Canada - Barry, 75, & Honey Sherman, 70, found dead, Toronto, 15 Dec 2017 #3

[neesaki]

My apologies, but I’m really confused, probably because I’m a bit behind. But could someone fill me in on this ? The house the Sherman’s died in, they weren’t living their? If so, where were they living? And what house was only in Honeys name? I’m at a loss, so Thank you, anyone!

 

[MistyWaters]

This stands out to me from the quote above.

“Barry Sherman was stiff in social settings and suffered from what he called chronic lethargy and fatigue. He wrote in a memoir that life had no meaning or purpose.”

I wonder, did you read the memoir SeeSeas linked on post #1030? The one line quote is somewhat deceiving when taken out of context. It's contained is a chapter outlining several reasons why he's an atheist and doesn't believe in God. I interpret "life has no meaning or purpose" was his manner of refuting the common religious belief of "God's plan".

 

[neesaki]

I have wondered that too. To me the house looked "empty", not just staged. For instance I couldn't help but notice the quality of the bedding. I know they were frugal but the bedding looked like it came out of a rag bag. Even the bedding in the master bedroom looked cheap and the bed wasn't well made. You would think they would have made a better presentation for the real estate photos.

Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk

Is there a link to that photo? Apologies again as I’m behind. TIA

 

[Jennifer17]

My apologies, but I’m really confused, probably because I’m a bit behind. But could someone fill me in on this ? The house the Sherman’s died in, they weren’t living their? If so, where were they living? And what house was only in Honeys name? I’m at a loss, so Thank you, anyone!

They were living in the house that they died in. They were building another house but the build had not been started.

 

[MistyWaters]

My apologies, but I’m really confused, probably because I’m a bit behind. But could someone fill me in on this ? The house the Sherman’s died in, they weren’t living their? If so, where were they living? And what house was only in Honeys name? I’m at a loss, so Thank you, anyone!

Yes as far as we know, both were residing in the home where their bodies were found. It had been listed for sale near the end of Nov iirc. A different property had been purchased with the existing residence demolished in preparation for construction of a new, larger home. Title for the new home was apparently held in Honey's name only but media reports indicate it was planned to be the future dream home for the couple.

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/12/28/the-house-honey-and-barry-sherman-would-have-built.html

 

[neesaki]

They were living in the house that they died in. They were building another house but the build had not been started.

Ok, I just read a post indicating they weren’t living in the house so I didn’t know what to think. Thank you Jennifer!

 

[neesaki]

Yes as far as we know, both were residing in the home where their bodies were found. It had been listed for sale near the end of Nov iirc. A different property had been purchased with the existing residence demolished in preparation for construction of a new, larger home. Title for the new home was apparently held in Honey's name only but media reports indicate it was planned to be the future dream home for the couple.

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/12/28/the-house-honey-and-barry-sherman-would-have-built.html

Ok, thank you Misty!

 

[MistyWaters]

The patent thing is often paid for by the govt in the US. For instance, the epipen.

Pharma does all kinds of tricks to keep their patents such as changing the size of the pill. My pharmacist told me that when I asked about a med. I do not recall which as it was awhile ago.

Lower costs of meds are critical in the US which does not have universal health care. It is a trip in terror. Some people cut meds in half or do without.

Barry said people do not do things altruistically He got money, but he did share it.

How many rich people do that? Some buy gold toilets and gold leaf their furniture

In Canada our publicly funded healthcare system doesn't cover prescriptions either. Same thing here, the high cost can be unaffordable to some -- which results in hospitalization, where treatment and drugs are covered. Lower priced generic drugs are a lifeline especially in those situations. JMO

 

[PaulR]

Also, there was a medication I was on whose patent was running out. The pharmaceutical company pulled all sorts of stunts to keep the patent going even after it should have gone generic, including filing lawsuits against companies who received approval to sell generics.

One of the companies who fought to provide a cheaper generic version of this medication was Apotex.

The pharmaceutical company had exclusivity for about twenty years for this medication. I feel no sympathy for them after gouging consumers and insurance companies for that long.

 

[Tortoise]

It really makes you wonder if Barry suffered from depression I battle it every day and have felt the same way about life although we have nothing in common.

:grouphug:

 

[SeesSeas]

https://www.scribd.com/document/367757654/A-Legacy-Of-Thoughts-by-Bernard-C-Sherman

A LEGACY OF THOUGHTS
by Bernard C. Sherman

Excerpts:

CHAPTER 1 – THE MEANING OF LIFE

From my earliest years, I have been an atheist.

I find it incomprehensible that countless persons, including some of apparent intelligence, believe not only in existence of a “Supreme Being”, but in very specific and seemingly preposterous mythologies.

Having debated with numerous theists, I have come to realize that the best way to bring debate to a brief conclusion is to explain that one cannot have meaningful dialogue without a mutual understanding of what is meant by words to be used. I thus ask that, before the conversation proceeds, the theist define exactly what he means by the word “God”. Is it an intelligent three-headed monster who created the universe and who intercedes in our lives at its whim? Is it an evil being that creates suffering for its sadistic gratification? Where did this creature come from? If our universe needed a creator to explain its existence, then why did this creature not also need a creator?

There follow invariably an inability to answer my questions as a prerequisite to debate.

What seems clear is that most if not all theists cannot define that in which they purport to believe, and any attempt at explanation leads to absurdities.

It thus appears that theistic beliefs are not a result of observation and logical deduction, but are either a thoughtless continuