all means, do not irritate him or you may become his next victim.
> However, it would be interesting to see how you would handle him if such a
> thing came to pas[s].
To address this hypothetical situation, if what was posted was
obviously parody, I would ignore it.
If it was libel that was not obviously parody, or extended to
harassment outside of the newsgroup forum, I would be consulting a
lawyer and/or law enforcement agencies to determine my legal remedies.
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
| | |
Date: 27 Nov 2005 19:55:27
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
"Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1133141069.186230.184040@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> ...
>> By all means, do not irritate him or you may become his next victim.
>> However, it would be interesting to see how you would handle him if such
>> a
>> thing came to pas[s].
Yes, I have been making that little mistake all of my life. Past for pass.
Past just looks right to me for some reason.
> To address this hypothetical situation, if what was posted was
> obviously parody, I would ignore it.
It is not Gin's parody that bothers me at all. That is what I do myself,
only infinitely better than him.
> If it was libel that was not obviously parody, or extended to
> harassment outside of the newsgroup forum, I would be consulting a
> lawyer and/or law enforcement agencies to determine my legal remedies.
Well, yes, but it never quite goes that far either. We want to know what you
will do when he uses your name and address without your permission to post
vileness on Usenet. Remember, it will appear as though it is coming from
you. What would you do about it?
I want to be clear that Mr. Sherman has never done anything the least bit
criminal on ARBR and he has been more of a gentleman most of the time than I
have been. I do not mind heated discussion. But I do mind borderline
criminality.
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
|
| |
Date: 27 Nov 2005 17:08:49
From:
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Tom et. al.,
The notion that we should be united by what we do rather than be
divided by what we do it on (read unity through diversity) is a concept
that has eluded some in the recumbent arena where platform prejudice
and platform pejoratives abound.
I have been absent for a few days that matters not. In many ways, this
newsgroup is much like a soap opera. Over time, little changes and
it's easy to pick up right where you left off
Near as I can tell the lowracer contingent continue to disrespect the
high racer contingent and Tom Sherman, much to the dismay of those who
fail to understand why, persists in defending the very conduct that the
majority here disdain and I count myself among that majority.
Tom, if you've read any of what I've written in my past encounters with
the malcontent Monkey Island consortium, then you should know that I
don't count myself among those that can't hold his own in an argument
or who has to retreat to the sanctuary of BROL. I have bested Ed and
his sock puppets time and time again in countless cyber-skirmishes over
the years.
I concur with Rich Pinto's contention that Ed Gin is a pathological
liar as are his sock puppets. I've caught them in many a lie and have
been a victim of their outlandish prevarications, the least endearing
utterance being ... I fuck my mother. Now there's a vulgar sentiment
that transcends the acceptable. I also concur with Kevin
(MagillaGorilla) regarding your defense of the indefensible,
denigrating blog. Then again, this is entirely consistent with their
instantiated abhorrent conduct in the past.
I've knew Ed Gin long before we became estranged and split company. I
knew him during a time that pre-dates his insane internet shenanigans.
>From what I know personally about the man, I have every reason to
believe that he is part an parcel of all this nonsense along with a
couple of his buddies.
We've all been subjected to this chronic, zany drivel long enough to
make all but a shortsighted sick of it all. In other words, the
timeworn tune that these cockamamie monkeys continue to play is a song
that we've all heard before ... ad nauseum. What song? Well "Deja
Moo", of course. What's that? Well, it's the feeling that you've
heard all this BULLL before (read same old crap from the same old
source).
Jim McNaa
Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic wrote:
> Mr Reality (Rich Pinto) wrote:
> > ...The good news is in this thread we again see the evidence
> > against the guy who destroyed this unmoderated newsgroup, and who is
> > undoubtedly part of the HRsuck blog....
>
> One person can not destroy a newsgroup. What happened here is a bunch
> of people here that could not hold their own in an argument ran to BROL
> where Bryan, Jose and Larry protect them by shutting down threads and
> banning posters when the arguments get heated. There are plenty of
> other newsgroups where the discussion is heated and often unpleasant,
> but the regulars stick around.
>
> > Let the delusional friend of Gin
> > and the history/logic challenged (a party of one) take one side with
> > the seven sock puppets posts in this thread, the rest of us can come to
> > our own conclusions....
>
> Okay, Mr. Pinto is again employing the technique where he states a mere
> opinion as if it were fact, with the hope of certitude in his manner
> will cause others to believe him.
>
> Please state your case with evidence that Ed Gin is a "pathological
> liar". This is the second time that Mr. Pinto has stated this, but he
> has yet to back it up. WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE MR. PINTO?
>
> Mr. Pinto claims someone (presumably myself) is "history/logic
> challenged" and "delusional", but fails to back this up. Please
> provide SPECIFIC EXAMPLES, or RETRACT your claim.
>
> Say what you want about me personally, but do not misrepresent what I
> write, because I will publicly call you out on it every time.
>
> Lots of smoke here, but where is the fire?
>
> Let us hash this out shall we. I am looking forward to it. ;)
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
> "Twisting may help if yawl can chew gum and walk." - G. Daniels
|
| | |
Date: 09 Dec 2005 02:19:20
From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
First order of business - the quoting is a mess due to the nonstandard
method employed by the program Mr. McNaa is using.
Jim McNaa <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Tom,
>
> I've been trying to post this for two days now with two different
> browsers without success. If you see this then perhaps I was right in
> assuming that length was the source of the problem. Much as regretted
> doing so, I removed quite a bit of older dialogue.
>
> I was removing irrelevant material to my response - this is called
> editing, and has been a well accepted practice for hundred of years.
>
> --> Characteristically, you ducked the FACT/OPINION question regarding
> writing ability. I know perfectly well what editing is, but relevancy
> is a judgment call that you made on behalf of the author and the
> readership and can just as easily be construed as censorship. We just
> have different perspectives on this matter and it is pointless to
> debate the issue. I will be the first to admit that it is probably
> necessary since this has become more like a novel than a short story.
>
> On various standardized tests (i.e. WAIS, ACT, SAT and GRE) I have
> scored in the 99% percentile for comprehension of written English. If I
> have trouble with comprehension, it is the fault of the writer not
> expressing his or her thought clearly. My opinion stands that the
> material was poorly written, and should have been edited for clarity
> and concision before being posted.
>
> --> You are the first person to have ever said that I write poorly,
> but at least you qualified your accusation by calling it opinion this
> time. I'll accept that since I don't value your opinion. Many have
> told me that I write rather well and I pride myself in that regard. I
> have even been published in newspapers and magazines, so there are
> those that disagree with your assessment....
The worst offenders for publishing poor writing are academic journals,
and I see much that is poor in mainstream publication also. Next!
> I regret that my one post
> does reflect how weary I was. I should have given it a fresh look at
> upon rising before hastily posting. I can't recall if I ever took the
> Wechsler, but I did the Stanford-Binet. I have always tested
> exceptionally well and my scores on the S-B and a test taken in the
> military automatically qualified me for membership in MENSA although I
> never applied for membership, but I digress. This isn't a contest
> about test scores now is it? Besides one need only be of average
> intelligence to understand what is being written. Unlike you, I am
> willing to overlook when someone makes an obvious keyboard slip, and
> although that seldom applies to you,...
I only make a point of it when the other person is behaving badly, such
as accusing others without proof. For what it is worth, I pointed out a
couple of errors in the very first HRS blog entry on this newsgroup.
> I have overlooked some of yours.
> I understand that this doesn't make a person inarticulate, unclear or a
> poor writer and it certainly doesn't challenge my comprehension the
> written word. I am willing to make allowances. You are not. If you
> have trouble comprehending that which I've written, my offer still
> stands to dumb it down for you. In a notable departure from style, for
> the remainder of this response, I will make every effort to keep the
> majority of my responses succinct and terse to accommodate you, Tom.
Mr. Dolan has Mr. McNaa beat in the humor department by a mile.
> > > One has to wonder why is it that you continue to associate
> > > with and defend these scoundrels rather than denounce them, sever your
> > > ties and abdicate your assumed role as their spokesperson....
>
> > Mr. McNaa is assuming facts not in evidence. Since no one has proven
> > (or admitted to me) authorship of either the Johnny NoCom posts or the
> > HRS blog, how could I sever my (assumed) ties with them?
>
> > --> And they won't, because they are cowards. They prefer to lash out
> > cloaked in pseudonyms. Regardless, based on characteristic, parallel
> > patterns of behavior you have said that you could produce a list of the
> > likely candidates and it would be similar to the list that I could
> > produce. Since you know whom I suspect, go over your list. Have you
> > had any association with those whom I suspect that match you list? Do
> > you call any of them friends? If they were ever admit to
> > responsibility would you then acknowledge that you should have given
> > the compelling preponderance of circumstantial evidence more credence
> > or would you stubbornly persist in you defense and remains allied with
> > those responsible. Inquiring minds want to know?
>
> If he/she/they admitted to authoring the HRS blog and/or Johnny NoCom
> posts, I would still be willing to go on a bike ride with he/she/they
> (assuming that I would have been willing before the admission was
> made). FLAME AWAY!
>
> --> No flaming required here. Your telling admission speaks volumes
> for what and who you are. I commend you for you honesty and extend my
> gratitude.
>
> > I have not expressed any opinion of approval of the HRS blog, and in
> > fact pointed out that the blog author(s) erred in parodying private
> > individuals.
>
> > --> And that is all that you disapprove of? Like I said before, if you
> > were on the receiving end, I suspect that you would have an entirely
> > different perspective in this matter and you know it.
Mr. McNaa is yet again expressing opinion as fact: "and you know
it". He needs to break this habit.
> Mr. McNaa's suspicions are unfounded. He should look to the example
> of AA and KK who have gone at it on this very forum, yet reportedly get
> along in real life.
>
> --> Forget the irrelevant diversionary tactic. This isn't about AA and
> KK. This is about you. Once again you circumvented the question
> regarding disapproval.
I thought this was about unfounded accusations of authorship of the HRS
blog.
> > Mr. McNaa is again assuming facts not in evidence. Since I have not
> > stated my list of likely candidates, how can any claim of relationship
> > be made? Similarly, since I have not produced a list, how can it be
> > said that it would be similar to Mr. McNaa's list?
>
> > --> You want an example of flawed logic. Well, here's one. You either
> > have a relationship with your list of candidates or you don't
> > regardless of whether you stated who they are. A claim of a
> > relationship is not contingent upon revelation or lack thereof. How
> > can your list be similar to my list you ask? You tell me. You're the
> > one who originally made that statement and I took you at your word.
> > Frankly, it is not that difficult to ascertain why our lists would be
> > similar. Anyone who has known one or more of those involved, and has
> > known them for years, can readily identify their modus operandi and
> > compiled lists would likely match up rather well. Since I provided
> > initials of the last names of the three I suspect you already know this
> > for a fact. This isn't rocket science.
>
> Mr. McNaa provided the initials EG, SJ and AA (who these people are
> will be blatantly obvious to some). I had candidates in mind that have
> initials other than those mentioned by Mr. McNaa.
>
> --> Oh, but I most assuredly did not and I defy you to prove otherwise
> or retract your statement. I'll be darned. Thanks for filling in the
> blanks for us all, Tom. If anyone would care to read what I did write,
> you will find ... I'll still not name any names here, but the initials
> of the last names of the three that I suspect as being directly
> involved, when placed side-by-side, spell JAG and I find that
> particular sequence to be most appropriate. Now, listen up 'cause this
> is real important ... I ONLY PROVIDED THE INITIALS OF THE SURNAMES.
> All along I granted that Tom's list likely had more name than mine, but
> I also said he'd likely be able to match 2 or 3 names and I guess the
> number is in. 3 it is. See now was that so hard, Tom? You really
> can make a contribution to the discussion when you put your mind to it.
> Thanks again.
I was merely pointing out what Mr. McNaa was intending everyone to
see, but was doing in a dishonest manner so he could later claim
denial. Mr. McNaa has fulfilled my expectation here.
> I could easily duplicate the writing style of the HRS blog (and the
> Johnny NoCom posts) if I wanted to. For all I KNOW, the HRS blog COULD
> be an effort by a Bacchetta supporter to gain favor for Bacchetta
> through reverse psychology.
>
> --> ILLOGICAL! I always know when diversion and subterfuge are being
> ushered in when prefaced by ... For all I know. Can your ludicrous
> conjecture. For someone who prides himself as being intelligent and
> logical, you do introduce some rather untenable, hypothetical
> scenarios. It should be obvious that the derogatory posts and the HRS
> blog are both specifically formulated for one purpose and one purpose
> only. Despite its absurdity, lets consider your unlikely premise. If
> one were a Bacchetta supporter would they be willing to risk the
> consequences of a failed reverse psychology initiatives and if one of
> the blog authors were a Bacchetta supporter would he perhaps own and
> ride a Bacchetta rather that a VOLAE? ..... Next.
My defined conjecture is less ludicrous than Mr. McNaa indirectly
stating the authorship of the HRS blog without proof. Mr. McNaa has
failed to prove my possible conjecture is impossible, so his claim of
me being illogical it in itself illogical. ;)
> The Johnny NoCom posts and HRS blog certainly have some similarities,
> but no overwhelming evidence exists that the author(s) are the same.
>
> --> Well, now we're gettin' somewhere. That wasn't so hard, now was
> it? It has been a long and painful journey, but progress has been made
> at long last. Apparently, admission is more difficult than
> comprehension, but I am encouraged. There's hope for you after all.
The similarities have to do with promoting the Velokraft NoCom as being
superior to highracers and the dislike of Bacchetta and BROL. That
indicates very little other than a common surficial intent.
> Please inform me of the size and material composition of the pole. Then
> I will decide if I wish to accept it. Or did you mean "poll"?
>
> Why would I care about poll results anyhow? I believe I can make my own
> judgments, and not rely on those of others who may well be misinformed
> or prejudiced.
>
> --> I have to give you your due, Tom (a gesture that you have yet to
> master). That really was a good one and humorous at that, but as Ed
> Dolan pointed out it was a predictable response. This bears repeating.
> I make mistakes now and then, but one I don't make is denying when
> I've made one. That arena is reserved exclusively for one Tom Sherman.
> Since you surmised correctly, the question still awaits your
> much-needed attention. I'm not interested in what you care about so
> much as your enlightenment. I thought that you might find poll results
> interesting in light of the fact that you accused me of being the ARBR
> spokesperson. I thought a poll would aptly demonstrate what Ed Dolan
> said all along, that regardless of what you've said on the matter, the
> readership have long since decided where they stand. Fear not, when
> the results were tabulated, I wouldn't have posed an unfair question
> such as ... Are you contending that the majority are wrong, like the
> one you asked of me regarding a religions precept held by the dominant
> religious philosophy in western society.
I am not contending anything about the majority of the
alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent readership. If they believe unfounded
accusations lacking in proof, that is their failing, not mine.
> Mr. McNaa has said many things repeatedly, so he should be more
> specific. "Silence as omission" as a presumption of guilt in not a
> moral or logical position. Silence is silence (yes a truism, but
> pertinent in this context).
>
> --> Well excuse me. Someone who resides in glass house, shouldn't
> chuck rocks. Have you not been the least repetitious? DUUUH!!! Yes,
> admittedly I have repeated things in an attempt to drum something into
> that thick skull of your's or in an attempt to get you to answer a
> question that you (here's that word) repeatedly ignore or side-step.
> You have done likewise, but herein lies the difference. I haven't
> chastised you for doing so because I understand the necessity of
> restatement and repetition.
I have to be repetitive for people who have yet to understand the
difference between alleged circumstantial evidence and proof.
> I disapprove of portions of the HRS blog. However, I find it
> fascinating that someone would go to that much effort, unless
> he/she/they felt seriously wronged by Bacchetta and/or person(s)
> associated with Bacchetta. Some portions of the HRS blog are indeed
> rather clever.
>
> --> So then, you disapprove of at least portions of the blog. That's
> all I was asking. What took you so long? Yes, if the HRS blog has any
> redeeming factor, it is its creative components. You were deliberately
> cautious in your choice of words when you employed the word "portions"
> since it does not denote percentage. Portions could mean 5% or 95%.
> Since you haven't said, I know not where your threshold is set beyond
> which you would disapprove of the blog in its entirety. I've seen
> enough objectionable material on it to totally disapprove of it. I too
> am astounded that anyone would devote this much time and negative
> energy to the HRS blog, but it is a quantum leap in logic to assume
> that the motive is wrong doing by Bacchettta and/or its someone
> associated with them. I think their is a myriad of possibilities and
> the dynamics are likely complex. Only those in the inner circle of
> involvement know the real reasons and, unlike you, I'd care not to
> speculate. Come to think of it, that's what you condemn me of doing.
Note that I provide two possibilities, one of which indicates no
wrongdoing by Bacchetta or those associated with Bacchetta. Mr.
McNaa's accusations leave no option to whether or not someone is
being accused of wrongdoing.
> Do take note of my recent post regarding my recent induction into the
> HRS blog. It is time for you to again denounce the HRS author(s) for
> "parody" of a private person. I'll be waiting. For what it is worth,
> you can tell from what I said, that I consider my induction to be
> confirmation of whom I suspected all along ... at the very least, one
> of them.
Why should I repeat myself?
Maybe the reason Mr. McNaa is now included in the blog is because he
is accusing people without having proof.
> > The above is logically false. Next!
>
> > --> True, but not so fast. I'm going to demonstrate something to you
> > that you are absolutely incapable of doing. I am going to agree with
> > you. I am going to say that in this particular instance, my logic was
> > flawed. You could never and will never do that. Why? Because you
> > mistakenly believe that you are not flawed and that it your biggest
> > flaw, but I digress. Let me get back to the issue at hand. There's no
> > middle ground here. It's decision time. You do remember how to make a
> > decision don't you? Do you approve or disapprove of the blog? YES or
> > NO? Pick one or just admit that you haven't the gumption to do either
> > and just slip on out of here in silence as you commonly do. By the
> > way, don't waste your breath with some crap about you have this private
> > opinion for which there is no moral imperative that dictates that you
> > make a choice.
>
> See above. [YAWN]
>
> --> Tired are you?
>
> > Allowing parody of public individuals is essential to a free society.
> > Whether or not I find the HRS blog humorous, tasteless, offensive, etc.
> > is my personal opinion, and there is no moral imperative that requires
> > me to publicly express my opinion.
>
> > --> I repeat few, if any of those targeted, are public figures, so you
> > can quit regurgitating that line of reasoning....
>
> As Indiana Mike pointed out, I expressed my disapproval in those cases
> of parodying private individuals on a public forum (without any
> prompting from Mr. McNaa, I might add).
>
> --> I take pleasure in the knowledge that there are those rare instance
> when you muster the testicular fortitude to take a stand and do the
> right thing without having to be coerced but who pray tell do you
> consider a public figure?
Principals of commercial organizations that present themselves to the
public in that capacity fit the definition (morally, not necessarily
legally, since I am neither a lawyer nor a judge).
> > So, you actually do
> > have a personal opinion. Well what's keepin' you? I'm all ears.
> > Never mind. You're not going to share that with us now are you, Tom.
> > You're just such a tease. Yep, Ed Dolan has you pegged all right.
> > Just as well, you know. Something tells me that I wouldn't want to
> > hear it anyways. Like I said before, I've never understood pacifists.
>
> See above. [YAWN]
>
> --> Another snappy comeback.
>
> > Besides, if you were to indicate your disapproval (don't think you have
> > it in you by the way) you'd be crossing those on your list of
> > candidates who are most likely to be those responsible parties and you
> > just might end up being blog fodder. Then I'd like to see ho much you
> > like it and how determined you'd remain to rise to their defense. I'm
> > thinking you might have an opinion then ... one that you might even be
> > disposed to share with us.
>
> See above. [YAWN]
>
> --> And to think that you accused me of repetition.
>
> > > If retribution extends beyond the written word, that is the risk that
> > > those responsible knowingly and willingly took and the consequences
> > > that they must accept. We must all take responsibility for our
> > > decisions and the consequences of those decisions. If the parties who
> > > are responsible find that their payback extends beyond the written
> > > word, be it in the form of litigation, violence or whatever, so be it.
> > > I'll not shed a tear. They will have reaped what they sowed ... earned
> > > and deserve whatever form of reprisal comes their way.
>
> > Ah, so Jim McNaa believes that physical violence is a just response
> > to parody? I see where his moral standards are.
>
> Mr. McNaa refuses to morally disapprove of physical violence in
> response to a verbal slight (or slights). The immorality of that
> position is clear, as the response is entirely disproportionate to the
> stimulus.
>
> --> Why has your highly touted comprehension skills abandoned you?
> Read what I said about encouraging and/or condoning violence. Once
> again, you ignored the mention of the possibility of litigation. Like
> I said, retaliation in the form of violence is not an uncommon
> occurrence and that's the risk that has been knowingly taken. That's
> just the world we live in today. If retaliation took the form of
> violence, one could argue that the response was disproportionate to the
> offense. Sorry to disappoint, but I still would not shed a tear and I
> don't have to answer to you for feeling as I do.
Again, Mr. McNaa refuses to state that he believes that responding
to parody with physical violence is immoral. Should we judge his
morality by this? He would not fare well if we do so.
> > > > 5. Despite you assertion to the contrary, I didn't accuse Ed of
> > > > authorship of the blog, but there is no doubt in my mind regarding his
> > > > active participation in the blog or in his authorship of past and
> > > > present objectionable posts and this is an OPINION that is shared by
> > > > most here regardless of your drum beating about FACTS. Your logic
> > > > reads much like this. If you enter a room and lying on the floor is a
> > > > person dead from a gunshot wound and a person is standing over the body
> > > > holding a gun that is later found to have been purchased by and
> > > > registered in his name. In his pocket is found a receipt for recently
> > > > purchased bullets and the open box, on the table, just happens to have
> > > > the same number of bullets missing that were chambered in the gun,
> > > > there still remains sufficient reason to consider that the person found
> > > > holding the gun was not the murderer simply because the preponderance
> > > > of evidence is purely circumstantial since the event was not captured
> > > > on videotape. Sorry, but I just buy your line of reasoning....
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > It is good to see that Jim McNaa has come around to see the logic of
> > my position.
>
> > --> Nonsense. You really are a dunderhead. It was late, I was tired,
> > should have done a better job of proofreading. Unlike you I'm human
> > and have human frailties. I know utter blasphemy if those words were
> > to pass your lips. The bottom line is that I omitted the word DON'T (I
> > just DON'T buy your line of reasoning). Now, care to answer the
> > question that you ducked?
>
> Should I respond to what is written, or what I could possibly imagine
> what might have been written?
>
> --> You should have answered the question as corrected above, but
> predictably you asked a question rather than answering one. You opted
> for a one-liner to avoid answering the question for a second time and
> counting.
I am sorry that Mr. McNaa is still having problem understanding that
circumstantial evidence is grounds for suspicion, but not absolute
proof of fact. Mr. McNaa could benefit from a basic course in logic.
> Since no competent person is going to take the HRS blog seriously, I
> fail to see how it can be more than a minor offense.
>
> --> I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that one. It is not
> unreasonable to assume though that the victims feel differently about
> this than you do and being victims, their opinion inherently has
> greater weight.
>
> > Where is the definition of parody that mandates inoffensiveness?
>
> > I have been called worse things on Usenet than anything in the HRS blog
> > or Johnny NoCom posts. As long is it is opinion, and not misstatement
> > of fact I could care less.
>
> > --> Your kind inspires name-calling of the worst sort. You know, you
> > dismiss things all too readily. The accusation referred to above
> > regarding my mother, I can assure you is misstatement of fact. I will,
> > assume for the sake of argument that if I said of you what was said of
> > me, I would have made a misstatement of fact that even you might find
> > offensive and objectionable. Am I right? If not, then you contradict
> > your statement regarding misstatement of fact in reference to what you
> > do and do not care about.
>
> No one would believe Mr. McNaa if he made statements of the sort he
> mentions above, so I would not give it much thought.
>
> --> You are probably right. It would probably be assumed to be an
> obvious misstatement of fact, however, you stipulated that you care
> about misstatement of fact, but then you said that you would not give
> my misstatement much thought. I'd call that ILLOGICAL and a
> contradiction. You are a conundrum.
Considering the source would be a person who has yet to grasp the
difference between suspicion and absolute proof, no I would not care
much.
> > > > 7. Personally, it is my opinion (I know you're fond of that word) that
> > > > even you have little doubt as to who the culprits are. You as much as
> > > > said so when you indicated that we would likely produce similar lists...
>
> > I assume Jim McNaa is referring to the paragraph below (from a
> > previous post of mine).
>
> > "Based on past events, I can think of several people who names have not
> > been mentioned on this thread who might be responsible for the HRS blog
> > and postings. (I suspect that Jim McNaa might well come up with a
> > similar list.) This is another reason why there is reasonable doubt as
> > to the identity of the person(s) behind HRS."
>
> > Similar should be taken to me "a list of alternative candidates to
> > those whose names have been mentioned". It should not necessarily be
> > interpreted to say that my list of names would be identical to the list
> > of names Jim McNaa would generate.
>
> > --> Your twisting things again. Only one name has been mentioned thus
> > far. A list by its very nature assumes more than one, but why have you
> > unnecessarily introduced the concept of alternative candidates. Why,
> > unless you specifically intend to confuse, would you want to complicate
> > the issue by attempting to "clarify" your original statement, which
> > wasn't in need of clarification? I find it most peculiar that you now
> > have a problem with me accepting your statement as originally written?
> > Now, similar and identical are not synonyms and I never used the word
> > identical, but I agree with your former premise, we would produce
> > SIMILAR lists. In fact, I'm thinking you would probably match two if not
> > all three of the names I have in mind and since I provided those
> > initials, you should have a very good idea just how similar our lists
> > would be so there is no need to pretend otherwise. I know, you'd
> > prefer not to comment about any similarities.
>
> See above - there are distinct possibilities beyond the three (3)
> mentioned by Mr. McNaa.
>
> --> I never contended that there were only three. Prove me wrong. I
> contended that there were at least three. Just curious how many are on
> your list? Not the names, just the number pleases. What I have said
> in this regard is if more than three, they likely served in a minor
> capacity. Why do you continue to misinterpret what I've said? Never
> mind. I understand. This is where lack of comprehension comes into
> play in defiance of your test scores.
The list of possible HRS blog authors runs into the 100 of millions.
This post is long enough without listing everyone in the world who can
write English and has Internet access. ;)
> If you want to concede the argument, I will then discontinue the
> argument. I have posted more than 200 times in a single argument on one
> thread, but I do not object to setting a new personal record. ;)
>
> --> 200 times ... you actuall kept a tally ... stange? Well, that's
> proof positive of all that Ed Dolan has said of you, particularly that
> you are stubborn. You're looking for an easy way out are you? I'll
> concede nothing. In fact I'll do a Tom Sherman and won't even admit
> that there is anything to concede. I'm sure I'm up to the task to
> assist you in breaking that record. I am always amazed how some people
> take such great joy and such great pride in from such minor
> achievements ... strange.
Mr. McNaa misinterprets a "tongue in cheek" smiley emoticon for
pride. I really am starting to question his judgment. It makes me
wonder about his real mental state (note: a question, not an
accusation).
> I have no interest in continuing this argument in private, as that
> would not entertain me in the least.
>
> --> So then, you are in it for the entertainment value?
>
> See above - I disapprove of parodying private individuals in a public
> forum, as my previous posts on other threads should have made clear.
>
> --> Yes but you have not defined of made a distinction between "public"
> and "private". As my previous post clearly indicated, most of those
> targeted are private, not public individuals. Those who by reason of
> the notoriety of their achievements or the vigor and success with which
> they seek the public's attention, or those who occupy positions of
> persuasive power and influence, or those who have assumed roles of
> especial prominence in the affairs of society and have assumed special
> prominence in the resolution of public questions, or those who have
> thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies
> in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved are
> classified as public figures under the First Amendment. Nonetheless,
> determination of public figure status is a question of law, not fact.
> It is the trial judge who makes that determination. It does not appear
> that the targeted individuals fall into the category of "public
> figures" as defined. It should also be noted that private individuals
> need only show that a defamatory falsehood was made negligently (with
> reckless disregard as to its truth) and not that it was made with
> actual malice. If someone believes that a defamation has occurred
> through publication of a known falsehood, the victim can initiate a
> civil action of libel against the offending party and collect both
> compensatory and punitive damages. The bottom line is that libel and
> libelous statements are beyond First Amendment protection. The blog
> participants are on shaky grounds, but 1st amendment rights are a
> complicated issue and topic of jurisprudence and 1st amendment
> interpretation is best left to the Constitutional law professional and
> the court system.
>
> > Not at all.
>
> > --> Really. You've asked the question several times now, so it would
> > seem that you have unfinished business (lack of closure) over this
> > particular issue and you seem frustrated with your lack of success in
> > drawing Rich out, but since Rich has not struck a nerve, I guess you
> > can refrain from asking him for a response.
>
> I was looking for a public fight, so I could demonstrate that Mr. Pinto
> could not back up his insults. Mr. Pinto disappointed me by cutting and
> running. Ask Ed Dolan if I am the type to back down. See
> <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent/browse_frm/...>.
> ;)
>
> --> Have you just run out of things to do in you spare time? Your past
> skirmishes do not interest me. Plenty of my lengthy ones are archived
> as well. Since cutting and running disturbs you, perhaps that's what I
> should have done and may still do especially since that would obviate
> the possibility of breaking that cherished record of yours. Sorry but
> I just might have to disappoint you in that regard.
>
> > As for Rich Pinto, he should stay away from the discussion completely
> > or back up his accusations. Instead, he has "cut and run". It is in his
> > best interest, since there is no possible way he could prove my
> > statements "illogical" and "delusional".
>
> > --> I must have missed the announcement when you were appointed the
> > forum moderator. And to think that you still expect us to believe that
> > Rich hasn't struck a nerve. It obvious that he has whether you will
> > admit it or not. Admitting anything to anyone just isn't your thing is
> > it Tom? There's that "prove" word again. Get real. You would not
> > accept proof from anyone that you are in any way, shape or form ...
> > flawed. Therein, lies a very real difference between us. You refuse
> > to recognize let alone acknowledge your flaws. I have pointed out a
> > few things that you have said that are certainly illogical just as you
> > have to me. When you were right, I made an acknowledgment. I refer
> > you to my response in answer to "logically false". You, on the other
> > hand, cannot and will not ever make such an admission. When you are
> > wrong you will make no such acknowledgment because you consider
> > yourself to be omniscient and infallible and an acknowledgment is a
> > concession that you cannot bear to make. This is in and of itself
> > illogical and a flaw. Delusional? No, you're quite there yet, but
> > after a couple more rounds, perhaps...
>
> The above reveals much about Mr. McNaa, but nothing about me, so I
> will not respond further due to disinterest on my part.
>
> --> Nothing? I thought you ser intelligent and logical? On what basis
> do you draw that conclusion? I see that your comprehension problem has
> reared its ugly head again. The above says something about the both of
> us. What it says about you is just something that you'd care not to
> become a topic of conversation, so you feign disinterest. How very
> clever of you ... NOT.
>
> > > A more pertinent
> > > question to ask is where are the cowardly culprits? Like you, at least
> > > Rich used his real email address and name, but we've been through all
> > > that innumerable times. Those who are responsible have good reason to
> > > remain anonymous ... fear factor. Rich is not alone in his assertions.
> > > I've as much as said that at times you were illogical...
>
> Said by Jim McNaa, but never proven.
>
> --> You have to be more specific. To which do you refer ... the
> culprit's cowardice, use of a real email address and name, good reason
> to remain anonymous or that at times you are illogical?
Mr. Pinto failed to prove I was illogical in my statements on the post
he responded to. Duh!
> > Go back and read some of my responses and perhaps you will get a
> > clue as to when and where I cited examples of you flawed logic. I
> > haven't the time go back and footnote everything for you. That would
> > be a complete waste of time, because your priy flaw is that like all
> > egomaniacs you really believe that you have none. It would be foolish
> > of me to even attempt to prove that you are at times illogical. That
> > you fail to realize that you are capable of being illogical, flies in
> > the face of logic.
>
> Gee, I missed all the CONCLUSIVE ARGUMENTS PROVING THAT I AMD
> ILLOGICAL. ;)
>
> --> Finally ... a confession. This is one of those rare instances
> where an admission has been made and Tom and I are in complete
> agreement.
Mr. McNaa attempt at humor by taking my sarcasm seriously falls flat
(an opinion).
> But where is the proof? The world wonders [1]?
>
> [1] Gratuitous Task Force 34 reference.
>
> Thought I'd leave the important part.
>
> Indiana Mike
>
> --> Like you need someone else to do you talking for you? But where is
> you common sense. The world wonders. Once you've made up your mind
> that someone couldn't possibly prove something to you, the task becomes
> an impossible one. I did ask though what you would consider to be
> acceptable proof and you went mute. I have all the proof I require, so
> I don't share your dilemma.
Show me un-doctored videotapes of those you accuse typing the HRS blog
test into a computer and then prove the blog was posted from that
computer, and I will accept your accusations as fact.
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Dec 2005 05:18:43
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
"Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1134123560.216880.117830@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[...]
> The worst offenders for publishing poor writing are academic journals,
> and I see much that is poor in mainstream publication also. Next!
The writing was much better when I was growing up then it is now. The
English academics were the best writers in the world. I do not think we will
ever see such fine writing again.
[...]
> Mr. Dolan has Mr. McNaa beat in the humor department by a mile.
If that is true it is because I do not give a damn about anything or anyone
here. Mr. McNaa does.
[...]
> I am not contending anything about the majority of the
> alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent readership. If they believe unfounded
> accusations lacking in proof, that is their failing, not mine.
When you are so far out of step with everyone else, you need to stop and
take stock of yourself. Surely you must have a glimmer by now that you are
in the wrong. Everyone else here is crazy except you?
[...]
> Again, Mr. McNaa refuses to state that he believes that responding
> to parody with physical violence is immoral. Should we judge his
> morality by this? He would not fare well if we do so.
I got it that he would not mind if Mr. Sherman took the law into his own
hands and administered some quick justice to his good buddy Ed Gin. I
suggest a good whacking about the buttocks. Gin will thank you for it and
never post anything again. Then he will return to the land of his origins
and become a Buddhist monk, making amends for all his wickedness.
[...]
> Show me un-doctored videotapes of those you accuse typing the HRS blog
> test into a computer and then prove the blog was posted from that
> computer, and I will accept your accusations as fact.
What comes though strong and clear is that Mr. McNaa is writing about 50
words to every one of Mr. Sherman's, and that Mr. Sherman is just saying the
same old thing over and over. I ask you, who is doing all the work here.
This is a mistake that Mr. Dolan never makes. That is because Mr. Dolan
takes pride in being lazy and does not see why he should work any harder
than anyone else. If fact, in an ideal universe, Mr. Dolan would most
definitely not work as hard as Mr. Sherman, but then practically nothing
would ever get said.
Regards,
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
|
| | |
Date: 09 Dec 2005 00:02:56
From:
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Tom,
I've been trying to post this for two days now with two different
browsers without success. If you see this then perhaps I was right in
assuming that length was the source of the problem. Much as regretted
doing so, I removed quite a bit of older dialogue.
I was removing irrelevant material to my response - this is called
editing, and has been a well accepted practice for hundred of years.
-- > Characteristically, you ducked the FACT/OPINION question regarding
writing ability. I know perfectly well what editing is, but relevancy
is a judgment call that you made on behalf of the author and the
readership and can just as easily be construed as censorship. We just
have different perspectives on this matter and it is pointless to
debate the issue. I will be the first to admit that it is probably
necessary since this has become more like a novel than a short story.
On various standardized tests (i.e. WAIS, ACT, SAT and GRE) I have
scored in the 99% percentile for comprehension of written English. If I
have trouble with comprehension, it is the fault of the writer not
expressing his or her thought clearly. My opinion stands that the
material was poorly written, and should have been edited for clarity
and concision before being posted.
-- > You are the first person to have ever said that I write poorly,
but at least you qualified your accusation by calling it opinion this
time. I'll accept that since I don't value your opinion. Many have
told me that I write rather well and I pride myself in that regard. I
have even been published in newspapers and magazines, so there are
those that disagree with your assessment. I regret that my one post
does reflect how weary I was. I should have given it a fresh look at
upon rising before hastily posting. I can't recall if I ever took the
Wechsler, but I did the Stanford-Binet. I have always tested
exceptionally well and my scores on the S-B and a test taken in the
military automatically qualified me for membership in MENSA although I
never applied for membership, but I digress. This isn't a contest
about test scores now is it? Besides one need only be of average
intelligence to understand what is being written. Unlike you, I am
willing to overlook when someone makes an obvious keyboard slip, and
although that seldom applies to you, I have overlooked some of yours.
I understand that this doesn't make a person inarticulate, unclear or a
poor writer and it certainly doesn't challenge my comprehension the
written word. I am willing to make allowances. You are not. If you
have trouble comprehending that which I've written, my offer still
stands to dumb it down for you. In a notable departure from style, for
the remainder of this response, I will make every effort to keep the
majority of my responses succinct and terse to accommodate you, Tom.
> > One has to wonder why is it that you continue to associate
> > with and defend these scoundrels rather than denounce them, sever your
> > ties and abdicate your assumed role as their spokesperson....
> Mr. McNaa is assuming facts not in evidence. Since no one has proven
> (or admitted to me) authorship of either the Johnny NoCom posts or the
> HRS blog, how could I sever my (assumed) ties with them?
> --> And they won't, because they are cowards. They prefer to lash out
> cloaked in pseudonyms. Regardless, based on characteristic, parallel
> patterns of behavior you have said that you could produce a list of the
> likely candidates and it would be similar to the list that I could
> produce. Since you know whom I suspect, go over your list. Have you
> had any association with those whom I suspect that match you list? Do
> you call any of them friends? If they were ever admit to
> responsibility would you then acknowledge that you should have given
> the compelling preponderance of circumstantial evidence more credence
> or would you stubbornly persist in you defense and remains allied with
> those responsible. Inquiring minds want to know?
If he/she/they admitted to authoring the HRS blog and/or Johnny NoCom
posts, I would still be willing to go on a bike ride with he/she/they
(assuming that I would have been willing before the admission was
made). FLAME AWAY!
-- > No flaming required here. Your telling admission speaks volumes
for what and who you are. I commend you for you honesty and extend my
gratitude.
> I have not expressed any opinion of approval of the HRS blog, and in
> fact pointed out that the blog author(s) erred in parodying private
> individuals.
> --> And that is all that you disapprove of? Like I said before, if you
> were on the receiving end, I suspect that you would have an entirely
> different perspective in this matter and you know it.
Mr. McNaa's suspicions are unfounded. He should look to the example
of AA and KK who have gone at it on this very forum, yet reportedly get
along in real life.
-- > Forget the irrelevant diversionary tactic. This isn't about AA and
KK. This is about you. Once again you circumvented the question
regarding disapproval.
> Mr. McNaa is again assuming facts not in evidence. Since I have not
> stated my list of likely candidates, how can any claim of relationship
> be made? Similarly, since I have not produced a list, how can it be
> said that it would be similar to Mr. McNaa's list?
> --> You want an example of flawed logic. Well, here's one. You either
> have a relationship with your list of candidates or you don't
> regardless of whether you stated who they are. A claim of a
> relationship is not contingent upon revelation or lack thereof. How
> can your list be similar to my list you ask? You tell me. You're the
> one who originally made that statement and I took you at your word.
> Frankly, it is not that difficult to ascertain why our lists would be
> similar. Anyone who has known one or more of those involved, and has
> known them for years, can readily identify their modus operandi and
> compiled lists would likely match up rather well. Since I provided
> initials of the last names of the three I suspect you already know this
> for a fact. This isn't rocket science.
Mr. McNaa provided the initials EG, SJ and AA (who these people are
will be blatantly obvious to some). I had candidates in mind that have
initials other than those mentioned by Mr. McNaa.
-- > Oh, but I most assuredly did not and I defy you to prove otherwise
or retract your statement. I'll be darned. Thanks for filling in the
blanks for us all, Tom. If anyone would care to read what I did write,
you will find ... I'll still not name any names here, but the initials
of the last names of the three that I suspect as being directly
involved, when placed side-by-side, spell JAG and I find that
particular sequence to be most appropriate. Now, listen up 'cause this
is real important ... I ONLY PROVIDED THE INITIALS OF THE SURNAMES.
All along I granted that Tom's list likely had more name than mine, but
I also said he'd likely be able to match 2 or 3 names and I guess the
number is in. 3 it is. See now was that so hard, Tom? You really
can make a contribution to the discussion when you put your mind to it.
Thanks again.
I could easily duplicate the writing style of the HRS blog (and the
Johnny NoCom posts) if I wanted to. For all I KNOW, the HRS blog COULD
be an effort by a Bacchetta supporter to gain favor for Bacchetta
through reverse psychology.
-- > ILLOGICAL! I always know when diversion and subterfuge are being
ushered in when prefaced by ... For all I know. Can your ludicrous
conjecture. For someone who prides himself as being intelligent and
logical, you do introduce some rather untenable, hypothetical
scenarios. It should be obvious that the derogatory posts and the HRS
blog are both specifically formulated for one purpose and one purpose
only. Despite its absurdity, lets consider your unlikely premise. If
one were a Bacchetta supporter would they be willing to risk the
consequences of a failed reverse psychology initiatives and if one of
the blog authors were a Bacchetta supporter would he perhaps own and
ride a Bacchetta rather that a VOLAE? ..... Next.
The Johnny NoCom posts and HRS blog certainly have some similarities,
but no overwhelming evidence exists that the author(s) are the same.
-- > Well, now we're gettin' somewhere. That wasn't so hard, now was
it? It has been a long and painful journey, but progress has been made
at long last. Apparently, admission is more difficult than
comprehension, but I am encouraged. There's hope for you after all.
Please inform me of the size and material composition of the pole. Then
I will decide if I wish to accept it. Or did you mean "poll"?
Why would I care about poll results anyhow? I believe I can make my own
judgments, and not rely on those of others who may well be misinformed
or prejudiced.
-- > I have to give you your due, Tom (a gesture that you have yet to
master). That really was a good one and humorous at that, but as Ed
Dolan pointed out it was a predictable response. This bears repeating.
I make mistakes now and then, but one I don't make is denying when
I've made one. That arena is reserved exclusively for one Tom Sherman.
Since you surmised correctly, the question still awaits your
much-needed attention. I'm not interested in what you care about so
much as your enlightenment. I thought that you might find poll results
interesting in light of the fact that you accused me of being the ARBR
spokesperson. I thought a poll would aptly demonstrate what Ed Dolan
said all along, that regardless of what you've said on the matter, the
readership have long since decided where they stand. Fear not, when
the results were tabulated, I wouldn't have posed an unfair question
such as ... Are you contending that the majority are wrong, like the
one you asked of me regarding a religions precept held by the dominant
religious philosophy in western society.
Mr. McNaa has said many things repeatedly, so he should be more
specific. "Silence as omission" as a presumption of guilt in not a
moral or logical position. Silence is silence (yes a truism, but
pertinent in this context).
-- > Well excuse me. Someone who resides in glass house, shouldn't
chuck rocks. Have you not been the least repetitious? DUUUH!!! Yes,
admittedly I have repeated things in an attempt to drum something into
that thick skull of your's or in an attempt to get you to answer a
question that you (here's that word) repeatedly ignore or side-step.
You have done likewise, but herein lies the difference. I haven't
chastised you for doing so because I understand the necessity of
restatement and repetition.
I disapprove of portions of the HRS blog. However, I find it
fascinating that someone would go to that much effort, unless
he/she/they felt seriously wronged by Bacchetta and/or person(s)
associated with Bacchetta. Some portions of the HRS blog are indeed
rather clever.
-- > So then, you disapprove of at least portions of the blog. That's
all I was asking. What took you so long? Yes, if the HRS blog has any
redeeming factor, it is its creative components. You were deliberately
cautious in your choice of words when you employed the word "portions"
since it does not denote percentage. Portions could mean 5% or 95%.
Since you haven't said, I know not where your threshold is set beyond
which you would disapprove of the blog in its entirety. I've seen
enough objectionable material on it to totally disapprove of it. I too
am astounded that anyone would devote this much time and negative
energy to the HRS blog, but it is a quantum leap in logic to assume
that the motive is wrong doing by Bacchettta and/or its someone
associated with them. I think their is a myriad of possibilities and
the dynamics are likely complex. Only those in the inner circle of
involvement know the real reasons and, unlike you, I'd care not to
speculate. Come to think of it, that's what you condemn me of doing.
Do take note of my recent post regarding my recent induction into the
HRS blog. It is time for you to again denounce the HRS author(s) for
"parody" of a private person. I'll be waiting. For what it is worth,
you can tell from what I said, that I consider my induction to be
confirmation of whom I suspected all along ... at the very least, one
of them.
> The above is logically false. Next!
> --> True, but not so fast. I'm going to demonstrate something to you
> that you are absolutely incapable of doing. I am going to agree with
> you. I am going to say that in this particular instance, my logic was
> flawed. You could never and will never do that. Why? Because you
> mistakenly believe that you are not flawed and that it your biggest
> flaw, but I digress. Let me get back to the issue at hand. There's no
> middle ground here. It's decision time. You do remember how to make a
> decision don't you? Do you approve or disapprove of the blog? YES or
> NO? Pick one or just admit that you haven't the gumption to do either
> and just slip on out of here in silence as you commonly do. By the
> way, don't waste your breath with some crap about you have this private
> opinion for which there is no moral imperative that dictates that you
> make a choice.
See above. [YAWN]
-- > Tired are you?
> Allowing parody of public individuals is essential to a free society.
> Whether or not I find the HRS blog humorous, tasteless, offensive, etc.
> is my personal opinion, and there is no moral imperative that requires
> me to publicly express my opinion.
> --> I repeat few, if any of those targeted, are public figures, so you
> can quit regurgitating that line of reasoning....
As Indiana Mike pointed out, I expressed my disapproval in those cases
of parodying private individuals on a public forum (without any
prompting from Mr. McNaa, I might add).
-- > I take pleasure in the knowledge that there are those rare instance
when you muster the testicular fortitude to take a stand and do the
right thing without having to be coerced but who pray tell do you
consider a public figure?
> So, you actually do
> have a personal opinion. Well what's keepin' you? I'm all ears.
> Never mind. You're not going to share that with us now are you, Tom.
> You're just such a tease. Yep, Ed Dolan has you pegged all right.
> Just as well, you know. Something tells me that I wouldn't want to
> hear it anyways. Like I said before, I've never understood pacifists.
See above. [YAWN]
-- > Another snappy comeback.
> Besides, if you were to indicate your disapproval (don't think you have
> it in you by the way) you'd be crossing those on your list of
> candidates who are most likely to be those responsible parties and you
> just might end up being blog fodder. Then I'd like to see ho much you
> like it and how determined you'd remain to rise to their defense. I'm
> thinking you might have an opinion then ... one that you might even be
> disposed to share with us.
See above. [YAWN]
-- > And to think that you accused me of repetition.
> > If retribution extends beyond the written word, that is the risk that
> > those responsible knowingly and willingly took and the consequences
> > that they must accept. We must all take responsibility for our
> > decisions and the consequences of those decisions. If the parties who
> > are responsible find that their payback extends beyond the written
> > word, be it in the form of litigation, violence or whatever, so be it.
> > I'll not shed a tear. They will have reaped what they sowed ... earned
> > and deserve whatever form of reprisal comes their way.
> Ah, so Jim McNaa believes that physical violence is a just response
> to parody? I see where his moral standards are.
Mr. McNaa refuses to morally disapprove of physical violence in
response to a verbal slight (or slights). The immorality of that
position is clear, as the response is entirely disproportionate to the
stimulus.
-- > Why has your highly touted comprehension skills abandoned you?
Read what I said about encouraging and/or condoning violence. Once
again, you ignored the mention of the possibility of litigation. Like
I said, retaliation in the form of violence is not an uncommon
occurrence and that's the risk that has been knowingly taken. That's
just the world we live in today. If retaliation took the form of
violence, one could argue that the response was disproportionate to the
offense. Sorry to disappoint, but I still would not shed a tear and I
don't have to answer to you for feeling as I do.
> > > 5. Despite you assertion to the contrary, I didn't accuse Ed of
> > > authorship of the blog, but there is no doubt in my mind regarding his
> > > active participation in the blog or in his authorship of past and
> > > present objectionable posts and this is an OPINION that is shared by
> > > most here regardless of your drum beating about FACTS. Your logic
> > > reads much like this. If you enter a room and lying on the floor is a
> > > person dead from a gunshot wound and a person is standing over the body
> > > holding a gun that is later found to have been purchased by and
> > > registered in his name. In his pocket is found a receipt for recently
> > > purchased bullets and the open box, on the table, just happens to have
> > > the same number of bullets missing that were chambered in the gun,
> > > there still remains sufficient reason to consider that the person found
> > > holding the gun was not the murderer simply because the preponderance
> > > of evidence is purely circumstantial since the event was not captured
> > > on videotape. Sorry, but I just buy your line of reasoning....
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> It is good to see that Jim McNaa has come around to see the logic of
> my position.
> --> Nonsense. You really are a dunderhead. It was late, I was tired,
> should have done a better job of proofreading. Unlike you I'm human
> and have human frailties. I know utter blasphemy if those words were
> to pass your lips. The bottom line is that I omitted the word DON'T (I
> just DON'T buy your line of reasoning). Now, care to answer the
> question that you ducked?
Should I respond to what is written, or what I could possibly imagine
what might have been written?
-- > You should have answered the question as corrected above, but
predictably you asked a question rather than answering one. You opted
for a one-liner to avoid answering the question for a second time and
counting.
Since no competent person is going to take the HRS blog seriously, I
fail to see how it can be more than a minor offense.
-- > I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that one. It is not
unreasonable to assume though that the victims feel differently about
this than you do and being victims, their opinion inherently has
greater weight.
> Where is the definition of parody that mandates inoffensiveness?
> I have been called worse things on Usenet than anything in the HRS blog
> or Johnny NoCom posts. As long is it is opinion, and not misstatement
> of fact I could care less.
> --> Your kind inspires name-calling of the worst sort. You know, you
> dismiss things all too readily. The accusation referred to above
> regarding my mother, I can assure you is misstatement of fact. I will,
> assume for the sake of argument that if I said of you what was said of
> me, I would have made a misstatement of fact that even you might find
> offensive and objectionable. Am I right? If not, then you contradict
> your statement regarding misstatement of fact in reference to what you
> do and do not care about.
No one would believe Mr. McNaa if he made statements of the sort he
mentions above, so I would not give it much thought.
-- > You are probably right. It would probably be assumed to be an
obvious misstatement of fact, however, you stipulated that you care
about misstatement of fact, but then you said that you would not give
my misstatement much thought. I'd call that ILLOGICAL and a
contradiction. You are a conundrum.
> > > 7. Personally, it is my opinion (I know you're fond of that word) that
> > > even you have little doubt as to who the culprits are. You as much as
> > > said so when you indicated that we would likely produce similar lists...
> I assume Jim McNaa is referring to the paragraph below (from a
> previous post of mine).
> "Based on past events, I can think of several people who names have not
> been mentioned on this thread who might be responsible for the HRS blog
> and postings. (I suspect that Jim McNaa might well come up with a
> similar list.) This is another reason why there is reasonable doubt as
> to the identity of the person(s) behind HRS."
> Similar should be taken to me "a list of alternative candidates to
> those whose names have been mentioned". It should not necessarily be
> interpreted to say that my list of names would be identical to the list
> of names Jim McNaa would generate.
> --> Your twisting things again. Only one name has been mentioned thus
> far. A list by its very nature assumes more than one, but why have you
> unnecessarily introduced the concept of alternative candidates. Why,
> unless you specifically intend to confuse, would you want to complicate
> the issue by attempting to "clarify" your original statement, which
> wasn't in need of clarification? I find it most peculiar that you now
> have a problem with me accepting your statement as originally written?
> Now, similar and identical are not synonyms and I never used the word
> identical, but I agree with your former premise, we would produce
> SIMILAR lists. In fact, I'm thinking you would probably match two if not
> all three of the names I have in mind and since I provided those
> initials, you should have a very good idea just how similar our lists
> would be so there is no need to pretend otherwise. I know, you'd
> prefer not to comment about any similarities.
See above - there are distinct possibilities beyond the three (3)
mentioned by Mr. McNaa.
-- > I never contended that there were only three. Prove me wrong. I
contended that there were at least three. Just curious how many are on
your list? Not the names, just the number pleases. What I have said
in this regard is if more than three, they likely served in a minor
capacity. Why do you continue to misinterpret what I've said? Never
mind. I understand. This is where lack of comprehension comes into
play in defiance of your test scores.
If you want to concede the argument, I will then discontinue the
argument. I have posted more than 200 times in a single argument on one
thread, but I do not object to setting a new personal record. ;)
-- > 200 times ... you actuall kept a tally ... stange? Well, that's
proof positive of all that Ed Dolan has said of you, particularly that
you are stubborn. You're looking for an easy way out are you? I'll
concede nothing. In fact I'll do a Tom Sherman and won't even admit
that there is anything to concede. I'm sure I'm up to the task to
assist you in breaking that record. I am always amazed how some people
take such great joy and such great pride in from such minor
achievements ... strange.
I have no interest in continuing this argument in private, as that
would not entertain me in the least.
-- > So then, you are in it for the entertainment value?
See above - I disapprove of parodying private individuals in a public
forum, as my previous posts on other threads should have made clear.
-- > Yes but you have not defined of made a distinction between "public"
and "private". As my previous post clearly indicated, most of those
targeted are private, not public individuals. Those who by reason of
the notoriety of their achievements or the vigor and success with which
they seek the public's attention, or those who occupy positions of
persuasive power and influence, or those who have assumed roles of
especial prominence in the affairs of society and have assumed special
prominence in the resolution of public questions, or those who have
thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies
in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved are
classified as public figures under the First Amendment. Nonetheless,
determination of public figure status is a question of law, not fact.
It is the trial judge who makes that determination. It does not appear
that the targeted individuals fall into the category of "public
figures" as defined. It should also be noted that private individuals
need only show that a defamatory falsehood was made negligently (with
reckless disregard as to its truth) and not that it was made with
actual malice. If someone believes that a defamation has occurred
through publication of a known falsehood, the victim can initiate a
civil action of libel against the offending party and collect both
compensatory and punitive damages. The bottom line is that libel and
libelous statements are beyond First Amendment protection. The blog
participants are on shaky grounds, but 1st amendment rights are a
complicated issue and topic of jurisprudence and 1st amendment
interpretation is best left to the Constitutional law professional and
the court system.
> Not at all.
> --> Really. You've asked the question several times now, so it would
> seem that you have unfinished business (lack of closure) over this
> particular issue and you seem frustrated with your lack of success in
> drawing Rich out, but since Rich has not struck a nerve, I guess you
> can refrain from asking him for a response.
I was looking for a public fight, so I could demonstrate that Mr. Pinto
could not back up his insults. Mr. Pinto disappointed me by cutting and
running. Ask Ed Dolan if I am the type to back down. See
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent/browse_frm/... >.
;)
-- > Have you just run out of things to do in you spare time? Your past
skirmishes do not interest me. Plenty of my lengthy ones are archived
as well. Since cutting and running disturbs you, perhaps that's what I
should have done and may still do especially since that would obviate
the possibility of breaking that cherished record of yours. Sorry but
I just might have to disappoint you in that regard.
> As for Rich Pinto, he should stay away from the discussion completely
> or back up his accusations. Instead, he has "cut and run". It is in his
> best interest, since there is no possible way he could prove my
> statements "illogical" and "delusional".
> --> I must have missed the announcement when you were appointed the
> forum moderator. And to think that you still expect us to believe that
> Rich hasn't struck a nerve. It obvious that he has whether you will
> admit it or not. Admitting anything to anyone just isn't your thing is
> it Tom? There's that "prove" word again. Get real. You would not
> accept proof from anyone that you are in any way, shape or form ...
> flawed. Therein, lies a very real difference between us. You refuse
> to recognize let alone acknowledge your flaws. I have pointed out a
> few things that you have said that are certainly illogical just as you
> have to me. When you were right, I made an acknowledgment. I refer
> you to my response in answer to "logically false". You, on the other
> hand, cannot and will not ever make such an admission. When you are
> wrong you will make no such acknowledgment because you consider
> yourself to be omniscient and infallible and an acknowledgment is a
> concession that you cannot bear to make. This is in and of itself
> illogical and a flaw. Delusional? No, you're quite there yet, but
> after a couple more rounds, perhaps...
The above reveals much about Mr. McNaa, but nothing about me, so I
will not respond further due to disinterest on my part.
-- > Nothing? I thought you ser intelligent and logical? On what basis
do you draw that conclusion? I see that your comprehension problem has
reared its ugly head again. The above says something about the both of
us. What it says about you is just something that you'd care not to
become a topic of conversation, so you feign disinterest. How very
clever of you ... NOT.
> > A more pertinent
> > question to ask is where are the cowardly culprits? Like you, at least
> > Rich used his real email address and name, but we've been through all
> > that innumerable times. Those who are responsible have good reason to
> > remain anonymous ... fear factor. Rich is not alone in his assertions.
> > I've as much as said that at times you were illogical...
Said by Jim McNaa, but never proven.
-- > You have to be more specific. To which do you refer ... the
culprit's cowardice, use of a real email address and name, good reason
to remain anonymous or that at times you are illogical?
> Go back and read some of my responses and perhaps you will get a
> clue as to when and where I cited examples of you flawed logic. I
> haven't the time go back and footnote everything for you. That would
> be a complete waste of time, because your priy flaw is that like all
> egomaniacs you really believe that you have none. It would be foolish
> of me to even attempt to prove that you are at times illogical. That
> you fail to realize that you are capable of being illogical, flies in
> the face of logic.
Gee, I missed all the CONCLUSIVE ARGUMENTS PROVING THAT I AMD
ILLOGICAL. ;)
-- > Finally ... a confession. This is one of those rare instances
where an admission has been made and Tom and I are in complete
agreement.
But where is the proof? The world wonders [1]?
[1] Gratuitous Task Force 34 reference.
Thought I'd leave the important part.
Indiana Mike
-- > Like you need someone else to do you talking for you? But where is
you common sense. The world wonders. Once you've made up your mind
that someone couldn't possibly prove something to you, the task becomes
an impossible one. I did ask though what you would consider to be
acceptable proof and you went mute. I have all the proof I require, so
I don't share your dilemma.
Jim McNaa
|
| |
Date: 27 Nov 2005 16:39:17
From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Edward Dolan wrote:
> ...
> Believe it or not, there is a church that my brother attends in the Chicago
> area, St. John Cantus I believe, that performs the great classical and
> romantic era church music. The musicians are pretty near professional
> caliber. My brother goes to this church precisely for the music and the
> other rich rituals that are performed there. No simple clapboard country
> church for him!...
Where is Chicago?
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
| | |
Date: 27 Nov 2005 19:08:15
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
"Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1133138357.867230.183350@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> ...
>> Believe it or not, there is a church that my brother attends in the
>> Chicago
>> area, St. John Cantus I believe, that performs the great classical and
>> romantic era church music. The musicians are pretty near professional
>> caliber. My brother goes to this church precisely for the music and the
>> other rich rituals that are performed there. No simple clapboard country
>> church for him!...
>
> Where is Chicago?
>
> Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
It is often referred to as Chicagoland. Now that you are living in the Fox
River Valley I expect you to get up to speed on your local geography.
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
|
| |
Date: 27 Nov 2005 16:37:59
From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1132965024.878937.16920@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > ...
> > The other common uses of sock puppets are humor and to enliven a
> > discussion.
>
> Your buddy Ed Gin does not use sock puppets to accomplish any of the ends
> you have mentioned. Maybe you could review some of his postings on ARBR from
> last winter and come to some sensible conclusions about him....
I know that some of the anonymous postings have come from people other
than Ed Gin. (The previous should not be interpreted to mean that I am
stating the some of the posts did come from Ed Gin.)
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
| | |
Date: 27 Nov 2005 19:13:16
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
"Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1133138279.768539.305640@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1132965024.878937.16920@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > ...
>> > The other common uses of sock puppets are humor and to enliven a
>> > discussion.
>>
>> Your buddy Ed Gin does not use sock puppets to accomplish any of the ends
>> you have mentioned. Maybe you could review some of his postings on ARBR
>> from
>> last winter and come to some sensible conclusions about him....
>
> I know that some of the anonymous postings have come from people other
> than Ed Gin. (The previous should not be interpreted to mean that I am
> stating the some of the posts did come from Ed Gin.)
>
> Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
By all means, do not irritate him or you may become his next victim.
However, it would be interesting to see how you would handle him if such a
thing came to past.
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
|
| |
Date: 25 Nov 2005 16:30:24
From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> I too, along with nget, would like to hear your explanation for the use of
> sock puppets....
In some cases posting anonymously is essential to avoid retaliation
from the government, employers or violent individuals. (To save the
trouble of someone pointing this out, this would not appear to be the
case, unless the person behind the HRS blog and postings was a
disgruntled Bacchetta employee - and there is no reason at this point
to believe that is the case).
The other common uses of sock puppets are humor and to enliven a
discussion.
> While you are at it, how about explaining the use of forged
> names and forged email addresses....
Some things are too obvious to need explanation.
We have all noted over the years that you
> do not engage in these types of reprehensible and criminal practices and
> still you manage to say whatever it is that you want to say just fine - as
> do I. Please, I am holding my breath awaiting your answer.
If you have trouble holding your breath for long periods, placing an
air-tight polymer bag over your head can be of great use. ;)
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
"They [hominids] ARE acceptable prey, ESPECIALLY mountain bikers."
- M.V.
|
| | |
Date: 27 Nov 2005 18:23:27
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
"Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1132965024.878937.16920@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>
>> I too, along with nget, would like to hear your explanation for the use
>> of
>> sock puppets....
>
> In some cases posting anonymously is essential to avoid retaliation
> from the government, employers or violent individuals. (To save the
> trouble of someone pointing this out, this would not appear to be the
> case, unless the person behind the HRS blog and postings was a
> disgruntled Bacchetta employee - and there is no reason at this point
> to believe that is the case).
>
> The other common uses of sock puppets are humor and to enliven a
> discussion.
Your buddy Ed Gin does not use sock puppets to accomplish any of the ends
you have mentioned. Maybe you could review some of his postings on ARBR from
last winter and come to some sensible conclusions about him.
>> While you are at it, how about explaining the use of forged
>> names and forged email addresses....
>
> Some things are too obvious to need explanation.
There is only one explanation. A criminal is as a criminal does. You are
nothing but an abettor.
[...]
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
|
| |
Date: 25 Nov 2005 16:21:54
From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Edward Dolan wrote:
> ...
> Only a religious ass of the first magnitude would bother with church music
> from the Baroque era. All that music in praise of God sickens me! ...
Mr. Ed's rantings are often good for a laugh. ;)
> ...
> Let's face it, if I am in church and Beethoven's Missa Solemnis is being
> performed, I am going to be listening to the music and not paying any
> attention to God at all....
It would be a miracle to find a church ensemble that could pull off Op.
123. Beethoven was arrested for cruelty to singers after the premiere
performance. ;)
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
"fdlagjaesgtp4epsadvdsajvadsvadjvdxzjvodjvof
adsgvogjvoasjcaoivor6udfda0tvuojdxvosdotvfl" - Ed Dolan
|
| | |
Date: 27 Nov 2005 18:15:49
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
"Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1132964514.156826.60880@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> ...
>> Only a religious ass of the first magnitude would bother with church
>> music
>> from the Baroque era. All that music in praise of God sickens me! ...
>
> Mr. Ed's rantings are often good for a laugh. ;)
It seems I get a laugh when I least expect it.
>> ...
>> Let's face it, if I am in church and Beethoven's Missa Solemnis is being
>> performed, I am going to be listening to the music and not paying any
>> attention to God at all....
>
> It would be a miracle to find a church ensemble that could pull off Op.
> 123. Beethoven was arrested for cruelty to singers after the premiere
> performance. ;)
Believe it or not, there is a church that my brother attends in the Chicago
area, St. John Cantus I believe, that performs the great classical and
romantic era church music. The musicians are pretty near professional
caliber. My brother goes to this church precisely for the music and the
other rich rituals that are performed there. No simple clapboard country
church for him!
My church has always been the wilderness where only the sounds of nature
prevail. I do not know which I like the best, wilderness composed of
mountain scenery or wilderness composed of desert scenery. The only
important element is that there be no evidence of man.
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
|
| |
Date: 23 Nov 2005 20:40:09
From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
magillagorillakk@hotmail.com wrote:
> Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic wrote:
> > Mr Reality (Rich Pinto) wrote:
> > > ...The good news is in this thread we again see the evidence
> > > against the guy who destroyed this unmoderated newsgroup, and who is
> > > undoubtedly part of the HRsuck blog....
> >
> > One person can not destroy a newsgroup. What happened here is a bunch
> > of people here that could not hold their own in an argument ran to BROL
> > where Bryan, Jose and Larry protect them by shutting down threads and
> > banning posters when the arguments get heated. There are plenty of
> > other newsgroups where the discussion is heated and often unpleasant,
> > but the regulars stick around.
> >
> > > Let the delusional friend of Gin
> > > and the history/logic challenged (a party of one) take one side with
> > > the seven sock puppets posts in this thread, the rest of us can come to
> > > our own conclusions....
> >
> > Okay, Mr. Pinto is again employing the technique where he states a mere
> > opinion as if it were fact, with the hope of certitude in his manner
> > will cause others to believe him.
> >
> > Please state your case with evidence that Ed Gin is a "pathological
> > liar". This is the second time that Mr. Pinto has stated this, but he
> > has yet to back it up. WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE MR. PINTO?
> >
> > Mr. Pinto claims someone (presumably myself) is "history/logic
> > challenged" and "delusional", but fails to back this up. Please
> > provide SPECIFIC EXAMPLES, or RETRACT your claim.
> >
> > Say what you want about me personally, but do not misrepresent what I
> > write, because I will publicly call you out on it every time.
> >
> > Lots of smoke here, but where is the fire?
> >
> > Let us hash this out shall we. I am looking forward to it. ;)
> >
> > --
> > Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
> > "Twisting may help if yawl can chew gum and walk." - G. Daniels
>
> Tom,
>
> I am still friends with and in contact with Mr. Gin and the great AA.
Amazing how different things are between Internet discussion forums and
real life. :)
> My purpose in Bacchetta attending a MI function was to end the
> bickering.
> That bickering is not coming from Bacchetta nor any of its team
> members.
To clarify, I will mention that two of the people that claim to be
"Killer B's" that attacked me personally when they could not refute my
arguments on this newsgroup did so on topic unrelated to Bacchetta,
highracers or lowracers. I stand by what I said about them being poor
public relations for Bacchetta.
> And there satirical site should be ignored.
Well, no one who takes the "Highracer Recumbents SUCK" (HRS) website
seriously is st enough to buy a recumbent bicycle, so I doubt it has
any effect on Bacchetta sales.
> Satire and Conan and the Whitehouse? Does President Bush hire hit men to kill
>Conan? Well only on an off nite...
Ask Aljazeera staff. [1]
> Still the recumbent bizz is small and maybe the site should be shut
> down.
One hopes that MG is requesting the originator(s) of the HRS site shut
it down, and not for government censorship. [2]
> And I am sure that Rich will send some team riders to some races in
> Chicago if the negitive retoric would die down or go away. Why should
> he race? Bacchetta has nothing to gain by it. But agin a little
> civility goes a long way and maybe things could change for the better.
Some friendly advice to Rich Pinto [3] - the best thing he can do is
ignore "Bacchetta baiting", and not engage those of us who have much
experience in conducting flame wars. He has nothing to gain, and much
to lose.
> Tom I consider you a friend but the defense of some of this latest
> unreasonable behavior on that website is a little curious to me. You
> are of course entitled to your own opinion just as I am entitled to
> mine.
I am not defending the content of HRS, but merely requesting that
others back up their allegations with hard evidence. Many people THINK
they KNOW who is behind HRS (and for that matter the identity of
"Johnny NoCom") but can they prove it? Pedantic, yes - but I have
always admitted to being a pedant.
Of course, amusement can be found in the serious reaction to obviously
silly parody.
> And as always recumbent culture is goofy and in need of some
> Benzodiazipan's to calm them down....
Nah, we enjoy dissention and controversy. ;)
[1]
<http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/FA5DC791-B0D3-418E-9946-87162E6C6EC1.htm >.
[2] We could have a discussion on the possible misinterpretations of
the word "should".
[3] Since I am in a charitable mood at the moment (and since no one has
been able to point out any flaws in my logic).
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
"Great Ford!
yawl smelling your clivus? pew!
a unique event
or transient actionable intelligence?
unclog!" - G. Daniels
|
| | |
Date: 25 Nov 2005 06:48:19
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
"Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1132807208.909875.208360@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> magillagorillakk@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic wrote:
[...]
> Some friendly advice to Rich Pinto [3] - the best thing he can do is
> ignore "Bacchetta baiting", and not engage those of us who have much
> experience in conducting flame wars. He has nothing to gain, and much
> to lose.
When good men do nothing, then evil prevails. Tom illustrates this old
saying every time he goes silent in the face of the criminal vandal troll.
Rich Pinto = 100; Tom Sherman = 0.
>> Tom I consider you a friend but the defense of some of this latest
>> unreasonable behavior on that website is a little curious to me. You
>> are of course entitled to your own opinion just as I am entitled to
>> mine.
>
> I am not defending the content of HRS, but merely requesting that
> others back up their allegations with hard evidence. Many people THINK
> they KNOW who is behind HRS (and for that matter the identity of
> "Johnny NoCom") but can they prove it? Pedantic, yes - but I have
> always admitted to being a pedant.
You are becoming more and more absurd with your making excuses for the
criminal vandal troll. Who cares what he does on his own website, but ARBR
is not his to ruin. Or is that OK with you?
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
|
| |
Date: 23 Nov 2005 00:36:06
From:
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic wrote:
> Mr Reality (Rich Pinto) wrote:
> > ...The good news is in this thread we again see the evidence
> > against the guy who destroyed this unmoderated newsgroup, and who is
> > undoubtedly part of the HRsuck blog....
>
> One person can not destroy a newsgroup. What happened here is a bunch
> of people here that could not hold their own in an argument ran to BROL
> where Bryan, Jose and Larry protect them by shutting down threads and
> banning posters when the arguments get heated. There are plenty of
> other newsgroups where the discussion is heated and often unpleasant,
> but the regulars stick around.
>
> > Let the delusional friend of Gin
> > and the history/logic challenged (a party of one) take one side with
> > the seven sock puppets posts in this thread, the rest of us can come to
> > our own conclusions....
>
> Okay, Mr. Pinto is again employing the technique where he states a mere
> opinion as if it were fact, with the hope of certitude in his manner
> will cause others to believe him.
>
> Please state your case with evidence that Ed Gin is a "pathological
> liar". This is the second time that Mr. Pinto has stated this, but he
> has yet to back it up. WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE MR. PINTO?
>
> Mr. Pinto claims someone (presumably myself) is "history/logic
> challenged" and "delusional", but fails to back this up. Please
> provide SPECIFIC EXAMPLES, or RETRACT your claim.
>
> Say what you want about me personally, but do not misrepresent what I
> write, because I will publicly call you out on it every time.
>
> Lots of smoke here, but where is the fire?
>
> Let us hash this out shall we. I am looking forward to it. ;)
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
> "Twisting may help if yawl can chew gum and walk." - G. Daniels
Tom,
I am still friends with and in contact with Mr. Gin and the great AA.
My purpose in Bacchetta attending a MI function was to end the
bickering.
That bickering is not coming from Bacchetta nor any of its team
members.
And there satirical site should be ignored. Satire and Conan and the
Whitehouse? Does President Bush hire hit men to kill Conan? Well only
on an off nite...
Still the recumbent bizz is small and maybe the site should be shut
down.
And I am sure that Rich will send some team riders to some races in
Chicago if the negitive retoric would die down or go away. Why should
he race? Bacchetta has nothing to gain by it. But agin a little
civility goes a long way and maybe things could change for the better.
Tom I consider you a friend but the defense of some of this latest
unreasonable behavior on that website is a little curious to me. You
are of course entitled to your own opinion just as I am entitled to
mine.
And as always recumbent culture is goofy and in need of some
Benzodiazipan's to calm them down....
MG
|
| |
Date: 22 Nov 2005 20:00:57
From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Mr Reality (Rich Pinto) wrote:
> ...The good news is in this thread we again see the evidence
> against the guy who destroyed this unmoderated newsgroup, and who is
> undoubtedly part of the HRsuck blog....
One person can not destroy a newsgroup. What happened here is a bunch
of people here that could not hold their own in an argument ran to BROL
where Bryan, Jose and Larry protect them by shutting down threads and
banning posters when the arguments get heated. There are plenty of
other newsgroups where the discussion is heated and often unpleasant,
but the regulars stick around.
> Let the delusional friend of Gin
> and the history/logic challenged (a party of one) take one side with
> the seven sock puppets posts in this thread, the rest of us can come to
> our own conclusions....
Okay, Mr. Pinto is again employing the technique where he states a mere
opinion as if it were fact, with the hope of certitude in his manner
will cause others to believe him.
Please state your case with evidence that Ed Gin is a "pathological
liar". This is the second time that Mr. Pinto has stated this, but he
has yet to back it up. WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE MR. PINTO?
Mr. Pinto claims someone (presumably myself) is "history/logic
challenged" and "delusional", but fails to back this up. Please
provide SPECIFIC EXAMPLES, or RETRACT your claim.
Say what you want about me personally, but do not misrepresent what I
write, because I will publicly call you out on it every time.
Lots of smoke here, but where is the fire?
Let us hash this out shall we. I am looking forward to it. ;)
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
"Twisting may help if yawl can chew gum and walk." - G. Daniels
|
| | |
Date: 25 Nov 2005 06:32:49
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
"Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1132718457.642766.169230@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Mr Reality (Rich Pinto) wrote:
>> ...The good news is in this thread we again see the evidence
>> against the guy who destroyed this unmoderated newsgroup, and who is
>> undoubtedly part of the HRsuck blog....
>
> One person can not destroy a newsgroup. What happened here is a bunch
> of people here that could not hold their own in an argument ran to BROL
> where Bryan, Jose and Larry protect them by shutting down threads and
> banning posters when the arguments get heated. There are plenty of
> other newsgroups where the discussion is heated and often unpleasant,
> but the regulars stick around.
There is no one on this group who more enjoys a heated and often unpleasant
discussion than yours truly, but everyone draws the line at criminality -
except other criminals. Are you a criminal?
One person can easily destroy a newsgroup if that one person engages in
criminal behavior. There are no policemen here on ARBR (although Meinecke
tries to be one every now and then) as there are on moderated groups. I have
never in my life posted to a moderated group, but I can see the point of
them after having spent considerable time here on ARBR.
When the criminal vandal troll destroyed this group, many of the regulars
like yourself took to the tall grass. It was left to just a few of us to
defend the group. You have no credibility on this issue, so why not just
absent yourself on what is good for a newsgroup and what is not good for a
newsgroup. You do not know what you are talking about when it comes to this
issue.
>> Let the delusional friend of Gin
>> and the history/logic challenged (a party of one) take one side with
>> the seven sock puppets posts in this thread, the rest of us can come to
>> our own conclusions....
>
> Okay, Mr. Pinto is again employing the technique where he states a mere
> opinion as if it were fact, with the hope of certitude in his manner
> will cause others to believe him.
The record speaks for itself. You have behaved abominably from the
beginning, and all because you are a friend of his. How about showing some
friendship to this newsgroup, if you are capable of that.
[...]
> Say what you want about me personally, but do not misrepresent what I
> write, because I will publicly call you out on it every time.
It is what you didn't say (and still don't say) when confronted with
criminal behavior. We are waiting to hear your defense and justification of
sock puppets, forged names and forged email addresses - and of name calling
in general. You do not do these things and yet you stand by and let others
do them. In fact, you are now defending such practices which puts you into
the same category.
Rich Pinto is right about what destroyed this newsgroup. I have not read the
blogs nor do I ever intend to as I do not give a damn about which is the
fastest bike. But I do care about this newsgroup. I am convinced that Tom
Sherman does not care about this group since he will not defend it when it
comes under attack by a criminal vandal troll.
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
|
| |
Date: 22 Nov 2005 18:17:16
From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Edward Dolan wrote:
> ...
> You have to take Sherman warts and all. He is OK on most recumbent bike
> subjects but he is just plain crazy on most other subjects. Hells Bells, =
he
> even has very questionable taste in classical music if you ask me. He
> actually listens to baroque musak! He thinks music began with Bach and
> Handel when every sensible person knows it began with Haydn and Mozart.
And I was going to choose among CD's containing recordings of
Monteverdi, Sch=FCtz, Praetorius, Purcell, Byrd, Dowland, Palestrina, di
Lasso, Gabrielli (G. and A.) and Guerrero to listen to.
ah guess i gots me a bunch of shiny coasters now
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
"Twisting may help if yawl can chew gum and walk." - G. Daniels
|
| | |
Date: 25 Nov 2005 05:33:15
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
"Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1132712236.166729.141160@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Edward Dolan wrote:
> ...
> You have to take Sherman warts and all. He is OK on most recumbent bike
> subjects but he is just plain crazy on most other subjects. Hells Bells,
> he
> even has very questionable taste in classical music if you ask me. He
> actually listens to baroque musak! He thinks music began with Bach and
> Handel when every sensible person knows it began with Haydn and Mozart.
And I was going to choose among CD's containing recordings of
Monteverdi, Schütz, Praetorius, Purcell, Byrd, Dowland, Palestrina, di
Lasso, Gabrielli (G. and A.) and Guerrero to listen to.
ah guess i gots me a bunch of shiny coasters now
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
Only a religious ass of the first magnitude would bother with church music
from the Baroque era. All that music in praise of God sickens me! The truth
is music did not come into its own until the secularists took it over and
society established concert halls where cultivated folks like myself could
be properly entertained and amused.
Music in the service of religion is just that - religious music, and it has
no place outside the church. I am aware that some of the great Classical and
Romantic era composers (Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert) also wrote music for
the church, but the church never liked it much as it was too "musical" for
their purposes and was a distraction more than anything else.
Let's face it, if I am in church and Beethoven's Missa Solemnis is being
performed, I am going to be listening to the music and not paying any
attention to God at all. The Church had it right from the beginning.
Gregorian chant is most appropriate for religious services. Any other kind
of music performed in church is an abomination.
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
|
| |
Date: 22 Nov 2005 17:59:40
From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
"nget" wrote without putting spaces at the end of his/her/its
sentences:
> 'Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic' Wrote:
> > Mr Reality (Rich Pinto) wrote:
> > > ...
> > > Over and out on this one...
> >
> > Mr. Pinto:
> >
> > Before you leave, please support your contention that Ed Gin is a
> > "pathological liar". When such an accusation is made, the group
> > (alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent) deserves to hear the evidence.
> >
> > Thank you,
>>
> If your man is telling the truth why then does he need sock
> puppets?Maybe I'm not the only one on ARBR who would like to hear your
> response to that one.
The above question is illogical. There are other potential uses for
sock puppets beyond perpetrating falsehoods.
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
"Twisting may help if yawl can chew gum and walk." - G. Daniels
|
| | |
Date: 25 Nov 2005 05:57:18
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
"Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1132711180.057648.283990@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> "nget" wrote without putting spaces at the end of his/her/its
> sentences:
>> 'Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic' Wrote:
>> > Mr Reality (Rich Pinto) wrote:
>> > > ...
>> > > Over and out on this one...
>> >
>> > Mr. Pinto:
>> >
>> > Before you leave, please support your contention that Ed Gin is a
>> > "pathological liar". When such an accusation is made, the group
>> > (alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent) deserves to hear the evidence.
>> >
>> > Thank you,
>>>
>> If your man is telling the truth why then does he need sock
>> puppets?Maybe I'm not the only one on ARBR who would like to hear your
>> response to that one.
>
> The above question is illogical. There are other potential uses for
> sock puppets beyond perpetrating falsehoods.
>
> Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
I too, along with nget, would like to hear your explanation for the use of
sock puppets. While you are at it, how about explaining the use of forged
names and forged email addresses. We have all noted over the years that you
do not engage in these types of reprehensible and criminal practices and
still you manage to say whatever it is that you want to say just fine - as
do I. Please, I am holding my breath awaiting your answer.
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Nov 2005 17:05:34
From: Mike Rice
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 05:57:18 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net >
wrote:
<major snip >
> Please, I am holding my breath awaiting your answer.
>
>Ed Dolan - Minnesota
>
>
Ed I hope you are using a balloon in which you are holding that
breath. Otherwise, I fear for your continued survival.
Indiana Mike
>
|
| | |
Date: 23 Nov 2005 16:50:48
From: nget
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
'Sunset Lowracer [TM Wrote:
> Fanatic']"nget" wrote without putting spaces at the end of his/her/its
> sentences:
> > 'Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic' Wrote:
> > > Mr Reality (Rich Pinto) wrote:
> > > > ...
> > > > Over and out on this one...
> > >
> > > Mr. Pinto:
> > >
> > > Before you leave, please support your contention that Ed Gin is a
> > > "pathological liar". When such an accusation is made, the group
> > > (alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent) deserves to hear the evidence.
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> >>
> > If your man is telling the truth why then does he need sock
> > puppets?Maybe I'm not the only one on ARBR who would like to hea
> your
> > response to that one.
>
> The above question is illogical. There are other potential uses for
> sock puppets beyond perpetrating falsehoods.
> --
> Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
> "Twisting may help if yawl can chew gum and walk." - G. Daniels
So then, can we assume that sock puppets are created to assist peopl
in telling the truth
--
nget
|
| |
Date: 22 Nov 2005 13:29:51
From: NW
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
From: "Mr Reality" <rcpinto@aol.com >
Date: 22 Nov 2005 05:50:04 -0800
>I respond only when people seem to be swallowing the endless
>Chicago lowracer hype without hearing the reality
Here is some more reality to swallow Mr. Pinto. No Bacchetta racers at Battle Mountain. Come to think of it no Bacchetta racers at any HPV races unless Jim Verheul racing a NoCOm lowracer with a Bacchetta jersey counts.
It says a lot when a Bacchetta team racer uses another companies product to compete at races.
Hard to swallow that one eh Rich?
Gulp...........
NW
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
|
| |
Date: 22 Nov 2005 09:31:05
From: Yo Mamma
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
From: "Mr Reality" <rcpinto@aol.com > wrote:
>I respond only when people seem to be swallowing the endless
Rich and Kevin back together again. How sweet. Will you two be holding hands and licking each others butt holes after you kiss and make up at the next FOG rally? Is Kevin a Bboy and back on the team now that you two are yanking your cranks on ARBR?
YO
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
|
| |
Date: 22 Nov 2005 05:50:04
From: Mr Reality
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
25. magillagorill...@hotmail.com
Nov 22, 3:09 am show options
Newsgroups: alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
From: magillagorill...@hotmail.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 22 Nov 2005 01:09:00 -0800
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
Reply
|
| | |
Date: 07 Dec 2005 18:46:00
From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Jim McNaa <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Tom,
>
> Sorry for the delayed response but Google was spittin out Server Erros
> when I tried to post yesterday, so let's pick up wher we left off ahall
> we?
>
> [Snippage of repetitive and/or grammatically unclear material]
>
> --> Tom, even a butcher couldn't slice and dice a post with such
> precision. I've never taken the liberty to snip anything of yours and
> you have to admit if you consider repetition sufficient reason surely I
> would have had ample justification. In all fairness to the party to
> whom I am responding and to the readership, I don't feel that I should
> assume the role of censor. Apparently you disagree with me on that
> account as well. You conveniently omit what you can't comprehend or
> simply refuse to acknowledge or address. The comprehension issue might
> be my fault. Perhaps I should dumb it down for you so won't give up so
> easily and resort to labeling an articulate passage as grammatically
> unclear before you do a hatchet job on it. By the way that was just
> your OPINION and not a FACT right? Why didn't you qualify it as such
> since you demand everyone else to do? You are a trip. You expect
> people to play by your rules but exempt yourself.
I was removing irrelevant material to my response - this is called
editing, and has been a well accepted practice for hundred of years.
On various standardized tests (i.e. WAIS, ACT, SAT and GRE) I have
scored in the 99% percentile for comprehension of written English. If I
have trouble with comprehension, it is the fault of the writer not
expressing his or her thought clearly. My opinion stands that the
material was poorly written, and should have been edited for clarity
and concision before being posted.
> > One has to wonder why is it that you continue to associate
> > with and defend these scoundrels rather than denounce them, sever your
> > ties and abdicate your assumed role as their spokesperson....
>
> Mr. McNaa is assuming facts not in evidence. Since no one has proven
> (or admitted to me) authorship of either the Johnny NoCom posts or the
> HRS blog, how could I sever my (assumed) ties with them?
>
> --> And they won't, because they are cowards. They prefer to lash out
> cloaked in pseudonyms. Regardless, based on characteristic, parallel
> patterns of behavior you have said that you could produce a list of the
> likely candidates and it would be similar to the list that I could
> produce. Since you know whom I suspect, go over your list. Have you
> had any association with those whom I suspect that match you list? Do
> you call any of them friends? If they were ever admit to
> responsibility would you then acknowledge that you should have given
> the compelling preponderance of circumstantial evidence more credence
> or would you stubbornly persist in you defense and remains allied with
> those responsible. Inquiring minds want to know?
If he/she/they admitted to authoring the HRS blog and/or Johnny NoCom
posts, I would still be willing to go on a bike ride with he/she/they
(assuming that I would have been willing before the admission was
made). FLAME AWAY!
> I have not expressed any opinion of approval of the HRS blog, and in
> fact pointed out that the blog author(s) erred in parodying private
> individuals.
>
> --> And that is all that you disapprove of? Like I said before, if you
> were on the receiving end, I suspect that you would have an entirely
> different perspective in this matter and you know it.
Mr. McNaa's suspicions are unfounded. He should look to the example
of AA and KK who have gone at it on this very forum, yet reportedly get
along in real life.
> > Lack of
> > conclusive evidence you might say. To that I say; based on
> > characteristic, parallel patterns of behavior, if you have suspicions
> > sufficient enough to enable you to compile a list of likely candidates,
> > then you have adequate reason to have already parted company with those
> > who you persist in harboring and defending. If you and I could produce
> > a similar list, then you must regard the telling circumstantial
> > evidence to be compelling enough for others to arrive at the same
> > conclusion and some have.
>
> Mr. McNaa is again assuming facts not in evidence. Since I have not
> stated my list of likely candidates, how can any claim of relationship
> be made? Similarly, since I have not produced a list, how can it be
> said that it would be similar to Mr. McNaa's list?
>
> --> You want an example of flawed logic. Well here's one. You either
> have a relationship with your list of candidates or you don't
> regardless of whether you stated who they are. A claim of a
> relationship is not contingent upon revelation or lack thereof. How
> can your list be similar to my list you ask? You tell me. You're the
> one who originally made that statement and I took you at your word.
> Frankly, it is not that difficult to ascertain why our lists would be
> similar. Anyone who has known one or more of those involved, and has
> known them for years, can readily identify their modus operandi and
> compiled lists would likely match up rather well. Since I provided
> initials of the last names of the three I suspect you already know this
> for a fact. This isn't rocket science.
Mr. McNaa provided the initials EG, SJ and AA (who these people are
will be blatantly obvious to some). I had candidates in mind that have
initials other than those mentioned by Mr. McNaa.
> > > 2. Offenses are not limited to the blog, but extend to objectionable
> > > posts both past and present ... posts that are obvious to all but you
> > > (Tom) to have originated from the same few sources.
>
> > There are multiple probable candidates for the authorship of the HRS
> > blog, the Johnny NoCom posts, and many of the other anonymous
> > anti-highracer/anti-Bacchetta/anti-BROL posts here on
> > alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent, the defunct Monkey Island message boards
> > and other online forums. Therefore, authorship of one does not
> > necessarily indicate authorship of the others, so that assumption
> > should not be made.
>
> > --> You are out of sync. I addressed that particular issue in #4
> > (below). Multiple probable candidates? I can think of 3, the author
> > and 2 collaborators although there could possibly be more serving in a
> > minor capacity. The two to whom I refer have a history of anonymity
> > that extends back several years in archived Usenet newsgroup posts. As
> > concerns the defunct Monkey Island message board, most who adopted a
> > monkey moniker merely did so to have a simian nom de plume (pen-name)
> > to reflect their registered "residence" on Monkey Island.
> > Consequently, you cannot emphatically lump all the Monkey Island
> > participants into a pool of potential candidates. Why do that? I know
> > to further add to identity confusion ... a clever, but failed attempt.
> > Just whatever do you mean by saying ... "Therefore, authorship of one
> > does not necessarily indicate authorship of the others", like that
> > somehow logically follows? It most certainly does not. You persist in
> > ignoring what many others have noted and referred to countless times,
> > that is the consistency of priy focus and distinctive writing styles
> > that makes it easy to assume that these shenanigans are confined to the
> > same small group of specific individuals ... the same themes, the same
> > targets, the same misspellings, the same grammatical errors, the same
> > phraseology, the same email headers, the same PCs, the same ISPs, etc.
> > that attest to origin. You seem to be the only person who is incapable
> > and/or unwilling to recognize that. I guess someone has to express an
> > OPINION as to where the blame should be placed and it may as well be
> > me. Much speculation has been bandied about regarding the parties
> > responsible and although the evidence is purely circumstantial, it is
> > nonetheless substantial and compelling. The author of the HRS blog
> > trashes all highracer bikes accept for one which is exempted and in fat
> > is lauded and the author just happens own ... a Volae. Coincidence? I
> > think not. Tom, how many of those on your list of probable candidates
> > own a Volae? That kind of narrows authorship down now doesn't it? He
> > is an ex-Monkey Island friend of Ed Gin. I'll still not name any names
> > here, but the initials of the last names of the three that I suspect as
> > being directly involved, when placed side-by-side, spell JAG and I find
> > that particular sequence to be most appropriate. You know who the last
> > one is, so all you have to do now is to determine if the initials match
> > your lineup of suspects. I am convinced that you will find this to be
> > not very challenging.
>
> The same old suppositions and circumstantial evidence. Where is the
> proof?
>
> --> Same old response. Let me guess. There are lots of people who
> write in this distinctive style and many a blog author who ride a Volae
> and goes around trashing highracers ... NOT! I know of one. How many
> do you know of? The HRS blog is just the latest communication conduit
> for what has been a long-standing pattern for those that have conducted
> themselves in this manner. Now, I didn't expect you to accept any of
> that as proof, but this seems to me to be more than mere coincidence.
> So, tell me, just how restrictive is your definition? Not that I need
> any additional proof, but what would you consider acceptable proof? I
> get the distinct impression that it would be next to impossible to
> prove anything to you that you didn't want to be proved to you. You're
> kind of stubborn that way, but that doesn't come as much of a
> revelation now does it?
I could easily duplicate the writing style of the HRS blog (and the
Johnny NoCom posts) if I wanted to. For all I KNOW, the HRS blog COULD
be an effort by a Bacchetta supporter to gain favor for Bacchetta
through reverse psychology.
> > > 3. Offenses are not limited solely to the owner of the blog, but rather
> > > to all who participate by contributing to it.
>
> The point being...?
>
> --> The point being that you harp on the blog as though it is the only
> platform of the absurd and objectionable. The Johnny NoCom posts were
> akin to newsgroup SPAM and many entries did not fall within the
> confines of the definition of parody and had objectionable content by
> most people's standards. The clamoring from the readership bears that
> out and yet where were you when it came to taking a stand? I know.
> You don't take stands. As Ed Dolan noted, you remained placidly mute.
> You may not, but I attribute the Johnny NoCom posts to the same
> individuals and their activities go much further back than that. Their
> content and style readily betray their origin as coming from the same
> source(s) and their posts prior to their discovery of anonymity link
> them to their current anonymous trash. From what has been said by the
> readership in this regard, it is easy to conclude that most are
> convinced that there is sufficient reason to suspect who is involved
> and/or responsible. Care to take a pole?
The Johnny NoCom posts and HRS blog certainly have some similarities,
but no overwhelming evidence exists that the author(s) are the same.
Please inform me of the size and material composition of the pole. Then
I will decide if I wish to accept it. Or did you mean "poll"?
Why would I care about poll results anyhow? I believe I can make my own
judgments, and not rely on those of others who may well be misinformed
or prejudiced.
> > --> Once again, you failed to acknowledge what I have said repeatedly
> > (see #3). I suppose I will just have to take silence as admission that
> > offenses are not limited solely to the blog or its author(s)....
>
> Please restate the above after editing for clarity and logic.
>
> --> You find two... count 'em ... two simple sentences to be a
> challenge to decipher? Are we not communicating in your mother tongue?
> Are you in need of interpreter? I'll not restate something that even
> the mentally challenged could readily understand. At times you are so
> far beyond being able to comprehend what I've conveyed that
> communication converges on the useless. The really pitiful part is
> that you have deluded yourself into believing that you're winning.
> Maybe Rich Pinto is right after all when he accuses you of being
> delusional.
Mr. McNaa has said many things repeatedly, so he should be more
specific. "Silence as omission" as a presumption of guilt in not a
moral or logical position. Silence is silence (yes a truism, but
pertinent in this context).
> > I'm beginning to think Ed Dolan is right about you being stubborn, never
> > in the wrong and unable or unwilling to take a stand. It should be duly
> > noted that there is a significant difference between condemning the
> > wrongdoing and condemning the nameless wrongdoers. You will do
> > neither. You are adamant in your resolve not to repudiate the
> > "unidentified" perpetrators or their surreptitious skullduggery....
>
> The dominant religious philosophy in western society states (in part);
> "love the sinner, hate the sin." Are you contending that billions of
> people are wrong?
>
> --> What I am contending is exactly what I said. A song comes to mind
> here ... Slip slidin' away. Teflon Tom, you throwin' me another
> diversionary curve ball? You've got it backwards by the way (hate the
> sin, love the sinner). If you personally subscribe to this religious
> precept, then grow a pair ... stand up and be counted ... hate the sin
> ... let you voice be heard. If you hate the sin, then say that you do
> or can the pious nonsense. If you cannot and will not, I am left to
> conclude that either you do not hate the sin or you disagree with the
> billions of people of the dominant religious philosophy in western
> society that you questioned me about. Pick one.
I disapprove of portions of the HRS blog. However, I find it
fascinating that someone would go to that much effort, unless
he/she/they felt seriously wronged by Bacchetta and/or person(s)
associated with Bacchetta. Some portions of the HRS blog are indeed
rather clever.
> > Refusing to do so is tantamount to giving those involved and their
> > activities your personal stamp of approval....
>
> The above is logically false. Next!
>
> --> True, but not so fast. I'm going to demonstrate something to you
> that you are absolutely incapable of doing. I am going to agree with
> you. I am going to say that in this particular instance, my logic was
> flawed. You could never and will never do that. Why? Because you
> mistakenly believe that you are not flawed and that it your biggest
> flaw, but I digress. Let me get back to the issue at hand. There's no
> middle ground here. It's decision time. You do remember how to make a
> decision don't you? Do you approve or disapprove of the blog? YES or
> NO? Pick one or just admit that you haven't the gumption to do either
> and just slip on out of here in silence as you commonly do. By the
> way, don't waste your breath with some crap about you have this private
> opinion for which there is no moral imperative that dictates that you
> make a choice.
See above. [YAWN]
> > What do you suggest that
> > we do ... sit idly by, grant the offenders impunity ... what?...
>
> If you (general you) do not approve of the blog or posts, ignore them.
>
> > I will
> > ask you again, without naming names, why do you refuse to condemn the
> > actions of the nameless? There is no middle ground here. One either
> > approves or disapproves. Where do you stand? Should you once again
> > fail to take a stand. I suppose that in not taking a stand, you have
> > in effect taken a stand ... a cowardly one, but one that reflects the
> > demeanor of those you shelter.
>
> --> I've never understood spineless pacifists.
>
> Allowing parody of public individuals is essential to a free society.
> Whether or not I find the HRS blog humorous, tasteless, offensive, etc.
> is my personal opinion, and there is no moral imperative that requires
> me to publicly express my opinion.
>
> --> I repeat few, if any of those targeted, are public figures, so you
> can quit regurgitating that line of reasoning....
As Indiana Mike pointed out, I expressed my disapproval in those cases
of parodying private individuals on a public forum (without any
prompting from Mr. McNaa, I might add).
> So, you actually do
> have a personal opinion. Well what's keepin' you? I'm all ears.
> Never mind. You're not going to share that with us now are you, Tom.
> You're just such a tease. Yep, Ed Dolan has you pegged all right.
> Just as well, you know. Something tells me that I wouldn't want to
> hear it anyways. Like I said before, I've never understood pacifists.
See above. [YAWN]
> Besides, if you were to indicate your disapproval (don't think you have
> it in you by the way) you'd be crossing those on your list of
> candidates who are most likely to be those responsible parties and you
> just might end up being blog fodder. Then I'd like to see ho much you
> like it and how determined you'd remain to rise to their defense. I'm
> thinking you might have an opinion then ... one that you might even be
> disposed to share with us.
See above. [YAWN]
> > > 4. The profiles of those involved and their distinctive, (readily
> > > recognizable) writing styles establishes their culpability and links
> > > the authors with their postings even though their specific identity is
> > > cowardly cloaked by a multitude of pseudonyms. If they were proud of
> > > what they do and if they had the courage to reveal their true identity,
> > > they would use their real names and real email addresses, but they are
> > > neither proud nor courageous. Surely you will not address this issue
> > > for there is no room for argument, so don't even give me any nonsense
> > > about there being a good reason for obscurity when you find no reason
> > > to do so and their reason is so obvious that it needn't even be
> > > mentioned.
>
> > To the contrary, there are some who might well indeed extend
> > retaliation to means beyond the written word. I am aware of several
> > cases (although not involving highracers/Bacchetta/BROL) where this has
> > occurred. True freedom of speech is usually more a theoretical concept
> > than reality.
>
> > --> You're out of sync again. I addressed the freedom of speech issue
> > in #8 (below). By logical implication, you have all but admitted that
> > you are aware that those responsible have spawned sufficient
> > provocation to warrant remaining anonymous for fear of any
> > counter-measures that would exceed that of the written word. Well, I
> > couldn't agree more. The operative word in your statement was
> > retaliation, which is defined as an action taken in return for an
> > injury or offense. Certainly, no one can deny that there has been a
> > cornucopia of injury and offense. Now it should be obvious that
> > vengeance would not even be the point of discussion if the HRS blog and
> > the many derogatory posts past and present were simply never made. If
> > retribution extends beyond the written word, that is the risk that
> > those responsible knowingly and willingly took and the consequences
> > that they must accept. We must all take responsibility for our
> > decisions and the consequences of those decisions. If the parties who
> > are responsible find that their payback extends beyond the written
> > word, be it in the form of litigation, violence or whatever, so be it.
> > I'll not shed a tear. They will have reaped what they sowed ... earned
> > and deserve whatever form of reprisal comes their way.
>
> Ah, so Jim McNaa believes that physical violence is a just response
> to parody? I see where his moral standards are.
>
> --> Ah, but Jim McNaa didn't say that exactly. What I said was that
> if litigation (you deliberately omitted that one) or violence were the
> end result that responsible parties were aware of the risks they were
> taking up front, were willing to take those risks and should be
> expected to accept the consequences. As arrogant as you are, I
> expected you to play God and pass moral judgment. What you think
> matters not. I don't have to answer to you. Understand that not
> everyone in this world is pacifist and retaliation in the form of
> violence is not an uncommon occurrence. I did not say that I
> encouraged it. I did not say that I condoned it. I merely said that
> I'd not shed a tear and to your dismay and your horror, I will repeat
> what I SIAD ... I WOULD NOT SHED A TEAR!!!
Mr. McNaa refuses to morally disapprove of physical violence in
response to a verbal slight (or slights). The immorality of that
position is clear, as the response is entirely disproportionate to the
stimulus.
> With all the pain and
> suffering these depraved individuals have inflicted, payback is long
> over due and whatever form it takes is whatever form it takes. In this
> particular instance ... hate the sin, love the sinner takes on a whole
> new meaning ... one that I can certainly relate to at this juncture.
>
> > > 5. Despite you assertion to the contrary, I didn't accuse Ed of
> > > authorship of the blog, but there is no doubt in my mind regarding his
> > > active participation in the blog or in his authorship of past and
> > > present objectionable posts and this is an OPINION that is shared by
> > > most here regardless of your drum beating about FACTS. Your logic
> > > reads much like this. If you enter a room and lying on the floor is a
> > > person dead from a gunshot wound and a person is standing over the body
> > > holding a gun that is later found to have been purchased by and
> > > registered in his name. In his pocket is found a receipt for recently
> > > purchased bullets and the open box, on the table, just happens to have
> > > the same number of bullets missing that were chambered in the gun,
> > > there still remains sufficient reason to consider that the person found
> > > holding the gun was not the murderer simply because the preponderance
> > > of evidence is purely circumstantial since the event was not captured
> > > on videotape. Sorry, but I just buy your line of reasoning....
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> It is good to see that Jim McNaa has come around to see the logic of
> my position.
>
> --> Nonsense. You really are a dunderhead. It was late, I was tired,
> should have done a better job of proofreading. Unlike you I'm human
> and have human frailties. I know utter blasphemy if those words were
> to pass you lips. The bottom line is that I omitted the word DON'T (I
> just DON'T buy your line of reasoning). Now, care to answer the
> question that you ducked?
Should I respond to what is written, or what I could possibly imagine
what might have been written?
> > The above criteria are certainly grounds to further investigate that
> > particular individual, but do not constitute proof of murder.
> > > 6. You persist in your inability to recognize that the circumstantial
> > > evidence as formidable and telling. You also persist in your
> > > unwillingness to condemn the nameless perpetrators who are responsible.
> > > Why is that? Is it because if those responsible are ever identified,
> > > that you know you that could very well have condemned those with whom
> > > you are associated and allied?
>
> > Parody of public figures is accepted in advanced societies. Note that I
> > did post criticisms of the HRS blog in the two cases where people who
> > clearly are not public figures (I can state this with certainty since I
> > have met both these individuals) were objects of the parody.
>
> > --> I somehow missed those two cases and posts. Care to repost? Do
> > you really expect any of us to believe that the objectionable posts
> > both past and present and the denigrating HRS blog fall within the
> > protective sanctuary of parody. Can you honestly say that you can find
> > nothing in all this that doesn't transcend the definition of the word
> > or doesn't exceed the boundaries of good taste? Lest I remind you
> > again, I'm the guy who fucks his mother. Ask your friends. One of
> > them said so. I know ... just another example of an otherwise
> > perfectly acceptable parody, if it were not for the fact that I am not
> > a public person ... right? I guess what you need is to become a victim
> > for you to come to grips with enlightenment. This all makes me wonder
> > though if in fact your reluctance to take a stand and condemn the
> > wrongdoers and their wrongdoing is because of the very real threat of
> > that possibility ... becoming one of their victims. If you ever find
> > yourself in that position, I suspect that you would find the experience
> > one that would provide you with a much needed attitude adjustment ...
> > one that would alter your perspective considerably. As concerns public
> > figures, many victims are most certainly not "public figures" (more
> > about that further down).
Since no competent person is going to take the HRS blog seriously, I
fail to see how it can be more than a minor offense.
> Where is the definition of parody that mandates inoffensiveness?
>
> --> Well nothing actually, but parody, by definition entails more than
> just mockery. It also entails mimicry. Just what is being mimicked
> ... one another's putrified underbelly? It comes as no surprise that
> you failed to address the "shoe on the other foot" scenario and the
> issue of public figures, which you state not as OPINION bet as FACT.
>
> I have been called worse things on Usenet than anything in the HRS blog
> or Johnny NoCom posts. As long is it is opinion, and not misstatement
> of fact I could care less.
>
> --> Your kind inspires name-calling of the worst sort. You know, you
> dismiss things all too readily. The accusation referred to above
> regarding my mother, I can assure you is misstatement of fact. I will,
> assume for the sake of argument that if I said of you what was said of
> me, I would have made a misstatement of fact that even you might find
> offensive and objectionable. Am I right? If not, then you contradict
> your statement regarding misstatement of fact in reference to what you
> do and do not care about.
No one would believe Mr. McNaa if he made statements of the sort he
mentions above, so I would not give it much thought.
> > > 7. Personally, it is my opinion (I know you're fond of that word) that
> > > even you have little doubt as to who the culprits are. You as much as
> > > said so when you indicated that we would likely produce similar lists...
>
> I assume Jim McNaa is referring to the paragraph below (from a
> previous post of mine).
>
> "Based on past events, I can think of several people who names have not
> been mentioned on this thread who might be responsible for the HRS blog
> and postings. (I suspect that Jim McNaa might well come up with a
> similar list.) This is another reason why there is reasonable doubt as
> to the identity of the person(s) behind HRS."
>
> Similar should be taken to me "a list of alternative candidates to
> those whose names have been mentioned". It should not necessarily be
> interpreted to say that my list of names would be identical to the list
> of names Jim McNaa would generate.
>
> --> Your twisting things again. Only one name has been mentioned thus
> far. A list by its very nature assumes more than one, but why have you
> unnecessarily introduced the concept of alternative candidates. Why,
> unless you specifically intend to confuse, would you want to complicate
> the issue by attempting to "clarify" your original statement, which
> wasn't in need of clarification? I find it most peculiar that you now
> have a problem with me accepting your statement as originally written?
> Now, similar and identical are not synonyms and I never used the word
> identical, but I agree with your former premise, we would produce
> SIMILAR list. In fact I'm thinking you would probably match two if not
> all three of the names I have in mind and since I provided those
> initials, you should have a very good idea just how similar our lists
> would be so there is no need to pretend otherwise otherwise. I know,
> you'd prefer not to comment about any similarities.
See above - there are distinct possibilities beyond the three (3)
mentioned by Mr. McNaa.
> > > assuming of course that your convictions did not have you constrained
> > > from doing so. Here's a concept. How about this? We could both
> > > produce our lists with an appropriate escape clauses that our lists are
> > > not to be misconstrued as FACT since they are OPINIONS substantiated
> > > only by overwhelming circumstantial evidence. Then we could compare
> > > notes. You game? We could even do so in a private email if you don't
> > > want to go public.
>
> > See my first paragraph in this post.
>
> > --> See my response to your first paragraph. The offer was made with
> > an escape clause to cover you ass and even provided with a private
> > email exchange option and yet still you weaseled out. The offer still
> > stands by the way.
>
> What reason is there for me to discuss this over private email?
>
> --> To spare the readership, I'm thinking. They've probably heard just
> about enough from the both of us. I'm not the only one who made
> suggestion. Indiana Mike did also. If you again read immediately
> above, I clearly stated the other reason, but I have since learned that
> you are not about to compare notes.
If you want to concede the argument, I will then discontinue the
argument. I have posted more than 200 times in a single argument on one
thread, but I do not object to setting a new personal record. ;)
I have no interest in continuing this argument in private, as that
would not entertain me in the least.
> > > 8. From my perspective, you have sheltered the nameless guilty parties,
> > > in a feigned defense of freedom of speech, innocent until proven guilty
> > > and harmless parody/satire. Freedom of speech does not entitle one to
> > > say anything and everything, like screaming fire in a theater. Oh
> > > sure, one can say scandalous things for sure, but need I remind you
> > > that the courts are packed full of libel suits. Frankly, I hope this
> > > crap ends up in a courtroom so you will at long last have the proof
> > > that you demand ... proof that no one else here seems to require.
> > > Innocent until proven guilty is hard to quibble over, but the
> > > accumulated circumstantial evidence leaves only a shadow of a doubt and
> > > the blog and posts, both past and present, are way beyond parody,
> > > satire or even that which is commonly considered acceptable (read
> > > within the bounds of good taste) ... agreed?
>
> > See what I said above about the distinction between public and private
> > individuals (and the US Supreme Court agrees).
>
> > --> I stand by what I said. You merely ducked the entire issue with a
> > one-liner. The US Supreme Court would be so bold as to define many of
> > those who have been on the receiving end as what you have construed as
> > "public individuals", so your fundamental contention is quite irrelevant.
>
> And which US Supreme Court Justices have ventured an opinion on this
> particular matter?
>
> --> I was overly tired when I wrote this stuff and it shows, so I will
> take this opportunity to clarify. What I meant to say was that the
> Supreme Court would not consider many of the victims to be "public
> individuals", but you knew that's what I meant, didn't you? No, go
> back a reread what I said regarding your fundamental contention being
> irrelevant.
See above - I disapprove of parodying private individuals in a public
forum, as my previous posts on other threads should have made clear.
> > > 9. To Tom's credit, he at least gave me kudos for tenacity and
> > > determination. You are right Tom, I'll stick around and argue the
> > > point as long as I feel that there is a point to argue over and it is
> > > worthwhile to do so although admittedly this can become tiring quite
> > > quickly. When an impasse is reached, however, and we can only agree to
> > > disagree, I will likely just call it ... done and over with and move
> > > on....
>
> > Where is Rich Pinto? Mr. Pinto accused me of being "illogical" and
> > "delusional" but refused to back up his argument with facts and logic.
> > Mr. Pinto also has yet to back up his accusation that Ed Gin is a
> > "pathological liar".
>
> > --> It would seem that Rich really struck a nerve....
>
> Not at all.
>
> --> Really. You've asked the question several times now, so it would
> seem that you have unfinished business (lack of closure) over this
> particular issue and you seem frustrated with your lack of success in
> drawing Rich out, but since Rich has not struck a nerve, I guess you
> can refrain from asking him for a response.
I was looking for a public fight, so I could demonstrate that Mr. Pinto
could not back up his insults. Mr. Pinto disappointed me by cutting and
running. Ask Ed Dolan if I am the type to back down. See
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent/browse_frm/thread/e543438ebd2cd4a5/a51b6598f00906d3?q=flammable&rnum=1#a51b6598f00906d3 >.
;)
> > I would be
> > inappropriate for me to address a question that should only be answered
> > by Rich Pinto, but I personally don't see that he has anything to gain
> > by engaging in a cyclical debate with you over issues that the
> > readership has already decided in his favor. It is probably in his
> > best interest to just ignore all this bullshit....
>
> Jim McNaa is now speaking for the readership of
> alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent? I must have missed the announcement where
> he was appointed spokesperson.
>
> ... Dear self-appointed spokesperson for the offensive, I merely said
> that there have so many that have objected that it should be obvious,
> even to someone with your poor powers of perception, that this issue
> has been decided with only a couple of dissenters. Ed Dolan pointed
> this out to you already. As concerns me being a spokesperson, I think
> Ed Dolan might object. Far be it for me to usurp Mr. Dolan's role as
> ARBR spokesperson ;^)
>
> As for Rich Pinto, he should stay away from the discussion completely
> or back up his accusations. Instead, he has "cut and run". It is in his
> best interest, since there is no possible way he could prove my
> statements "illogical" and "delusional".
>
> --> I must have missed the announcement when you were appointed the
> forum moderator. And to think that you still expect us to believe that
> Rich hasn't struck a nerve. It obvious that he has whether you will
> admit it or not. Admitting anything to anyone just isn't your thing is
> it Tom? There's that "prove" word again. Get real. You would not
> accept proof from anyone that you are in any way, shape or form ...
> flawed. Therein, lies a very real difference between us. You refuse
> to recognize let alone acknowledge your flaws. I have pointed out a
> few things that you have said that are certainly illogical just as you
> have to me. When you were right, I made an acknowledgment. I refer
> you to my response in answer to "logically false". You, on the other
> hand, cannot and will not ever make such and admission. When you are
> wrong you will make no such acknowledgment because you consider
> yourself to be omniscient and infallible and an acknowledgment is
> concession that you cannot bear to make. This is in and of itself
> illogical and a flaw. Delusional? No, you're quite there yet, but
> after a couple more rounds, perhaps...
The above reveals much about Mr. McNaa, but nothing about me, so I
will not respond further due to disinterest on my part.
> > A more pertinent
> > question to ask is where are the cowardly culprits? Like you, at least
> > Rich used his real email address and name, but we've been through all
> > that innumerable times. Those who are responsible have good reason to
> > remain anonymous ... fear factor. Rich is not alone in his assertions.
> > I've as much as said that at times you were illogical...
>
> Said by Jim McNaa, but never proven.
>
> --> Go back and read some of my responses and perhaps you will get a
> clue as to when and where I cited examples of you flawed logic. I
> haven't the time go back and footnote everything for you. That would
> be a complete waste of time, because your priy flaw is that like all
> egomaniacs you really believe that you have none. It would be foolish
> of me to even attempt to prove that you are at times illogical. That
> you fail to realize that you are capable of being illogical, flies in
> the face of logic.
Gee, I missed all the CONCLUSIVE ARGUMENTS PROVING THAT I AMD
ILLOGICAL. ;)
> > (even in this
> > post) and I have said the I agree with Rich regarding his observations
> > regarding Ed Gin's pathological prevarication, although I have no
> > intention of citing examples to justify my accusation to you....
>
> I was requesting proof from Rich Pinto since he made the accusation.
>
> > I know what I know...
>
> Ah, the truism!
>
> ... Yep. You understood that one. I guess I should keep my sentences
> short and simple.
>
> > and there are others who also know what I know. Suffice it
> > to say, that I've caught Ed Gin in countless lies and many were
> > specifically told about me. I refuse to be diverted, preferring to
> > stay on topic.
>
> Jim McNaa posts the diversion of accusing Ed Gin of being a liar,
> and then repudiates his own tactic.
>
> ---> What? Diversion? Tactic? Repudiation? You do so enjoy making
> something out of nothing when you have nothing else to offer, don't
> you? You like to add another layer of complexity where none exists or
> is required in a vain attempt to baffle your adversary or the
> readership. Whether you accept what I said about Ed Gin matters not
> and changes nothing. What I said I know to be true statement of fact.
But where is the proof? The world wonders [1]?
[1] Gratuitous Task Force 34 reference.
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Dec 2005 22:58:13
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
"Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1134009960.118015.269680@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[...]
>> Ah, so Jim McNaa believes that physical violence is a just response
>> to parody? I see where his moral standards are.
>>
>>
>> --> Ah, but Jim McNaa didn't say that exactly. What I said was that
>> if litigation (you deliberately omitted that one) or violence were the
>> end result that responsible parties were aware of the risks they were
>> taking up front, were willing to take those risks and should be
>> expected to accept the consequences. As arrogant as you are, I
>> expected you to play God and pass moral judgment. What you think
>> matters not. I don't have to answer to you. Understand that not
>> everyone in this world is pacifist and retaliation in the form of
>> violence is not an uncommon occurrence. I did not say that I
>> encouraged it. I did not say that I condoned it. I merely said that
>> I'd not shed a tear and to your dismay and your horror, I will repeat
>> what I SIAD ... I WOULD NOT SHED A TEAR!!!
>
> Mr. McNaa refuses to morally disapprove of physical violence in
> response to a verbal slight (or slights). The immorality of that
> position is clear, as the response is entirely disproportionate to the
> stimulus.
Mr. Sherman is no judge of what is proportionate or disproportionate. We had
a criminal vandal troll on ARBR last winter and it was left to only a few us
to defend the group, Jim McNaa being foremost. Mr. Sherman took to the
tall grass and was not heard from for the duration. Furthermore, it is
impossible to shame him on this. It amuses me greatly to hear him blather
about moral standards. This coming from someone who does not have any, at
least not where it concerns criminal vandal trolls wrecking ARBR.
[...]
> Since no competent person is going to take the HRS blog seriously, I
> fail to see how it can be more than a minor offense.
Never mind the confounded blog. How would you feel if your name was being
forged to messages which you had never written? That is what was going on
here on ARBR last winter.
[...]
> If you want to concede the argument, I will then discontinue the
> argument. I have posted more than 200 times in a single argument on one
> thread, but I do not object to setting a new personal record. ;)
>
> I have no interest in continuing this argument in private, as that
> would not entertain me in the least.
What does entertain Mr. Sherman is arguing about the Iraq War. I believe we
hold some kind of record for exchanging messages on that particular issue
from a couple of years ago.
[...]
> I was looking for a public fight, so I could demonstrate that Mr. Pinto
> could not back up his insults. Mr. Pinto disappointed me by cutting and
> running. Ask Ed Dolan if I am the type to back down. See
> <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent/browse_frm/thread/e543438ebd2cd4a5/a51b6598f00906d3?q=flammable&rnum=1#a51b6598f00906d3>.
> ;)
Well, yes, this is actually quite true. Mr. Sherman has worn me down many
times in the past. Since neither one of us like to resort to mere name
calling, which is how most disagreements end up here on ARBR, we do end up
trying the patience of the other members as we slug it out. Hells Bells, we
could still be arguing about the Iraq War for all eternity if we wanted to.
Nonetheless, Mr. Sherman will end a conversation in his own inimitable
manner when he wants to, normally by just disappearing. At that point
everything has usually already been said and there is not much to add -
except for the cussing and swearing!
[...]
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Dec 2005 03:40:21
From: Mike Rice
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
On 7 Dec 2005 18:46:00 -0800, "Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic"
<sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote:
<Big snip >
>>
>> What reason is there for me to discuss this over private email?
>>
>> --> To spare the readership, I'm thinking. They've probably heard just
>> about enough from the both of us. I'm not the only one who made
>> suggestion. Indiana Mike did also. If you again read immediately
>> above, I clearly stated the other reason, but I have since learned that
>> you are not about to compare notes.
>
>If you want to concede the argument, I will then discontinue the
>argument. I have posted more than 200 times in a single argument on one
>thread, but I do not object to setting a new personal record. ;)
>
>I have no interest in continuing this argument in private, as that
>would not entertain me in the least.
And the readership, I suppose, is perfectly capable of ignoring this
thread, or even filtering it if we find it that bad. Am I jumping the
fence here?
I think my comment was more along the lines of 'I imagine some wish
you would..' than 'you two should..' regarding taking this to private
e-mail. I have a difficult time believing either of you would bother
this long without an audience. I wouldn't be too surprised if the
length & depth of this arguement wound up reviewed as a feature in the
blog site.
<snip >
>
>I was looking for a public fight, so I could demonstrate that Mr. Pinto
>could not back up his insults. Mr. Pinto disappointed me by cutting and
>running. Ask Ed Dolan if I am the type to back down. See
><http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent/browse_frm/thread/e543438ebd2cd4a5/a51b6598f00906d3?q=flammable&rnum=1#a51b6598f00906d3>.
>;)
>
That's Tom, all right, always looking for a public fight.
Sorry, Mr. Sherman, but I've been accused of only picking on one side
here.
<snip >
>>
>> Ah, the truism!
>>
<snip >
>
>But where is the proof? The world wonders [1]?
>
>[1] Gratuitous Task Force 34 reference.
Thought I'd leave the important part.
Indiana Mike
|
| | | | |
Date: 07 Dec 2005 23:27:24
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
"Mike Rice" <jodymike@gte.net > wrote in message
news:ko9fp1dj9ako01ck9r3h5rd7c71jqgp143@4ax.com...
> On 7 Dec 2005 18:46:00 -0800, "Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic"
> <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
>>I was looking for a public fight, so I could demonstrate that Mr. Pinto
>>could not back up his insults. Mr. Pinto disappointed me by cutting and
>>running. Ask Ed Dolan if I am the type to back down. See
>><http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent/browse_frm/thread/e543438ebd2cd4a5/a51b6598f00906d3?q=flammable&rnum=1#a51b6598f00906d3>.
>>;)
>>
>
> That's Tom, all right, always looking for a public fight.
Mr. Sherman will always make his adversary work much harder than him. He is
the man of the pithy rejoinder, which will mostly go right over the head of
the typical ARBR member. In other words, Mr. Sherman is not really tuned
into the readership nearly as well as he thinks he is.
He is also not much of a fighter once he has gotten in his two cents worth.
He will think he has won the argument by virtue of his pithy logic whereas
all he has done is declared victory and left the field of battle. But isn't
this what all liberals do these days. Isn't this what they want to do in
Iraq?
To know who has his hand on the pulse of the ARBR readership you have to
come to yours truly, Ed Dolan. Yea, only he has the intelligence to discern
the level of competence of the members of ARBR. Most here are not exactly
idiots, but still they come close. Pithy logic and pithy rejoinders are
wasted on them. Mr. Sherman should model himself after Ed Dolan if he wants
to communicate anything that can be understood by this group.
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
|
| | |
Date: 07 Dec 2005 13:01:33
From:
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Tom,
What I meant to say was...
Sorry for the delayed response, but Google was spittin' out Server
Errors when I tried to post yesterday, so let's pick up where we left
off shall we?
My fingers are just refusing to be very cooperative today.
Jim
|
| | |
Date: 07 Dec 2005 12:54:17
From:
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Tom,
Sorry for the delayed response but Google was spittin out Server Erros
when I tried to post yesterday, so let's pick up wher we left off ahall
we?
[Snippage of repetitive and/or grammatically unclear material]
-- > Tom, even a butcher couldn't slice and dice a post with such
precision. I've never taken the liberty to snip anything of yours and
you have to admit if you consider repetition sufficient reason surely I
would have had ample justification. In all fairness to the party to
whom I am responding and to the readership, I don't feel that I should
assume the role of censor. Apparently you disagree with me on that
account as well. You conveniently omit what you can't comprehend or
simply refuse to acknowledge or address. The comprehension issue might
be my fault. Perhaps I should dumb it down for you so won't give up so
easily and resort to labeling an articulate passage as grammatically
unclear before you do a hatchet job on it. By the way that was just
your OPINION and not a FACT right? Why didn't you qualify it as such
since you demand everyone else to do? You are a trip. You expect
people to play by your rules but exempt yourself.
> One has to wonder why is it that you continue to associate
> with and defend these scoundrels rather than denounce them, sever your
> ties and abdicate your assumed role as their spokesperson....
Mr. McNaa is assuming facts not in evidence. Since no one has proven
(or admitted to me) authorship of either the Johnny NoCom posts or the
HRS blog, how could I sever my (assumed) ties with them?
-- > And they won't, because they are cowards. They prefer to lash out
cloaked in pseudonyms. Regardless, based on characteristic, parallel
patterns of behavior you have said that you could produce a list of the
likely candidates and it would be similar to the list that I could
produce. Since you know whom I suspect, go over your list. Have you
had any association with those whom I suspect that match you list? Do
you call any of them friends? If they were ever admit to
responsibility would you then acknowledge that you should have given
the compelling preponderance of circumstantial evidence more credence
or would you stubbornly persist in you defense and remains allied with
those responsible. Inquiring minds want to know?
I have not expressed any opinion of approval of the HRS blog, and in
fact pointed out that the blog author(s) erred in parodying private
individuals.
-- > And that is all that you disapprove of? Like I said before, if you
were on the receiving end, I suspect that you would have an entirely
different perspective in this matter and you know it.
> Lack of
> conclusive evidence you might say. To that I say; based on
> characteristic, parallel patterns of behavior, if you have suspicions
> sufficient enough to enable you to compile a list of likely candidates,
> then you have adequate reason to have already parted company with those
> who you persist in harboring and defending. If you and I could produce
> a similar list, then you must regard the telling circumstantial
> evidence to be compelling enough for others to arrive at the same
> conclusion and some have.
Mr. McNaa is again assuming facts not in evidence. Since I have not
stated my list of likely candidates, how can any claim of relationship
be made? Similarly, since I have not produced a list, how can it be
said that it would be similar to Mr. McNaa's list?
-- > You want an example of flawed logic. Well here's one. You either
have a relationship with your list of candidates or you don't
regardless of whether you stated who they are. A claim of a
relationship is not contingent upon revelation or lack thereof. How
can your list be similar to my list you ask? You tell me. You're the
one who originally made that statement and I took you at your word.
Frankly, it is not that difficult to ascertain why our lists would be
similar. Anyone who has known one or more of those involved, and has
known them for years, can readily identify their modus operandi and
compiled lists would likely match up rather well. Since I provided
initials of the last names of the three I suspect you already know this
for a fact. This isn't rocket science.
> > 2. Offenses are not limited to the blog, but extend to objectionable
> > posts both past and present ... posts that are obvious to all but you
> > (Tom) to have originated from the same few sources.
> There are multiple probable candidates for the authorship of the HRS
> blog, the Johnny NoCom posts, and many of the other anonymous
> anti-highracer/anti-Bacchetta/anti-BROL posts here on
> alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent, the defunct Monkey Island message boards
> and other online forums. Therefore, authorship of one does not
> necessarily indicate authorship of the others, so that assumption
> should not be made.
> --> You are out of sync. I addressed that particular issue in #4
> (below). Multiple probable candidates? I can think of 3, the author
> and 2 collaborators although there could possibly be more serving in a
> minor capacity. The two to whom I refer have a history of anonymity
> that extends back several years in archived Usenet newsgroup posts. As
> concerns the defunct Monkey Island message board, most who adopted a
> monkey moniker merely did so to have a simian nom de plume (pen-name)
> to reflect their registered "residence" on Monkey Island.
> Consequently, you cannot emphatically lump all the Monkey Island
> participants into a pool of potential candidates. Why do that? I know
> to further add to identity confusion ... a clever, but failed attempt.
> Just whatever do you mean by saying ... "Therefore, authorship of one
> does not necessarily indicate authorship of the others", like that
> somehow logically follows? It most certainly does not. You persist in
> ignoring what many others have noted and referred to countless times,
> that is the consistency of priy focus and distinctive writing styles
> that makes it easy to assume that these shenanigans are confined to the
> same small group of specific individuals ... the same themes, the same
> targets, the same misspellings, the same grammatical errors, the same
> phraseology, the same email headers, the same PCs, the same ISPs, etc.
> that attest to origin. You seem to be the only person who is incapable
> and/or unwilling to recognize that. I guess someone has to express an
> OPINION as to where the blame should be placed and it may as well be
> me. Much speculation has been bandied about regarding the parties
> responsible and although the evidence is purely circumstantial, it is
> nonetheless substantial and compelling. The author of the HRS blog
> trashes all highracer bikes accept for one which is exempted and in fat
> is lauded and the author just happens own ... a Volae. Coincidence? I
> think not. Tom, how many of those on your list of probable candidates
> own a Volae? That kind of narrows authorship down now doesn't it? He
> is an ex-Monkey Island friend of Ed Gin. I'll still not name any names
> here, but the initials of the last names of the three that I suspect as
> being directly involved, when placed side-by-side, spell JAG and I find
> that particular sequence to be most appropriate. You know who the last
> one is, so all you have to do now is to determine if the initials match
> your lineup of suspects. I am convinced that you will find this to be
> not very challenging.
The same old suppositions and circumstantial evidence. Where is the
proof?
-- > Same old response. Let me guess. There are lots of people who
write in this distinctive style and many a blog author who ride a Volae
and goes around trashing highracers ... NOT! I know of one. How many
do you know of? The HRS blog is just the latest communication conduit
for what has been a long-standing pattern for those that have conducted
themselves in this manner. Now, I didn't expect you to accept any of
that as proof, but this seems to me to be more than mere coincidence.
So, tell me, just how restrictive is your definition? Not that I need
any additional proof, but what would you consider acceptable proof? I
get the distinct impression that it would be next to impossible to
prove anything to you that you didn't want to be proved to you. You're
kind of stubborn that way, but that doesn't come as much of a
revelation now does it?
> > 3. Offenses are not limited solely to the owner of the blog, but rather
> > to all who participate by contributing to it.
The point being...?
-- > The point being that you harp on the blog as though it is the only
platform of the absurd and objectionable. The Johnny NoCom posts were
akin to newsgroup SPAM and many entries did not fall within the
confines of the definition of parody and had objectionable content by
most people's standards. The clamoring from the readership bears that
out and yet where were you when it came to taking a stand? I know.
You don't take stands. As Ed Dolan noted, you remained placidly mute.
You may not, but I attribute the Johnny NoCom posts to the same
individuals and their activities go much further back than that. Their
content and style readily betray their origin as coming from the same
source(s) and their posts prior to their discovery of anonymity link
them to their current anonymous trash. From what has been said by the
readership in this regard, it is easy to conclude that most are
convinced that there is sufficient reason to suspect who is involved
and/or responsible. Care to take a pole?
> --> Once again, you failed to acknowledge what I have said repeatedly
> (see #3). I suppose I will just have to take silence as admission that
> offenses are not limited solely to the blog or its author(s)....
Please restate the above after editing for clarity and logic.
-- > You find two... count 'em ... two simple sentences to be a
challenge to decipher? Are we not communicating in your mother tongue?
Are you in need of interpreter? I'll not restate something that even
the mentally challenged could readily understand. At times you are so
far beyond being able to comprehend what I've conveyed that
communication converges on the useless. The really pitiful part is
that you have deluded yourself into believing that you're winning.
Maybe Rich Pinto is right after all when he accuses you of being
delusional.
> I'm beginning to think Ed Dolan is right about you being stubborn, never
> in the wrong and unable or unwilling to take a stand. It should be duly
> noted that there is a significant difference between condemning the
> wrongdoing and condemning the nameless wrongdoers. You will do
> neither. You are adamant in your resolve not to repudiate the
> "unidentified" perpetrators or their surreptitious skullduggery....
The dominant religious philosophy in western society states (in part);
"love the sinner, hate the sin." Are you contending that billions of
people are wrong?
-- > What I am contending is exactly what I said. A song comes to mind
here ... Slip slidin' away. Teflon Tom, you throwin' me another
diversionary curve ball? You've got it backwards by the way (hate the
sin, love the sinner). If you personally subscribe to this religious
precept, then grow a pair ... stand up and be counted ... hate the sin
... let you voice be heard. If you hate the sin, then say that you do
or can the pious nonsense. If you cannot and will not, I am left to
conclude that either you do not hate the sin or you disagree with the
billions of people of the dominant religious philosophy in western
society that you questioned me about. Pick one.
> Refusing to do so is tantamount to giving those involved and their
> activities your personal stamp of approval....
The above is logically false. Next!
-- > True, but not so fast. I'm going to demonstrate something to you
that you are absolutely incapable of doing. I am going to agree with
you. I am going to say that in this particular instance, my logic was
flawed. You could never and will never do that. Why? Because you
mistakenly believe that you are not flawed and that it your biggest
flaw, but I digress. Let me get back to the issue at hand. There's no
middle ground here. It's decision time. You do remember how to make a
decision don't you? Do you approve or disapprove of the blog? YES or
NO? Pick one or just admit that you haven't the gumption to do either
and just slip on out of here in silence as you commonly do. By the
way, don't waste your breath with some crap about you have this private
opinion for which there is no moral imperative that dictates that you
make a choice.
> What do you suggest that
> we do ... sit idly by, grant the offenders impunity ... what?...
If you (general you) do not approve of the blog or posts, ignore them.
> I will
> ask you again, without naming names, why do you refuse to condemn the
> actions of the nameless? There is no middle ground here. One either
> approves or disapproves. Where do you stand? Should you once again
> fail to take a stand. I suppose that in not taking a stand, you have
> in effect taken a stand ... a cowardly one, but one that reflects the
> demeanor of those you shelter.
-- > I've never understood spineless pacifists.
Allowing parody of public individuals is essential to a free society.
Whether or not I find the HRS blog humorous, tasteless, offensive, etc.
is my personal opinion, and there is no moral imperative that requires
me to publicly express my opinion.
-- > I repeat few, if any of those targeted, are public figures, so you
can quit regurgitating that line of reasoning. So, you actually do
have a personal opinion. Well what's keepin' you? I'm all ears.
Never mind. You're not going to share that with us now are you, Tom.
You're just such a tease. Yep, Ed Dolan has you pegged all right.
Just as well, you know. Something tells me that I wouldn't want to
hear it anyways. Like I said before, I've never understood pacifists.
Besides, if you were to indicate your disapproval (don't think you have
it in you by the way) you'd be crossing those on your list of
candidates who are most likely to be those responsible parties and you
just might end up being blog fodder. Then I'd like to see ho much you
like it and how determined you'd remain to rise to their defense. I'm
thinking you might have an opinion then ... one that you might even be
disposed to share with us.
> > 4. The profiles of those involved and their distinctive, (readily
> > recognizable) writing styles establishes their culpability and links
> > the authors with their postings even though their specific identity is
> > cowardly cloaked by a multitude of pseudonyms. If they were proud of
> > what they do and if they had the courage to reveal their true identity,
> > they would use their real names and real email addresses, but they are
> > neither proud nor courageous. Surely you will not address this issue
> > for there is no room for argument, so don't even give me any nonsense
> > about there being a good reason for obscurity when you find no reason
> > to do so and their reason is so obvious that it needn't even be
> > mentioned.
> To the contrary, there are some who might well indeed extend
> retaliation to means beyond the written word. I am aware of several
> cases (although not involving highracers/Bacchetta/BROL) where this has
> occurred. True freedom of speech is usually more a theoretical concept
> than reality.
> --> You're out of sync again. I addressed the freedom of speech issue
> in #8 (below). By logical implication, you have all but admitted that
> you are aware that those responsible have spawned sufficient
> provocation to warrant remaining anonymous for fear of any
> counter-measures that would exceed that of the written word. Well, I
> couldn't agree more. The operative word in your statement was
> retaliation, which is defined as an action taken in return for an
> injury or offense. Certainly, no one can deny that there has been a
> cornucopia of injury and offense. Now it should be obvious that
> vengeance would not even be the point of discussion if the HRS blog and
> the many derogatory posts past and present were simply never made. If
> retribution extends beyond the written word, that is the risk that
> those responsible knowingly and willingly took and the consequences
> that they must accept. We must all take responsibility for our
> decisions and the consequences of those decisions. If the parties who
> are responsible find that their payback extends beyond the written
> word, be it in the form of litigation, violence or whatever, so be it.
> I'll not shed a tear. They will have reaped what they sowed ... earned
> and deserve whatever form of reprisal comes their way.
Ah, so Jim McNaa believes that physical violence is a just response
to parody? I see where his moral standards are.
-- > Ah, but Jim McNaa didn't say that exactly. What I said was that
if litigation (you deliberately omitted that one) or violence were the
end result that responsible parties were aware of the risks they were
taking up front, were willing to take those risks and should be
expected to accept the consequences. As arrogant as you are, I
expected you to play God and pass moral judgment. What you think
matters not. I don't have to answer to you. Understand that not
everyone in this world is pacifist and retaliation in the form of
violence is not an uncommon occurrence. I did not say that I
encouraged it. I did not say that I condoned it. I merely said that
I'd not shed a tear and to your dismay and your horror, I will repeat
what I SIAD ... I WOULD NOT SHED A TEAR!!! With all the pain and
suffering these depraved individuals have inflicted, payback is long
over due and whatever form it takes is whatever form it takes. In this
particular instance ... hate the sin, love the sinner takes on a whole
new meaning ... one that I can certainly relate to at this juncture.
> > 5. Despite you assertion to the contrary, I didn't accuse Ed of
> > authorship of the blog, but there is no doubt in my mind regarding his
> > active participation in the blog or in his authorship of past and
> > present objectionable posts and this is an OPINION that is shared by
> > most here regardless of your drum beating about FACTS. Your logic
> > reads much like this. If you enter a room and lying on the floor is a
> > person dead from a gunshot wound and a person is standing over the body
> > holding a gun that is later found to have been purchased by and
> > registered in his name. In his pocket is found a receipt for recently
> > purchased bullets and the open box, on the table, just happens to have
> > the same number of bullets missing that were chambered in the gun,
> > there still remains sufficient reason to consider that the person found
> > holding the gun was not the murderer simply because the preponderance
> > of evidence is purely circumstantial since the event was not captured
> > on videotape. Sorry, but I just buy your line of reasoning....
^^^^^^^^^^^^
It is good to see that Jim McNaa has come around to see the logic of
my position.
-- > Nonsense. You really are a dunderhead. It was late, I was tired,
should have done a better job of proofreading. Unlike you I'm human
and have human frailties. I know utter blasphemy if those words were
to pass you lips. The bottom line is that I omitted the word DON'T (I
just DON'T buy your line of reasoning). Now, care to answer the
question that you ducked?
> The above criteria are certainly grounds to further investigate that
> particular individual, but do not constitute proof of murder.
> > 6. You persist in your inability to recognize that the circumstantial
> > evidence as formidable and telling. You also persist in your
> > unwillingness to condemn the nameless perpetrators who are responsible.
> > Why is that? Is it because if those responsible are ever identified,
> > that you know you that could very well have condemned those with whom
> > you are associated and allied?
> Parody of public figures is accepted in advanced societies. Note that I
> did post criticisms of the HRS blog in the two cases where people who
> clearly are not public figures (I can state this with certainty since I
> have met both these individuals) were objects of the parody.
> --> I somehow missed those two cases and posts. Care to repost? Do
> you really expect any of us to believe that the objectionable posts
> both past and present and the denigrating HRS blog fall within the
> protective sanctuary of parody. Can you honestly say that you can find
> nothing in all this that doesn't transcend the definition of the word
> or doesn't exceed the boundaries of good taste? Lest I remind you
> again, I'm the guy who fucks his mother. Ask your friends. One of
> them said so. I know ... just another example of an otherwise
> perfectly acceptable parody, if it were not for the fact that I am not
> a public person ... right? I guess what you need is to become a victim
> for you to come to grips with enlightenment. This all makes me wonder
> though if in fact your reluctance to take a stand and condemn the
> wrongdoers and their wrongdoing is because of the very real threat of
> that possibility ... becoming one of their victims. If you ever find
> yourself in that position, I suspect that you would find the experience
> one that would provide you with a much needed attitude adjustment ...
> one that would alter your perspective considerably. As concerns public
> figures, many victims are most certainly not "public figures" (more
> about that further down).
Where is the definition of parody that mandates inoffensiveness?
-- > Well nothing actually, but parody, by definition entails more than
just mockery. It also entails mimicry. Just what is being mimicked
... one another's putrified underbelly? It comes as no surprise that
you failed to address the "shoe on the other foot" scenario and the
issue of public figures, which you state not as OPINION bet as FACT.
I have been called worse things on Usenet than anything in the HRS blog
or Johnny NoCom posts. As long is it is opinion, and not misstatement
of fact I could care less.
-- > Your kind inspires name-calling of the worst sort. You know, you
dismiss things all too readily. The accusation referred to above
regarding my mother, I can assure you is misstatement of fact. I will,
assume for the sake of argument that if I said of you what was said of
me, I would have made a misstatement of fact that even you might find
offensive and objectionable. Am I right? If not, then you contradict
your statement regarding misstatement of fact in reference to what you
do and do not care about.
> > 7. Personally, it is my opinion (I know you're fond of that word) that
> > even you have little doubt as to who the culprits are. You as much as
> > said so when you indicated that we would likely produce similar lists...
I assume Jim McNaa is referring to the paragraph below (from a
previous post of mine).
"Based on past events, I can think of several people who names have not
been mentioned on this thread who might be responsible for the HRS blog
and postings. (I suspect that Jim McNaa might well come up with a
similar list.) This is another reason why there is reasonable doubt as
to the identity of the person(s) behind HRS."
Similar should be taken to me "a list of alternative candidates to
those whose names have been mentioned". It should not necessarily be
interpreted to say that my list of names would be identical to the list
of names Jim McNaa would generate.
-- > Your twisting things again. Only one name has been mentioned thus
far. A list by its very nature assumes more than one, but why have you
unnecessarily introduced the concept of alternative candidates. Why,
unless you specifically intend to confuse, would you want to complicate
the issue by attempting to "clarify" your original statement, which
wasn't in need of clarification? I find it most peculiar that you now
have a problem with me accepting your statement as originally written?
Now, similar and identical are not synonyms and I never used the word
identical, but I agree with your former premise, we would produce
SIMILAR list. In fact I'm thinking you would probably match two if not
all three of the names I have in mind and since I provided those
initials, you should have a very good idea just how similar our lists
would be so there is no need to pretend otherwise otherwise. I know,
you'd prefer not to comment about any similarities.
> > assuming of course that your convictions did not have you constrained
> > from doing so. Here's a concept. How about this? We could both
> > produce our lists with an appropriate escape clauses that our lists are
> > not to be misconstrued as FACT since they are OPINIONS substantiated
> > only by overwhelming circumstantial evidence. Then we could compare
> > notes. You game? We could even do so in a private email if you don't
> > want to go public.
> See my first paragraph in this post.
> --> See my response to your first paragraph. The offer was made with
> an escape clause to cover you ass and even provided with a private
> email exchange option and yet still you weaseled out. The offer still
> stands by the way.
What reason is there for me to discuss this over private email?
-- > To spare the readership, I'm thinking. They've probably heard just
about enough from the both of us. I'm not the only one who made
suggestion. Indiana Mike did also. If you again read immediately
above, I clearly stated the other reason, but I have since learned that
you are not about to compare notes.
> > 8. From my perspective, you have sheltered the nameless guilty parties,
> > in a feigned defense of freedom of speech, innocent until proven guilty
> > and harmless parody/satire. Freedom of speech does not entitle one to
> > say anything and everything, like screaming fire in a theater. Oh
> > sure, one can say scandalous things for sure, but need I remind you
> > that the courts are packed full of libel suits. Frankly, I hope this
> > crap ends up in a courtroom so you will at long last have the proof
> > that you demand ... proof that no one else here seems to require.
> > Innocent until proven guilty is hard to quibble over, but the
> > accumulated circumstantial evidence leaves only a shadow of a doubt and
> > the blog and posts, both past and present, are way beyond parody,
> > satire or even that which is commonly considered acceptable (read
> > within the bounds of good taste) ... agreed?
> See what I said above about the distinction between public and private
> individuals (and the US Supreme Court agrees).
> --> I stand by what I said. You merely ducked the entire issue with a
> one-liner. The US Supreme Court would be so bold as to define many of
> those who have been on the receiving end as what you have construed as
> "public individuals", so your fundamental contention is quite irrelevant.
And which US Supreme Court Justices have ventured an opinion on this
particular matter?
-- > I was overly tired when I wrote this stuff and it shows, so I will
take this opportunity to clarify. What I meant to say was that the
Supreme Court would not consider many of the victims to be "public
individuals", but you knew that's what I meant, didn't you? No, go
back a reread what I said regarding your fundamental contention being
irrelevant.
> > 9. To Tom's credit, he at least gave me kudos for tenacity and
> > determination. You are right Tom, I'll stick around and argue the
> > point as long as I feel that there is a point to argue over and it is
> > worthwhile to do so although admittedly this can become tiring quite
> > quickly. When an impasse is reached, however, and we can only agree to
> > disagree, I will likely just call it ... done and over with and move
> > on....
> Where is Rich Pinto? Mr. Pinto accused me of being "illogical" and
> "delusional" but refused to back up his argument with facts and logic.
> Mr. Pinto also has yet to back up his accusation that Ed Gin is a
> "pathological liar".
> --> It would seem that Rich really struck a nerve....
Not at all.
-- > Really. You've asked the question several times now, so it would
seem that you have unfinished business (lack of closure) over this
particular issue and you seem frustrated with your lack of success in
drawing Rich out, but since Rich has not struck a nerve, I guess you
can refrain from asking him for a response.
> I would be
> inappropriate for me to address a question that should only be answered
> by Rich Pinto, but I personally don't see that he has anything to gain
> by engaging in a cyclical debate with you over issues that the
> readership has already decided in his favor. It is probably in his
> best interest to just ignore all this bullshit....
Jim McNaa is now speaking for the readership of
alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent? I must have missed the announcement where
he was appointed spokesperson.
... Dear self-appointed spokesperson for the offensive, I merely said
that there have so many that have objected that it should be obvious,
even to someone with your poor powers of perception, that this issue
has been decided with only a couple of dissenters. Ed Dolan pointed
this out to you already. As concerns me being a spokesperson, I think
Ed Dolan might object. Far be it for me to usurp Mr. Dolan's role as
ARBR spokesperson ;^)
As for Rich Pinto, he should stay away from the discussion completely
or back up his accusations. Instead, he has "cut and run". It is in his
best interest, since there is no possible way he could prove my
statements "illogical" and "delusional".
-- > I must have missed the announcement when you were appointed the
forum moderator. And to think that you still expect us to believe that
Rich hasn't struck a nerve. It obvious that he has whether you will
admit it or not. Admitting anything to anyone just isn't your thing is
it Tom? There's that "prove" word again. Get real. You would not
accept proof from anyone that you are in any way, shape or form ...
flawed. Therein, lies a very real difference between us. You refuse
to recognize let alone acknowledge your flaws. I have pointed out a
few things that you have said that are certainly illogical just as you
have to me. When you were right, I made an acknowledgment. I refer
you to my response in answer to "logically false". You, on the other
hand, cannot and will not ever make such and admission. When you are
wrong you will make no such acknowledgment because you consider
yourself to be omniscient and infallible and an acknowledgment is
concession that you cannot bear to make. This is in and of itself
illogical and a flaw. Delusional? No, you're quite there yet, but
after a couple more rounds, perhaps...
> A more pertinent
> question to ask is where are the cowardly culprits? Like you, at least
> Rich used his real email address and name, but we've been through all
> that innumerable times. Those who are responsible have good reason to
> remain anonymous ... fear factor. Rich is not alone in his assertions.
> I've as much as said that at times you were illogical...
Said by Jim McNaa, but never proven.
-- > Go back and read some of my responses and perhaps you will get a
clue as to when and where I cited examples of you flawed logic. I
haven't the time go back and footnote everything for you. That would
be a complete waste of time, because your priy flaw is that like all
egomaniacs you really believe that you have none. It would be foolish
of me to even attempt to prove that you are at times illogical. That
you fail to realize that you are capable of being illogical, flies in
the face of logic.
> (even in this
> post) and I have said the I agree with Rich regarding his observations
> regarding Ed Gin's pathological prevarication, although I have no
> intention of citing examples to justify my accusation to you....
I was requesting proof from Rich Pinto since he made the accusation.
> I know what I know...
Ah, the truism!
... Yep. You understood that one. I guess I should keep my sentences
short and simple.
> and there are others who also know what I know. Suffice it
> to say, that I've caught Ed Gin in countless lies and many were
> specifically told about me. I refuse to be diverted, preferring to
> stay on topic.
Jim McNaa posts the diversion of accusing Ed Gin of being a liar,
and then repudiates his own tactic.
--- > What? Diversion? Tactic? Repudiation? You do so enjoy making
something out of nothing when you have nothing else to offer, don't
you? You like to add another layer of complexity where none exists or
is required in a vain attempt to baffle your adversary or the
readership. Whether you accept what I said about Ed Gin matters not
and changes nothing. What I said I know to be true statement of fact.
Jim McNaa
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Dec 2005 21:12:18
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
<jimmymac_4@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1133988857.492055.265430@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Tom,
>
> Sorry for the delayed response but Google was spittin out Server Erros
> when I tried to post yesterday, so let's pick up wher we left off ahall
> we?
>
> [Snippage of repetitive and/or grammatically unclear material]
>
> --> Tom, even a butcher couldn't slice and dice a post with such
> precision. I've never taken the liberty to snip anything of yours and
> you have to admit if you consider repetition sufficient reason surely I
> would have had ample justification. In all fairness to the party to
> whom I am responding and to the readership, I don't feel that I should
> assume the role of censor. Apparently you disagree with me on that
> account as well. You conveniently omit what you can't comprehend or
> simply refuse to acknowledge or address. The comprehension issue might
> be my fault. Perhaps I should dumb it down for you so won't give up so
> easily and resort to labeling an articulate passage as grammatically
> unclear before you do a hatchet job on it. By the way that was just
> your OPINION and not a FACT right? Why didn't you qualify it as such
> since you demand everyone else to do? You are a trip. You expect
> people to play by your rules but exempt yourself.
I have been criticizing Mr. Sherman for years for editing my posts too
severely. However, it does no good. He will always edit a post to make
himself look good and make his adversary look bad. I do not edit posts ever
to make myself look good. I will sometimes do a bit of editing to weed out
some of the irrelevancies or some content that I have chosen not to respond
to, but that is it.
The best rule is not to do any editing at all unless you are very sure of
what you are doing. It is only fair to let the other person have his full
say in your responses to him. Most posts here on ARBR are so short anyway
that no editing is hardly necessary. I will not go into my usual rant at
this point against top posting which violates all the rules of proper format
for Usenet.
>> One has to wonder why is it that you continue to associate
>> with and defend these scoundrels rather than denounce them, sever your
>> ties and abdicate your assumed role as their spokesperson....
>
> Mr. McNaa is assuming facts not in evidence. Since no one has proven
> (or admitted to me) authorship of either the Johnny NoCom posts or the
> HRS blog, how could I sever my (assumed) ties with them?
>
> --> And they won't, because they are cowards. They prefer to lash out
> cloaked in pseudonyms. Regardless, based on characteristic, parallel
> patterns of behavior you have said that you could produce a list of the
> likely candidates and it would be similar to the list that I could
> produce. Since you know whom I suspect, go over your list. Have you
> had any association with those whom I suspect that match you list? Do
> you call any of them friends? If they were ever admit to
> responsibility would you then acknowledge that you should have given
> the compelling preponderance of circumstantial evidence more credence
> or would you stubbornly persist in you defense and remains allied with
> those responsible. Inquiring minds want to know?
Mr. Sherman is apparently under some strange obligation to remain friends
with scoundrels and knaves. Since Mr. Sherman is himself not a scoundrel and
knave, it is indeed very strange that he would want to be associated with
them, let alone come to their defense.
> I have not expressed any opinion of approval of the HRS blog, and in
> fact pointed out that the blog author(s) erred in parodying private
> individuals.
>
> --> And that is all that you disapprove of? Like I said before, if you
> were on the receiving end, I suspect that you would have an entirely
> different perspective in this matter and you know it.
Mr. Sherman has never yet got the intensity level right on any matter I have
ever put before him. It must be a lack of testosterone. When he needs to
condemn, he merely disapproves.
[...]
>> > 3. Offenses are not limited solely to the owner of the blog, but rather
>> > to all who participate by contributing to it.
>
> The point being...?
>
> --> The point being that you harp on the blog as though it is the only
> platform of the absurd and objectionable. The Johnny NoCom posts were
> akin to newsgroup SPAM and many entries did not fall within the
> confines of the definition of parody and had objectionable content by
> most people's standards. The clamoring from the readership bears that
> out and yet where were you when it came to taking a stand? I know.
> You don't take stands. As Ed Dolan noted, you remained placidly mute.
> You may not, but I attribute the Johnny NoCom posts to the same
> individuals and their activities go much further back than that. Their
> content and style readily betray their origin as coming from the same
> source(s) and their posts prior to their discovery of anonymity link
> them to their current anonymous trash. From what has been said by the
> readership in this regard, it is easy to conclude that most are
> convinced that there is sufficient reason to suspect who is involved
> and/or responsible. Care to take a pole?
Mr. Sherman at this point will note that pole should be poll and thereby
escape his responsibilities to the newsgroup yet once again. You cannot be
the mainstay of ARBR and not have something to say when a criminal vandal
troll shows up here. Being mute in the face of evil is nothing but
cowardice.
[...]
Let me get back to the issue at hand. There's no
> middle ground here. It's decision time. You do remember how to make a
> decision don't you? Do you approve or disapprove of the blog? YES or
> NO? Pick one or just admit that you haven't the gumption to do either
> and just slip on out of here in silence as you commonly do. By the
> way, don't waste your breath with some crap about you have this private
> opinion for which there is no moral imperative that dictates that you
> make a choice.
Mr. Sherman is the prototype of all liberals. They will hem and haw and
never give you a direct answer to a simple question that even a child could
answer. That is because they have a very bad conscience about the stands
they take and know they cannot defend what they think to someone that is not
already in their camp. Liberals can only talk to other liberals and the rest
of us should never bother with their nonsense.
[...]
Yep, Ed Dolan has you pegged all right.
> Just as well, you know. Something tells me that I wouldn't want to
> hear it anyways. Like I said before, I've never understood pacifists.
> Besides, if you were to indicate your disapproval (don't think you have
> it in you by the way) you'd be crossing those on your list of
> candidates who are most likely to be those responsible parties and you
> just might end up being blog fodder. Then I'd like to see ho much you
> like it and how determined you'd remain to rise to their defense. I'm
> thinking you might have an opinion then ... one that you might even be
> disposed to share with us.
Mr. Sherman will only have his eyes opened when he becomes a victim himself.
It is ever thus with those who run and hide instead of fighting the good
fight when the opportunity presents itself, as it did last winter here on
ARBR with the criminal vandal troll.
[...]
> Jim McNaa is now speaking for the readership of
> alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent? I must have missed the announcement where
> he was appointed spokesperson.
>
> ... Dear self-appointed spokesperson for the offensive, I merely said
> that there have so many that have objected that it should be obvious,
> even to someone with your poor powers of perception, that this issue
> has been decided with only a couple of dissenters. Ed Dolan pointed
> this out to you already. As concerns me being a spokesperson, I think
> Ed Dolan might object. Far be it for me to usurp Mr. Dolan's role as
> ARBR spokesperson ;^)
Yes, as the most prolific poster of all time to ARBR from a single address
(see the Google statistic on this), I believe I have become the spokesperson
for ARBR. I am essentially a housekeeper and I leave Mr. Sherman to address
the concerns of the newbies with their interminable questions concerning
recumbents. Mr. Jon Meinecke used to be the busybody here, but I have
supplanted him. He got lost looking up headers and addresses and now can't
find his way back to ARBR.
[...]
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
|
| |
Date: 22 Nov 2005 05:23:32
From:
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
I agree with you that there are clearly two camps here with strong
opinions. Yet I only see one web site as evidence that one camp has
made this a personal attack against Rich Pinto. I am uncomfortable on
a trike and a low racer here in SW PA. on the road. I am also still
somewhat uncomfortable with the combination of the high BB and reclined
M5 seat setup on my Strada at starts from a dead stop at an
intersection. Neither opinion is intended to denigrate trikes, low
racers, or high racers.
Jim Reilly
|
| |
Date: 22 Nov 2005 01:52:02
From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
magillagorillakk@hotmail.com wrote:
> Rich,
>
> I really do not understand why you respond at all to these people.
I was wondering the same myself. Mr. Pinto has nothing to gain, and
much to lose by doing so. These battles are best left to those who
enjoy engaging in such activities for recreational purposes.
> I was the one who dared to bring that first highracer to Monkey
> Island. I got beat by Alan on his lowracer with a tail box and every
> Aero trick in the book. The rest of the guys including the great rider
> Gary Toy got there butts handed to them by me on an Aerocycle designed
> by Mr. Pinto.
> This was the start of all this stuff back in '02.
> Yet as a peace offering I talked the Bacchetta folks to come to Monkey
> Island in the spring of last year for a ride. That event had the
> largest turnout of midwest recumbent people in that groups history. I
> have many photo's of how well everyone got along yet somehow a few
> folks decided to keep attacking Bacchetta. It became to much for me so
> I quit the team and now ride DF bike's almost exclusively and I think
> that recumbent people are near insane at least a few from Chicago.
> And the notion of blaming Rich Pinto and Bacchetta for the state of
> things is total bullshit. I was there and saw what happened and was a
> part of it.
> I tried my best to put an end to these hostilities but in the End gave
> up and moved on to more productive things in Life.
No one will ever be able to prove what happed in these encounters,
since all is based on hearsay. So let us stick with what is in
evidence, postings to the Internet. While all the "poo flinging" by
certain lowracer residents of "Monkey Island" gets the attention, I
will reiterate what I said before, this is not a clear cut "saints
versus sinners" situation.
If I were in the ket for a highracer, should I let the fact that
several "Killer B's" have accused me of lying, attempted to twist my
statements into something I did not say, and directed personal attacks
at me when they could not refute my argument, influence which bicycle I
purchased? I would like to hear Mr. Pinto's take on this.
> Rich is in the Bike Biz and I am not so walking away for me was the
> best option....
Your engaging in flame wars was entertaining, but I doubt it helped
sell many bicycles for Bacchetta.
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
| |
Date: 22 Nov 2005 01:09:00
From:
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Rich,
I really do not understand why you respond at all to these people.
I was the one who dared to bring that first highracer to Monkey
Island. I got beat by Alan on his lowracer with a tail box and every
Aero trick in the book. The rest of the guys including the great rider
Gary Toy got there butts handed to them by me on an Aerocycle designed
by Mr. Pinto.
This was the start of all this stuff back in '02.
Yet as a peace offering I talked the Bacchetta folks to come to Monkey
Island in the spring of last year for a ride. That event had the
largest turnout of midwest recumbent people in that groups history. I
have many photo's of how well everyone got along yet somehow a few
folks decided to keep attacking Bacchetta. It became to much for me so
I quit the team and now ride DF bike's almost exclusively and I think
that recumbent people are near insane at least a few from Chicago.
And the notion of blaming Rich Pinto and Bacchetta for the state of
things is total bullshit. I was there and saw what happened and was a
part of it.
I tried my best to put an end to these hostilities but in the End gave
up and moved on to more productive things in Life.
Rich is in the Bike Biz and I am not so walking away for me was the
best option.
Great to hear from a lot of you...
Magilla Gorilla
|
| |
Date: 22 Nov 2005 01:01:29
From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Joao wrote:
> Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic wrote:
> >
> > Proving the posts came from a certain computer proves nothing about who
> > actually typed the messages on the keyboard. Logic 101.
>
> Okay, gives us your theory then. How come there are thousands of posts,
> many posted in the middle of the night (2, 3, 4, 5 am), all of them not
> only coming from Ed's computer but also from his home, all trolling
> about subjects that Ed feels very strongly about, going on for several
> years now, and he is not involved. Please do give us any remotely
> plausible explanation other than he is the one posting them.
>
> Heck, even in criminal court you need to be able to raise "REASONABLE
> doubt", and this ain't no court. Where is the reasonable doubt in this
> here? That fact that several of Ed's aliases keep posting from Ed's
> home computer saying that Ed isn't the troll?...
The burden of proof is on the accuser - or do you believe in guilty
until proven innocent?
Who is to say that Ed Gin did not let people hang out in his basement
and use his computer? Not everyone sleeps at the same time. And has Ed
Gin ever denied knowing who "Johnny NoCom" is?
Of course, one does not even have to be physically present at the
sending computer to be the author of a post. For all we know based on
Joao de Sousa's evidence, Mayor Richard M. Daley could be "Johnny
NoCom".
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
"Twisting may help if yawl can chew gum and walk." - G. Daniels
|
| | |
Date: 22 Nov 2005 08:19:51
From: Joao
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic wrote:
>
> The burden of proof is on the accuser
Are you a graduate of the Colin Ferguson Law School? As long as there
is another possibility, no matter how far fetched and how many wild
assumptions one has to make in order to possibly consider it, then it
cannot be proven?
|
| |
Date: 21 Nov 2005 20:50:04
From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Mr Reality (Rich Pinto) wrote:
> ...
> Over and out on this one...
Mr. Pinto:
Before you leave, please support your contention that Ed Gin is a
"pathological liar". When such an accusation is made, the group
(alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent) deserves to hear the evidence.
Thank you,
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
| | |
Date: 22 Nov 2005 21:22:07
From: nget
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
'Sunset Lowracer [TM Wrote:
> Fanatic']Mr Reality (Rich Pinto) wrote:
> > ...
> > Over and out on this one...
>
> Mr. Pinto:
>
> Before you leave, please support your contention that Ed Gin is a
> "pathological liar". When such an accusation is made, the group
> (alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent) deserves to hear the evidence.
>
> Thank you,
> --
> Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
If your man is telling the truth why then does he need soc
puppets?Maybe I'm not the only one on ARBR who would like to hear you
response to that one
--
nget
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Nov 2005 05:51:28
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
"nget" <nget.1yw9hn@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com > wrote in message
news:nget.1yw9hn@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com...
>
> 'Sunset Lowracer [TM Wrote:
>> Fanatic']Mr Reality (Rich Pinto) wrote:
>> > ...
>> > Over and out on this one...
>>
>> Mr. Pinto:
>>
>> Before you leave, please support your contention that Ed Gin is a
>> "pathological liar". When such an accusation is made, the group
>> (alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent) deserves to hear the evidence.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> --
>> Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
> If your man is telling the truth why then does he need sock
> puppets?Maybe I'm not the only one on ARBR who would like to hear your
> response to that one.
> nget
Tom Sherman is hopeless on the subject of Ed Gin. Gin is a friend of his
(did they once ride bikes together?) and he is loyal if nothing else. The
evidence is there for all to see except the determinedly deaf and blind like
Sherman. Joao DE Souza , among others, has shown where it all comes from. No
amount of sophistry can get around the evidence.
You have to take Sherman warts and all. He is OK on most recumbent bike
subjects but he is just plain crazy on most other subjects. Hells Bells, he
even has very questionable taste in classical music if you ask me. He
actually listens to baroque musak! He thinks music began with Bach and
Handel when every sensible person knows it began with Haydn and Mozart.
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
|
| |
Date: 21 Nov 2005 19:45:15
From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
jreilly@enter.net wrote:
> Hello Rich. Thanks for the response. It clears this issue up for me.
> The one thing I that I feel separates the recumbent crowd from the
> upright crowd is (or was) their acceptance and enthusiasm for ALL types
> of bikes and trikes. Surely, we all have strong preferences!...
Does it clear things up? What about those who felt the need to
denigrate lowracers with scare tactics in order to promote highracers?
It often does not matter which side is right and which side is wrong,
but instead who has the better means and resources to promote their
side.
I stand by my original post in this thread. There are no perfect saints
here.
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
"Twisting may help if yawl can chew gum and walk." - G. Daniels
|
| |
Date: 21 Nov 2005 19:37:25
From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Joao wrote:
> Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic wrote:
> >
> > No one has proven that Ed Gin was the AUTHOR of the "Johnny NoCom"
> > posts, so this should not be stated as accepted fact.
>
> In about 40,000 messages posted to this group:
>
> - Everyone's headers are a 0% to 5% match with the trolls', except for
> Ed's messages which are a 95% to 100% match
>
> - When Ed changed from Earthlink/Mindspring dial-up to Prodigy/Yahoo/SBC
> DSL, the trolls changed from Earthlink/Mindspring dial-up to
> Prodigy/Yahoo/SBC DSL.
>
> - Both Ed and the trolls post not only from the same city, but also from
> the same neighborhood. The IP address of the computer may be dynamic,
> but the IP address of the router is static.
>
> - The trolls and Ed have all the same obsessions
>
> - Sometimes the trolls sign off with each other's names, and sometimes
> the trolls sign off as Ed Gin.
>
> - Right after I pointed some of these things out, the trolls, and
> sometimes Ed, started posting from an anonymous account with Newsfeeds.com.
>
> You mentioned that its not proven that he's "the AUTHOR". So are you
> suggesting that maybe someone keeps breaking into his home to post crap
> online from his computer while he sleeps?
>
> Hey look! Occam just sliced his own throat with his razor! ;)
Proving the posts came from a certain computer proves nothing about who
actually typed the messages on the keyboard. Logic 101.
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
"Twisting may help if yawl can chew gum and walk." - G. Daniels
|
| | |
Date: 21 Nov 2005 23:05:47
From: Joao
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic wrote:
>
> Proving the posts came from a certain computer proves nothing about who
> actually typed the messages on the keyboard. Logic 101.
Okay, gives us your theory then. How come there are thousands of posts,
many posted in the middle of the night (2, 3, 4, 5 am), all of them not
only coming from Ed's computer but also from his home, all trolling
about subjects that Ed feels very strongly about, going on for several
years now, and he is not involved. Please do give us any remotely
plausible explanation other than he is the one posting them.
Heck, even in criminal court you need to be able to raise "REASONABLE
doubt", and this ain't no court. Where is the reasonable doubt in this
here? That fact that several of Ed's aliases keep posting from Ed's
home computer saying that Ed isn't the troll?
If you're in a small room with someone else, and ann all of a sudden you
smell a fart, Do you need a DNA analysis in order to confim who did it?
And I guess you missed my reference to Occam's Razor?
Joao "does anyone smell a duck?" de Souza
|
| |
Date: 21 Nov 2005 19:33:22
From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Mr Reality (Rich Pinto) wrote:
> Sunset Lowracer Fanatic (AKA Tom Sherman) wrote...
>
> Uhh huh... "Bacchetta team members" who wanted to respond with
> violence in response to "paradoy", "slights" because somebody with a
> Bacchetta dared question the safety of lowracers in traffic, an
> argument over your bodyshock experience with "someone claiming to be a
> Killer B"...
Have it your way, but the three I mentioned have likely turned more
people off Bacchetta bikes than they have gained you in sales. [1]
There is plenty of high-quality competition highracer competition out
there.
> Now I its perfectly clear to me why this tiny band of Chicago
> lowracers had made their lifes work bashing Bacchetta for the last four
> years!
>
> Thanks for clearing up that confusion for me Tom. You are now in
> my permanent lowracer loonie bin for that bit of Classic Ed Gin
> equivocating.
Well, some of the of those "lowracer loonies" that you denigrate were
willing to get along with you [2], but felt that you indicated with
your behavior that you had no use for them.
> Boy, almost as funny as "Ya...Ya...it was my computer, you got
> me there...but prove I was the one sitting at it!!"
Note that Ed Gin has never denied knowing who Johnny NoCom is, nor has
he eliminated the possibility that he let others use his computer. I
hope you are not doing contracts for Bacchetta if you are this sloppy
in your thinking and logic.
> Over and out on this one...
And I was looking forward to a long discussion. ;)
P.S. Invite your "Killer B's" Cletus Lee and Ken Evans back to
alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent anytime they feel like an argument without
the protection of a moderator.
[1] Unlike myself, who has not affected sales of new Sunset Lowracers
one whit.
[2] Prior to the lowracer vs. highracer flame wars.
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
"Twisting may help if yawl can chew gum and walk." - G. Daniels
|
| |
Date: 21 Nov 2005 12:36:53
From: Mark C.
Subject: Tom S. is correct
|
Rich, Joao, etc.,
Mr. Sherman stated a long time ago the positive ID of Johnny NoCom has never been proven conclusively. Point of origin of posts is not proof of "authoring." Rich's contention of time stamping and posts regarding the Highracer Sucks site, http://highracers.blogspot.com has NOTHING to do with Johnnies past messages.
I am concerned about Rich's $10,000 offer, our treasurer has notified me there are no reserves in our accounts here in St. Pete's as 99.99999% of the funds are in our offshore Cayman accounts. Perhaps there is another "slush fund" I'm not aware of?
k CFO Bishidda Walkbikes
"Larry the unvarnished truth" <LBarney@bentoveridersonline.com > wrote:
>
>----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
>----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
|
| |
Date: 21 Nov 2005 12:25:45
From: Ken
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Joao,
Are you ill? I just found your picture with a diminished cranial capacity!
http://highracers.blogspot.com/2005/10/dipshititus-plagues-highwalker-riders.html
Ken
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
|
| |
Date: 21 Nov 2005 12:00:37
From: Ken
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
$10,000 is chump change for SlowGo Satan. Duping fat old geezers to buy expensive NotSoFast walkbikes is a quick way to make a buck in the USA.
Read all about SlowGo Satan and his evil plans to get rich quick at
http://highracers.blogspot.com/2005/11/bishidda-offers-pencil-topper-upgrades.html
Ken :-) Pompano Beach, Fl
>From: "Mr Reality" <rcpinto@aol.com>
>Date: 21 Nov 2005 09:13:21 -0800
>
>You just don't have enough evidence for me, and I'll give you
>10,000 dollars if you can produce a documentary film of him
>Sarcastically yours,
>Rich
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
|
| |
Date: 21 Nov 2005 09:13:21
From: Mr Reality
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
You call that evidence Joao???
I won't be satisfied until you have film of him typing this
stuff! You just don't have enough evidence for me, and I'll give you
10,000 dollars if you can produce a documentary film of him typing his
endless Nocom/monkey island Spam over the last four years.
And yes, I do believe someone is breaking into his house at
night to post Johnny Nocom/HRsuck links on his computer! The BROL
HRSuck link spam last week came in at 3-4 O'clock in the morning
according to Bryan Ball, on three separate days.
That should be evidence enough to support my middle of the
night break in theory!
Sarcastically yours,
Rich
|
| |
Date: 21 Nov 2005 09:38:13
From: JS
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
OK guys and gals, we were exposed with the true results from 2005. But so what? The Nocom IS the fastest bike in the UNIVERSE.
http://highracers.blogspot.com/2005/11/slowgo-satan-of-recumbent-world-has.html
John, keep spinning
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
|
| |
Date: 21 Nov 2005 09:11:31
From: JS
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Read all about the latest Killer Bee antics to snuff the competition. When the DEA raided our St Petes SlowGo Walker compound the agents found voodoo dolls.
http://highracers.blogspot.com/
JS
Bishidda SlowGo Walker Overpriced Springy Noodle Stick Poles and carbon AeroNotSoFast
Keep Spinning
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
|
| |
Date: 21 Nov 2005 06:25:47
From:
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Hello Rich. Thanks for the response. It clears this issue up for me.
The one thing I that I feel separates the recumbent crowd from the
upright crowd is (or was) their acceptance and enthusiasm for ALL types
of bikes and trikes. Surely, we all have strong preferences! Mine
will probably always be LWB low BB bikes! Yet I also enjoy riding my
Strada fast! And your aluminum Corsa looks like one hell of a bike for
the bucks! My friend has an ICE Trike. Too low for me for suburban
riding but an awesome machine! The NoCom looks fabulous! I'd love to
try one at the Velodrome in Trexlertown, PA but I don't think I would
be comfortable on the street. I have seen the S guys at the Seagul
Century with their homegrown fully enclosed speed machines! Last year
I rode a 10 year old Ryan Vanguard for the first time. Certainly not a
speed machine but I loved it! And I could go on. But enough.
Jim Reilly
|
| | |
Date: 21 Nov 2005 21:49:20
From: gotbent
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
<jreilly@enter.net > wrote in message
news:1132583146.968042.241140@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hello Rich. Thanks for the response. It clears this issue up for me.
> The one thing I that I feel separates the recumbent crowd from the
> upright crowd is (or was) their acceptance and enthusiasm for ALL types
> of bikes and trikes. Surely, we all have strong preferences! Mine
> will probably always be LWB low BB bikes! Yet I also enjoy riding my
> Strada fast! And your aluminum Corsa looks like one hell of a bike for
> the bucks! My friend has an ICE Trike. Too low for me for suburban
> riding but an awesome machine! The NoCom looks fabulous! I'd love to
> try one at the Velodrome in Trexlertown, PA but I don't think I would
> be comfortable on the street. I have seen the S guys at the Seagul
> Century with their homegrown fully enclosed speed machines! Last year
> I rode a 10 year old Ryan Vanguard for the first time. Certainly not a
> speed machine but I loved it! And I could go on. But enough.
>
> Jim Reilly
>
Hmmm, there are guys in Chicago who ride their Nocoms on the road every day,
but they probably have CF balls. I heard that Pinto's buddy and Bacchetta
supporter and west coast killer bee sold his tinotsoaero and races a Nocom
now because it's several miles per hour faster than the expensive and flexy
ti pole bike. So ride what you like.
I think some of the history between the monkeys and Bacchetta comes from the
failed attempt be a pace line of pole bikes to actually catch and or pass a
lone rider on a tailfaired carbon fibre lowracer, not even a NoCom, in the
hills of Wisconsin a few years ago and the pole bike guys are still pissed
that a lowracer kicked their sorry asses. But that's OK because racers
aren't Bacchetta's customer base. And then there's Richy Pinto. Look out
Tom, Richy's mad at you because you're a lot ster than he is and he has
to fall back on his small minded and vindictive arrogance to lash out at
anyone who knows what a putz he is. Go Johnny NoCom, Go!
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
|
| |
Date: 21 Nov 2005 04:07:38
From: Mr Reality
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Sunset Lowracer Fanatic (AKA Tom Sherman) wrote...
Uhh huh... "Bacchetta team members" who wanted to respond with
violence in response to "paradoy", "slights" because somebody with a
Bacchetta dared question the safety of lowracers in traffic, an
argument over your bodyshock experience with "someone claiming to be a
Killer B"...
Now I its perfectly clear to me why this tiny band of Chicago
lowracers had made their lifes work bashing Bacchetta for the last four
years!
Thanks for clearing up that confusion for me Tom. You are now in
my permanent lowracer loonie bin for that bit of Classic Ed Gin
equivocating.
Boy, almost as funny as "Ya...Ya...it was my computer, you got
me there...but prove I was the one sitting at it!!"
Over and out on this one...
Rich Pinto
|
| |
Date: 20 Nov 2005 21:23:00
From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Mr Reality aka Rich Pinto wrote:
> Hi Jim
>
> I won't respond to any trolls in this thread, so you and Tom are
> the only ones I will respond to. BTW, did'nt Dolan promise he was
> leaving a while ago? ;<)
>
> If you look back in the history of ARBR B.E (before Ed's) it was
> once a very useful and civil discussion group. One of the Ed's even
> seemed capable of an intelligent discussion of the issues at one time!
> IIRC, did'nt he even instruct people how to make "condom bikes" (his
> latest Johhny Nocom derogatory term for faired bikes) out of coroplast?
No one has proven that Ed Gin was the AUTHOR of the "Johnny NoCom"
posts, so this should not be stated as accepted fact.
> BTW, anyone suggesting that some imaginary "slights" (that the
> pathological liar EG undoubtedly told him about) the could unleash the
> constant public torrent of bitter, intolerant crap coming from the
> Chicago Nocom/lowracer guys for the last few years has a VERY short
> memory, or is seriously Google search challenged.
You state Ed Gin is a "pathological liar" - please present the evidence
to back up this serious accusation.
There were plenty of scare tactics from a "Team Bacchetta" member about
how lowracers were deathtraps ridden on public roads. This "Team
Bacchetta" was also involved in some public online conversations that
involved threats of physical violence. Now maybe those threats were
made in jest, but then how would that differ than the obvious parody
presented by "Mojo"?
Another rider who is apparently associated with "Team Bacchetta" could
not argue with a technical point I made, so instead he launched a
personal attack on me (deliberately misrepresenting what I said) which
including posting a private email to the group without permission.
A third person who claims to be a "Killer B" accused me of making
things up (i.e. lying) on a discussion about bodysocks, going so far as
to claim I had no experience in the matter.(despite the fact that I
posted many times about the bodysock I made for a RANS Wave/Tailwind
conversion to the group).
So excuse me if I do not buy your contention that all the bad behavior
is on the lowracer side, since personal experience and observations
tell me otherwise.
I can also mention that some of those in the "lowracer" groups have
stated that they were welcoming to those riding highracers (at the time
when highracers were first gaining attention in the North American
ket), but were snubbed for their efforts.
Is much of the "Monkey" behavior immature? Yes, but it is not occurring
in a vacuum. Neither side can claim a spotless moral high ground.
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
| | |
Date: 23 Nov 2005 10:36:46
From: SD
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
From: magillagorillakk@hotmail.com
Date: 23 Nov 2005 00:36:06 -0800
>And there satirical site should be ignored. Satire and Conan and the
>Whitehouse? Does President Bush hire hit men to kill Conan? Well only
>on an off nite...
>Still the recumbent bizz is small and maybe the site should be shut
>down.
>MG
Words of wisdom from Americas favorite recumbent nutzi Kevin Magilla Tom Swift Keuhl.
Judging other peoples BLOGs and posting crap like this on yours:
"The best place for a recumbent is in a dumpster"
"American youth will form army's with the many firearms freely available in this country. We have an opportunity yet a slim one to avoid this"
"Dumpster bikes will be the bike of choice for a lot of Americans in the future"
Start taking your meds again MG, you are mentally ill without them. BTW, do you know the difference between there and their? Time for you to take grade school grammer test you nitwit.
SD
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
|
| | |
Date: 21 Nov 2005 11:42:27
From: Joao
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic wrote:
>
> No one has proven that Ed Gin was the AUTHOR of the "Johnny NoCom"
> posts, so this should not be stated as accepted fact.
In about 40,000 messages posted to this group:
- Everyone's headers are a 0% to 5% match with the trolls', except for
Ed's messages which are a 95% to 100% match
- When Ed changed from Earthlink/Mindspring dial-up to Prodigy/Yahoo/SBC
DSL, the trolls changed from Earthlink/Mindspring dial-up to
Prodigy/Yahoo/SBC DSL.
- Both Ed and the trolls post not only from the same city, but also from
the same neighborhood. The IP address of the computer may be dynamic,
but the IP address of the router is static.
- The trolls and Ed have all the same obsessions
- Sometimes the trolls sign off with each other's names, and sometimes
the trolls sign off as Ed Gin.
- Right after I pointed some of these things out, the trolls, and
sometimes Ed, started posting from an anonymous account with Newsfeeds.com.
You mentioned that its not proven that he's "the AUTHOR". So are you
suggesting that maybe someone keeps breaking into his home to post crap
online from his computer while he sleeps?
Hey look! Occam just sliced his own throat with his razor! ;)
|
| |
Date: 20 Nov 2005 20:52:06
From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Edward Dolan wrote:
> ...I am a paragon of civilization and high society. I am strictly upper class all the way.
> After all, I am a Beethoven lover...
Does this mean Albrechtsberger was right!?
"...he [Beethoven] learned absolutely nothing and will never accomplish
anything decent." - Johann Georg Albrechtsberger
>...and have been to Carnegie Hall in New York City.
Presumably not as a performer.
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
| | |
Date: 21 Nov 2005 08:55:31
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
"Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1132548726.754097.58500@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> ...I am a paragon of civilization and high society. I am strictly upper
>> class all the way.
>> After all, I am a Beethoven lover...
>
> Does this mean Albrechtsberger was right!?
>
> "...he [Beethoven] learned absolutely nothing and will never accomplish
> anything decent." - Johann Georg Albrechtsberger
Mozart had perfected the classical form and it had nowhere to go after him.
Then along came Beethoven and he changed the course of music for all time.
However, the mass of men should never attempt originality. That is reserved
for the elect - like Beethoven and me.
>>...and have been to Carnegie Hall in New York City.
>
> Presumably not as a performer.
Being a performing musician is a curse from Hell. Why would anyone ever want
to perform music when you can have others do it for you at very little cost
to yourself. No thanks. I will take listening any old day of the week and
twice on Sunday to the miseries of being a performing musician. Besides,
they are all crazy anyway, or didn't you know that?
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
|
| |
Date: 20 Nov 2005 17:59:12
From: Johnny are you Queer?
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
"Ed, here's a few words of advice. The greatest conflict that you will
ever experience is not with me or any other person, but rather a
struggle with your own emotionally feeble inner self and your
formidable personal demons"
Well put.
I imagine these clowns are even more plagued by their inadequacies
having realized they've spent so much money on a bike that can only be
a threat in *very* controlled arenas, like a velodrome--- nice & flat,
no hills. Get them out on on the road w/ diverse terrain and they
become a tiny dot in the rear view mirror. I regulalry pass one while
climbing on a local ride here. Of course, he never wants to chat, just
grimaces while spinning like a madman.
"Just wait until we get to the downhill", I hear him think. To this
day, I don't know if he's ever made it to the top of the hill.
-L
|
| |
Date: 20 Nov 2005 16:17:49
From:
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Rich,
I'm pleased to see that you stepped up to these adolescent - how low
will they go - Chicagoland lowracers. When I frist read this crap, I
asked myself ... please tell me that we are not in for yet another
round of irksome, cross-posted, feculent gibberish excreted from the
bowels of the disgruntled Monkey Island chimps ... I mean CHUMPS?
Everyone Please be avised that the sole purpose of these recent posts
is to redirect you to their denigrating blog. They don't want you to
be aware of the opposing view (blog) authored by one of their ex-Monkey
Islanders who is now estranged from Ed Gin and his rogue band of
apostles. You'll find the blog here ...
One thing that Ed Gin and his devoted disciples have never learned is
that repetition does not transform a fable into a fact or a lie into
the truth. FACT ... although Team Bacchetta did not finish first in
RAAM, neither did Team NoCom. FACT ... Team NoCom finished well over
12 hours behind the very team, company and the bike that these
vindictive lowracer juveniles are so fond of disrespecting. That's
more than half a day! FACT ... Team Bacchetta had time to celebrate
their victory over the lowly lowracer, put down a good meal and even
get in some well deserved rest while Team NoCom was still struggling on
the road to reach the finish line.
Remember. Nothing is nearly so dangerous as sincere ignorance coupled
with conscientious stupidity. Do not count yourself among those who
have unwittingly been deceived by this duplicitous quintessential troll
and/or his band of Monkey Island misfits. Engulfed by his own
rapacious ego, cloaked in pretense and supported by a menagerie of sock
puppet pseudonyms, Ed Gin, is a chronic, irrepressible and unrelenting
systemic infiltrator that haunts and contaminates ARBR and other public
forums with a vengeance. Disregard his puerility. In the greater
scheme of things, he is an insignificant twit who matters not. On my
scale of disdain, the only thing that supersedes Ed Gin is SPAM!
Compiled Ed Gin Troll Score:
---------------------------
Technical Merit: 0.1 (fabricated, uninspiring gibberish)
Presentation: 0.1 (boring, unimaginative rubbish)
Originality: 0.0 - (uncreative, disingenuous nonsense)
Overall rating ... a pitiful, paltry effort, even by neophyte Troll
standards.
Ed, here's a few words of advice. The greatest conflict that you will
ever experience is not with me or any other person, but rather a
struggle with your own emotionally feeble inner self and your
formidable personal demons. When the realization of your own
insignificance becomes apparent, the punishment inflicted by that
awareness will be far greater than your self-absorbed persona will ever
be able to endure.
You and your fatuous followers have way too much time on your hands.
Give it a rest. Grow up. Get a life and move on. The world would be
a far better place without your kind.
Jim - not afraid or ashamed to use my real name or emial address -
McNaa
|
| |
Date: 20 Nov 2005 16:05:44
From:
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Mr Reality wrote:
> Hi Jim
>
> I won't respond to any trolls in this thread, so you and Tom are
> the only ones I will respond to. BTW, did'nt Dolan promise he was
> leaving a while ago? ;<)
>
> If you look back in the history of ARBR B.E (before Ed's) it was
> once a very useful and civil discussion group. One of the Ed's even
> seemed capable of an intelligent discussion of the issues at one time!
> IIRC, did'nt he even instruct people how to make "condom bikes" (his
> latest Johhny Nocom derogatory term for faired bikes) out of coroplast?
>
>
> BTW, anyone suggesting that some imaginary "slights" (that the
> pathological liar EG undoubtedly told him about) the could unleash the
> constant public torrent of bitter, intolerant crap coming from the
> Chicago Nocom/lowracer guys for the last few years has a VERY short
> memory, or is seriously Google search challenged.
>
> This latest HRS Jihad from the three remaining Chicago/DC
> geniuses has everything to do with their only remaining Nocom Yahoo
> group has been devoid of any real discussion since their favored
> Nocom/Vk2 lowracer team was passed on June 19 by Bacchetta Aero
> Highracers at team RAAM. The 360 Yahoogroup posts from May 1 to June 19
> suddenly dried up to "for sale" posts, and email between the three HRS
> blog morons. The comical pre-RAAM predictions on their Yahoo group
> and elsewhere were exceeded only by the comedy of their excuses after,
> on BROL and elsewhere.
>
> And for the record, The VERY strong JDRF VK all star
> recumbent team (on very fast VK Nocoms and VK2 lowracers) have been
> nothing but good sportmen since RAAM ended.
>
> The good news is that with few exceptions, very few recumbent
> people are gullible enough to take anything these three geniuses have
> to say...on a jealous, bitter, pathetic and substanceless hate blog or
> anywhere else.
>
>
>
> Rich
> "Pimpo" Pinto
|
| |
Date: 20 Nov 2005 06:17:59
From: Mr Reality
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Hi Jim
I won't respond to any trolls in this thread, so you and Tom are
the only ones I will respond to. BTW, did'nt Dolan promise he was
leaving a while ago? ;<)
If you look back in the history of ARBR B.E (before Ed's) it was
once a very useful and civil discussion group. One of the Ed's even
seemed capable of an intelligent discussion of the issues at one time!
IIRC, did'nt he even instruct people how to make "condom bikes" (his
latest Johhny Nocom derogatory term for faired bikes) out of coroplast?
BTW, anyone suggesting that some imaginary "slights" (that the
pathological liar EG undoubtedly told him about) the could unleash the
constant public torrent of bitter, intolerant crap coming from the
Chicago Nocom/lowracer guys for the last few years has a VERY short
memory, or is seriously Google search challenged.
This latest HRS Jihad from the three remaining Chicago/DC
geniuses has everything to do with their only remaining Nocom Yahoo
group has been devoid of any real discussion since their favored
Nocom/Vk2 lowracer team was passed on June 19 by Bacchetta Aero
Highracers at team RAAM. The 360 Yahoogroup posts from May 1 to June 19
suddenly dried up to "for sale" posts, and email between the three HRS
blog morons. The comical pre-RAAM predictions on their Yahoo group
and elsewhere were exceeded only by the comedy of their excuses after,
on BROL and elsewhere.
And for the record, The VERY strong JDRF VK all star
recumbent team (on very fast VK Nocoms and VK2 lowracers) have been
nothing but good sportmen since RAAM ended.
The good news is that with few exceptions, very few recumbent
people are gullible enough to take anything these three geniuses have
to say...on a jealous, bitter, pathetic and substanceless hate blog or
anywhere else.
Rich
"Pimpo" Pinto
|
| | |
Date: 05 Dec 2005 19:12:18
From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Jim McNaa <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com > wrote:
[Snippage of repetitive and/or grammatically unclear material]
> One has to wonder why is it that you continue to associate
> with and defend these scoundrels rather than denounce them, sever your
> ties and abdicate your assumed role as their spokesperson....
Mr. McNaa is assuming facts not in evidence. Since no one has proven
(or admitted to me) authorship of either the Johnny NoCom posts or the
HRS blog, how could I sever my (assumed) ties with them?
I have not expressed any opinion of approval of the HRS blog, and in
fact pointed out that the blog author(s) erred in parodying private
individuals.
> Lack of
> conclusive evidence you might say. To that I say; based on
> characteristic, parallel patterns of behavior, if you have suspicions
> sufficient enough to enable you to compile a list of likely candidates,
> then you have adequate reason to have already parted company with those
> who you persist in harboring and defending. If you and I could produce
> a similar list, then you must regard the telling circumstantial
> evidence to be compelling enough for others to arrive at the same
> conclusion an come have.
Mr. McNaa is again assuming facts not in evidence. Since I have not
stated my list of likely candidates, how can any claim of relationship
be made? Similarly, since I have not produced a list, how can it be
said that it would be similar to Mr. McNaa's list?
> > 2. Offenses are not limited to the blog, but extend to objectionable
> > posts both past and present ... posts that are obvious to all but you
> > (Tom) to have originated from the same few sources.
>
> There are multiple probable candidates for the authorship of the HRS
> blog, the Johnny NoCom posts, and many of the other anonymous
> anti-highracer/anti-Bacchetta/anti-BROL posts here on
> alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent, the defunct Monkey Island message boards
> and other online forums. Therefore, authorship of one does not
> necessarily indicate authorship of the others, so that assumption
> should not be made.
>
> --> You are out of sync. I addressed that particular issue in #4
> (below). Multiple probable candidates? I can think of 3, the author
> and 2 collaborators although there could possibly be more serving in a
> minor capacity. The two to whom I refer have a history of anonymity
> that extends back several years in archived Usenet newsgroup posts. As
> concerns the defunct Monkey Island message board, most who adopted a
> monkey moniker merely did so to have a simian nom de plume (pen-name)
> to reflect their registered "residence" on Monkey Island.
> Consequently, you cannot emphatically lump all the Monkey Island
> participants into a pool of potential candidates. Why do that? I know
> to further add to identity confusion ... a clever, but failed attempt.
> Just whatever do you mean by saying ... "Therefore, authorship of one
> does not necessarily indicate authorship of the others", like that
> somehow logically follows? It most certainly does not. You persist in
> ignoring what many others have noted and referred to countless times,
> that is the consistency of priy focus and distinctive writing styles
> that makes it easy to assume that these shenanigans are confined to the
> same small group of specific individuals ... the same themes, the same
> targets, the same misspellings, the same grammatical errors, the same
> phraseology, the same email headers, the same PCs, the same ISPs, etc.
> that attest to origin. You seem to be the only person who is incapable
> and/or unwilling to recognize that. I guess someone has to express an
> OPINION as to where the blame should be placed and it may as well be
> me. Much speculation has been bandied about regarding the parties
> responsible and although the evidence is purely circumstantial, it is
> nonetheless substantial and compelling. The author of the HRS blog
> trashes all highracer bikes accept for one which is exempted and in fat
> is lauded and the author just happens own ... a Volae. Coincidence? I
> think not. Tom, how many of those on your list of probable candidates
> own a Volae? That kind of narrows authorship down now doesn't it? He
> is an ex-Monkey Island friend of Ed Gin. I'll still not name any names
> here, but the initials of the last names of the three that I suspect as
> being directly involved, when placed side-by-side, spell JAG and I find
> that particular sequence to be most appropriate. You know who the last
> one is, so all you have to do now is to determine if the initials match
> your lineup of suspects. I am convinced that you will find this to be
> not very challenging.
The same old suppositions and circumstantial evidence. Where is the
proof?
> > 3. Offenses are not limited solely to the owner of the blog, but rather
> > to all who participate by contributing to it.
The point being...?
> --> Once again, you failed to acknowledge what I have said repeatedly
> (see #3). I suppose I will just have to take silence as admission that
> offenses are not limited solely to the blog or its author(s)....
Please restate the above after editing for clarity and logic.
> I'm
> beginning to think Ed Dolan is right about you being stubborn, never in
> the wrong and unable or unwilling to take a stand. It should be duly
> noted that there is a significant difference between condemning the
> wrongdoing and condemning the nameless wrongdoers. You will do
> neither. You are adamant in your resolve not to repudiate the
> "unidentified" perpetrators or their surreptitious skullduggery....
The dominant religious philosophy in western society states (in part);
"love the sinner, hate the sin." Are you contending that billions of
people are wrong?
> Refusing to do so is tantamount to giving those involved and their
> activities your personal stamp of approval....
The above is logically false. Next!
> What do you suggest that
> we do ... sit idly by, grant the offenders impunity ... what?...
If you (general you) do not approve of the blog or posts, ignore them.
> I will
> ask you again, without naming names, why do you refuse to condemn the
> actions of the nameless? There is no middle ground here. One either
> approves or disapproves. Where do you stand? Should you once again
> fail to take a stand. I suppose that in not taking a stand, you have
> in effect taken a stand ... a cowardly one, but one that reflects the
> demeanor of those you shelter.
Allowing parody of public individuals is essential to a free society.
Whether or not I find the HRS blog humorous, tasteless, offensive, etc.
is my personal opinion, and there is no moral imperative that requires
me to publicly express my opinion.
> > 4. The profiles of those involved and their distinctive, (readily
> > recognizable) writing styles establishes their culpability and links
> > the authors with their postings even though their specific identity is
> > cowardly cloaked by a multitude of pseudonyms. If they were proud of
> > what they do and if they had the courage to reveal their true identity,
> > they would use their real names and real email addresses, but they are
> > neither proud nor courageous. Surely you will not address this issue
> > for there is no room for argument, so don't even give me any nonsense
> > about there being a good reason for obscurity when you find no reason
> > to do so and their reason is so obvious that it needn't even be
> > mentioned.
>
> To the contrary, there are some who might well indeed extend
> retaliation to means beyond the written word. I am aware of several
> cases (although not involving highracers/Bacchetta/BROL) where this has
> occurred. True freedom of speech is usually more a theoretical concept
> than reality.
>
> --> You're out of sync again. I addressed the freedom of speech issue
> in #8 (below). By logical implication, you have all but admitted that
> you are aware that those responsible have spawned sufficient
> provocation to warrant remaining anonymous for fear of any
> counter-measures that would exceed that of the written word. Well, I
> couldn't agree more. The operative word in your statement was
> retaliation, which is defined as an action taken in return for an
> injury or offense. Certainly, no one can deny that there has been a
> cornucopia of injury and offense. Now it should be obvious that
> vengeance would not even be the point of discussion if the HRS blog and
> the many derogatory posts past and present were simply never made. If
> retribution extends beyond the written word, that is the risk that
> those responsible knowingly and willingly took and the consequences
> that they must accept. We must all take responsibility for our
> decisions and the consequences of those decisions. If the parties who
> are responsible find that their payback extends beyond the written
> word, be it in the form of litigation, violence or whatever, so be it.
> I'll not shed a tear. They will have reaped what they sowed ... earned
> and deserve whatever form of reprisal comes their way.
Ah, so Jim McNaa believes that physical violence is a just response
to parody? I see where his moral standards are.
> > 5. Despite you assertion to the contrary, I didn't accuse Ed of
> > authorship of the blog, but there is no doubt in my mind regarding his
> > active participation in the blog or in his authorship of past and
> > present objectionable posts and this is an OPINION that is shared by
> > most here regardless of your drum beating about FACTS. Your logic
> > reads much like this. If you enter a room and lying on the floor is a
> > person dead from a gunshot wound and a person is standing over the body
> > holding a gun that is later found to have been purchased by and
> > registered in his name. In his pocket is found a receipt for recently
> > purchased bullets and the open box, on the table, just happens to have
> > the same number of bullets missing that were chambered in the gun,
> > there still remains sufficient reason to consider that the person found
> > holding the gun was not the murderer simply because the preponderance
> > of evidence is purely circumstantial since the event was not captured
> > on videotape. Sorry, but I just buy your line of reasoning....
^^^^^^^^^^^^
It is good to see that Jim McNaa has come around to see the logic of
my position.
> The above criteria are certainly grounds to further investigate that
> particular individual, but do not constitute proof of murder.
> > 6. You persist in your inability to recognize that the circumstantial
> > evidence as formidable and telling. You also persist in your
> > unwillingness to condemn the nameless perpetrators who are responsible.
> > Why is that? Is it because if those responsible are ever identified,
> > that you know you that could very well have condemned those with whom
> > you are associated and allied?
>
> Parody of public figures is accepted in advanced societies. Note that I
> did post criticisms of the HRS blog in the two cases where people who
> clearly are not public figures (I can state this with certainty since I
> have met both these individuals) were objects of the parody.
>
> --> I somehow missed those two cases and posts. Care to repost? Do
> you really expect any of us to believe that the objectionable posts
> both past and present and the denigrating HRS blog fall within the
> protective sanctuary of parody. Can you honestly say that you can find
> nothing in all this that doesn't transcend the definition of the word
> or doesn't exceed the boundaries of good taste? Lest I remind you
> again, I'm the guy who fucks his mother. Ask your friends. One of
> them said so. I know ... just another example of an otherwise
> perfectly acceptable parody, if it were not for the fact that I am not
> a public person ... right? I guess what you need is to become a victim
> for you to come to grips with enlightenment. This all makes me wonder
> though if in fact your reluctance to take a stand and condemn the
> wrongdoers and their wrongdoing is because of the very real threat of
> that possibility ... becoming one of their victims. If you ever find
> yourself in that position, I suspect that you would find the experience
> one that would provide you with a much needed attitude adjustment ...
> one that would alter your perspective considerably. As concerns public
> figures, many victims are most certainly not "public figures" (more
> about that further down).
Where is the definition of parody that mandates inoffensiveness?
I have been called worse things on Usenet than anything in the HRS blog
or Johnny NoCom posts. As long is it is opinion, and not misstatement
of fact I could care less.
> > 7. Personally, it is my opinion (I know you're fond of that word) that
> > even you have little doubt as to who the culprits are. You as much as
> > said so when you indicated that we would likely produce similar lists...
I assume Jim McNaa is referring to the paragraph below (from a
previous post of mine).
"Based on past events, I can think of several people who names have not
been mentioned on this thread who might be responsible for the HRS blog
and postings. (I suspect that Jim McNaa might well come up with a
similar list.) This is another reason why there is reasonable doubt as
to the identity of the person(s) behind HRS."
Similar should be taken to me "a list of alternative candidates to
those whose names have been mentioned". It should not necessarily be
interpreted to say that my list of names would be identical to the list
of names Jim McNaa would generate.
> > assuming of course that your convictions did not have you constrained
> > from doing so. Here's a concept. How about this? We could both
> > produce our lists with an appropriate escape clauses that our lists are
> > not to be misconstrued as FACT since they are OPINIONS substantiated
> > only by overwhelming circumstantial evidence. Then we could compare
> > notes. You game? We could even do so in a private email if you don't
> > want to go public.
>
> See my first paragraph in this post.
>
> --> See my response to your first paragraph. The offer was made with
> an escape clause to cover you ass and even provided with a private
> email exchange option and yet still you weaseled out. The offer still
> stands by the way.
What reason is there for me to discuss this over private email?
> > 8. From my perspective, you have sheltered the nameless guilty parties,
> > in a feigned defense of freedom of speech, innocent until proven guilty
> > and harmless parody/satire. Freedom of speech does not entitle one to
> > say anything and everything, like screaming fire in a theater. Oh
> > sure, one can say scandalous things for sure, but need I remind you
> > that the courts are packed full of libel suits. Frankly, I hope this
> > crap ends up in a courtroom so you will at long last have the proof
> > that you demand ... proof that no one else here seems to require.
> > Innocent until proven guilty is hard to quibble over, but the
> > accumulated circumstantial evidence leaves only a shadow of a doubt and
> > the blog and posts, both past and present, are way beyond parody,
> > satire or even that which is commonly considered acceptable (read
> > within the bounds of good taste) ... agreed?
>
> See what I said above about the distinction between public and private
> individuals (and the US Supreme Court agrees).
>
> --> I stand by what I said. You merely ducked the entire issue with a
> one-liner. The US Supreme Court would be so bold as to define many of
> those who have been on the receiving end as what you have construed as
> "public individuals", so your fundamental contention is quite irrelevant.
And which US Supreme Court Justices have ventured an opinion on this
particular matter?
> > 9. To Tom's credit, he at least gave me kudos for tenacity and
> > determination. You are right Tom, I'll stick around and argue the
> > point as long as I feel that there is a point to argue over and it is
> > worthwhile to do so although admittedly this can become tiring quite
> > quickly. When an impasse is reached, however, and we can only agree to
> > disagree, I will likely just call it ... done and over with and move
> > on....
>
> Where is Rich Pinto? Mr. Pinto accused me of being "illogical" and
> "delusional" but refused to back up his argument with facts and logic.
> Mr. Pinto also has yet to back up his accusation that Ed Gin is a
> "pathological liar".
>
> ---> It would seem that Rich really struck a nerve....
Not at all.
> I would be
> inappropriate for me to address a question that should only be answered
> by Rich Pinto, but I personally don't see that he has anything to gain
> by engaging in a cyclical debate with you over issues that the
> readership has already decided in his favor. It is probably in his
> best interest to just ignore all this bullshit....
Jim McNaa is now speaking for the readership of
alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent? I must have missed the announcement where
he was appointed spokesperson.
As for Rich Pinto, he should stay away from the discussion completely
or back up his accusations. Instead, he has "cut and run". It is in his
best interest, since there is no possible way he could prove my
statements "illogical" and "delusional".
> A more pertinent
> question to ask is where are the cowardly culprits? Like you, at least
> Rich used his real email address and name, but we've been through all
> that innumerable times. Those who are responsible have good reason to
> remain anonymous ... fear factor. Rich is not alone in his assertions.
> I've as much as said that at times you were illogical...
Said by Jim McNaa, but never proven.
> (even in this
> post) and I have said the I agree with Rich regarding his observations
> regarding Ed Gin's pathological prevarication, although I have no
> intention of citing examples to justify my accusation to you....
I was requesting proof from Rich Pinto since he made the accusation.
> I know what I know...
Ah, the truism!
> and there are others who also know what I know. Suffice it
> to say, that I've caught Ed Gin in countless lies and many were
> specifically told about me. I refuse to be diverted, preferring to
> stay on topic.
Jim McNaa posts the diversion of accusing Ed Gin of being a liar,
and then repudiates his own tactic.
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Dec 2005 00:01:14
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
"Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1133838738.036644.54830@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Jim McNaa <jimmymac_4@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
>> I'm
>> beginning to think Ed Dolan is right about you being stubborn, never in
>> the wrong and unable or unwilling to take a stand. It should be duly
>> noted that there is a significant difference between condemning the
>> wrongdoing and condemning the nameless wrongdoers. You will do
>> neither. You are adamant in your resolve not to repudiate the
>> "unidentified" perpetrators or their surreptitious skullduggery....
>
> The dominant religious philosophy in western society states (in part);
> "love the sinner, hate the sin." Are you contending that billions of
> people are wrong?
Did someone mention Ed Dolan, religious philosophy and western society? Yes!
I am here and more than willing to chime in.
Mr. Sherman has never yet condemned the sin, let alone the sinner. However,
it is the classic mistake of liberalism to forgive the sinner and forget
about the sin. I say condemn the sinners along with their sins. After all,
the sins are not being committed in the ether by themselves. No, they always
have an author. I would go after the author of the sin far more than I would
bother with the sin itself. After all, if you kill the sinner, voila - no
more sin! Glad I was able to clear that up for you. It is part of my
noblesse oblige to my inferiors.
>> Refusing to do so is tantamount to giving those involved and their
>> activities your personal stamp of approval....
>
> The above is logically false. Next!
No, it is not! You are part and parcel of this newsgroup and it is your duty
to speak out when sins are being committed here, even if they are being
committed by your friends. The real question you need to ask yourself is why
do you have such contemptible friends. A person is known by the company he
keeps. Ever heard that before?
>> What do you suggest that
>> we do ... sit idly by, grant the offenders impunity ... what?...
>
> If you (general you) do not approve of the blog or posts, ignore them.
I would not be caught dead posting to a blog or even reading one run by
anyone associated with the former Monkey Island message board. ARBR is bad
enough, isn't it?
[...]
> Ah, so Jim McNaa believes that physical violence is a just response
> to parody? I see where his moral standards are.
Ed Dolan does parody and has become the most read and appreciated writer
ever in the entire history of Usenet. What Ed Gin does is not parody, but
character assassination. Funny that you cannot see the difference. Well, I
guess it will have to happen to you before your eyes are opened. Fortunately
for you, both Jim and I are gentlemen and would never think of doing to you
what has been done to us by your good buddy, Ed Gin.
[...]
> Where is the definition of parody that mandates inoffensiveness?
>
> I have been called worse things on Usenet than anything in the HRS blog
> or Johnny NoCom posts. As long is it is opinion, and not misstatement
> of fact I could care less.
I would sure like to see some of those posts where you have been called
worse things than what Jim and I have been called by your good buddy, Ed
Gin. I think everyone cares what they are called, whether it is regarded as
opinion or as a misstatement of fact.
[...]
>> Where is Rich Pinto? Mr. Pinto accused me of being "illogical" and
>> "delusional" but refused to back up his argument with facts and logic.
>> Mr. Pinto also has yet to back up his accusation that Ed Gin is a
>> "pathological liar".
>>
>> ---> It would seem that Rich really struck a nerve....
>
> Not at all.
Oh yes he did! Rich Pinto has credibility in the world of Tom Sherman
because Rich Pinto is a bicycle manufacturer. In fact, I am predicting that
after Mr. Sherman retires from his duties as a civil engineer that he will
become a bike manufacturer himself. He will of course only make low racers
so as not to offend his good buddy, Ed Gin.
>> I would be
>> inappropriate for me to address a question that should only be answered
>> by Rich Pinto, but I personally don't see that he has anything to gain
>> by engaging in a cyclical debate with you over issues that the
>> readership has already decided in his favor. It is probably in his
>> best interest to just ignore all this bullshit....
>
> Jim McNaa is now speaking for the readership of
> alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent? I must have missed the announcement where
> he was appointed spokesperson.
I am the spokesperson for ARBR. I thought everyone knew that much, even Mr.
Sherman. He is trying to bait me again as usual. Mr Jon Meinecke used to be
the spokesperson for ARBR, but he resigned his positon in favor of me. He
got trapped looking up headers and addresses and is still lost doing that as
far as I know.
[...]
>> I know what I know...
>
> Ah, the truism!
Jim is man after my own heart! I am always knowing what I know too despite
Mr. Sherman's attempts to lead me astray.
>> and there are others who also know what I know. Suffice it
>> to say, that I've caught Ed Gin in countless lies and many were
>> specifically told about me. I refuse to be diverted, preferring to
>> stay on topic.
>
> Jim McNaa posts the diversion of accusing Ed Gin of being a liar,
> and then repudiates his own tactic.
Ed Gin is thousand times worse than just being a liar. Find a dictionary of
invective and you will began to get a glimmer of an idea of what your good
buddy Ed Gin is all about. However, the likeliest explanation for it all is
that he is just plain crazy. Do you really like to associate with crazy
people?
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
|
| | |
Date: 04 Dec 2005 18:19:01
From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Mr. Ed. Dolan wrote:
> "Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1133575356.746561.146510@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> [...]
> > Where is Rich Pinto? Mr. Pinto accused me of being "illogical" and
> > "delusional" but refused to back up his argument with facts and logic.
> > Mr. Pinto also has yet to back up his accusation that Ed Gin is a
> > "pathological liar".
> >
>
> Mr. Rich Pinto is a genius in my opinion and has hit the nail squarely on
> the head. Mr. Sherman IS illogical and delusional when it comes to Ed Gin
> and Ed Gin IS many times worse that a pathological liar. He forges names and
> addresses among his many other misdeeds.
The fact remains that Mr. Pinto tossed out accusations, but has yet to
back them up. Mr. Ed. Dolan is following this example (stating opinion
as fact).
> But Hey! Hang in there with your defense of the indefensible. The rest of us
> are enjoying you making a spectacle of yourself. One thing is for certain:
> none of us are going to have any sympathy for you when Ed Gin turns on you,
> which he surely will do because he is as crazy as a hoot owl.
Please provide references (and the credentials of the ornithologists)
stating the prevalence of insanity among Strix varia.
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Dec 2005 20:55:18
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
"Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1133749141.414494.72370@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Mr. Ed. Dolan wrote:
>> "Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1133575356.746561.146510@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> [...]
>> > Where is Rich Pinto? Mr. Pinto accused me of being "illogical" and
>> > "delusional" but refused to back up his argument with facts and logic.
>> > Mr. Pinto also has yet to back up his accusation that Ed Gin is a
>> > "pathological liar".
>> >
>>
>> Mr. Rich Pinto is a genius in my opinion and has hit the nail squarely on
>> the head. Mr. Sherman IS illogical and delusional when it comes to Ed Gin
>> and Ed Gin IS many times worse that a pathological liar. He forges names
>> and
>> addresses among his many other misdeeds.
>
> The fact remains that Mr. Pinto tossed out accusations, but has yet to
> back them up. Mr. Ed. Dolan is following this example (stating opinion
> as fact).
Joao de Souza did all the backing up that anyone in their right mind
requires by showing the headers and explaining them in great detail. Jim
McNaa has also done yeoman duty in this respect. I believe even Jon
Meinecke chimed in briefly with his analysis too, but he is mostly out to
lunch when there is any heavy lifting to be done. Remember, we are dealing
here with the ARBR court of public opinion, not a real court where proof
positive is required.
The wisdom for the day is that there are none so blind as those who will not
see.
>> But Hey! Hang in there with your defense of the indefensible. The rest of
>> us
>> are enjoying you making a spectacle of yourself. One thing is for
>> certain:
>> none of us are going to have any sympathy for you when Ed Gin turns on
>> you,
>> which he surely will do because he is as crazy as a hoot owl.
>
> Please provide references (and the credentials of the ornithologists)
> stating the prevalence of insanity among Strix varia.
Just an old Midwestern expression that I have always liked. Owls just hoot
and hoot all night and seem to be crazy. Hells Bells - they even look
demented!
Regards,
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
|
| |
Date: 18 Nov 2005 19:55:54
From: Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
Jim Reilly <jreilly@enter.net > wrote:
> There was a time when ARBR included folks who loved to ride bikes,
> especially recumbents, and share their experiences. Now I must ask what
> happened? It now includes annonymous personal attacks against people
> who clearly love recumbents? What is this crap? It must be nice to
> have nothing better to do with your time than to create this dribble!
> Does the creator of this HighrRace website work for a living? Do they
> even ride a bike? Did they get beat up in the school yard for their
> lunch money 30 years ago? Is that what's behind this pathetic, hate
> filled website? How did it come to this?
Events do not occur in a vacuum.
Some are blatantly insulting; others pretend to be upstanding, hiding
their venom behind a veneer of "correct" behavior.
Often retaliation gets noticed, while the instigator escapes
responsibility.
Minor slights accumulate into genuine contempt.
All is not what seems to be.
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
|
| | |
Date: 19 Nov 2005 03:53:47
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
"Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1132372554.509865.59580@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Jim Reilly <jreilly@enter.net> wrote:
>> There was a time when ARBR included folks who loved to ride bikes,
>> especially recumbents, and share their experiences. Now I must ask what
>> happened? It now includes annonymous personal attacks against people
>> who clearly love recumbents? What is this crap? It must be nice to
>> have nothing better to do with your time than to create this dribble!
>> Does the creator of this HighrRace website work for a living? Do they
>> even ride a bike? Did they get beat up in the school yard for their
>> lunch money 30 years ago? Is that what's behind this pathetic, hate
>> filled website? How did it come to this?
>
> Events do not occur in a vacuum.
>
> Some are blatantly insulting; others pretend to be upstanding, hiding
> their venom behind a veneer of "correct" behavior.
>
> Often retaliation gets noticed, while the instigator escapes
> responsibility.
>
> Minor slights accumulate into genuine contempt.
>
> All is not what seems to be.
> --
> Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
All of the above are words of wisdom indeed from my old nemesis, Tom
Sherman, formerly of the Quad Cities (Illinois Side). We should all heed
these words, no one more so than Mr. Sherman himself. However, to his
credit, I have noted that lately he has mostly given up his old ways on this
group and so I am ready and willing to let bygones be bygones.
I know also that he does not approve of criminal vandal trolls, even though
he might have one for a friend there in the Greater Chicago area. Anyone who
can't get along with yours truly (Ed Dolan the Great) is clearly not
civilized or even socialized as I am a paragon of civilization and high
society. I am strictly upper class all the way. After all, I am a Beethoven
lover and have been to Carnegie Hall in New York City.
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
|
| |
Date: 18 Nov 2005 10:21:12
From:
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
There was a time when ARBR included folks who loved to ride bikes,
especially recumbents, and share their experiences. Now I must ask what
happened? It now includes annonymous personal attacks against people
who clearly love recumbents? What is this crap? It must be nice to
have nothing better to do with your time than to create this dribble!
Does the creator of this HighrRace website work for a living? Do they
even ride a bike? Did they get beat up in the school yard for their
lunch money 30 years ago? Is that what's behind this pathetic, hate
filled website? How did it come to this?
Jim Reilly
Reading, PA
|
| | |
Date: 21 Nov 2005 10:39:47
From: The Trollfinder General
Subject: Re: Rich is exposed!
|
___________________
/
|
|
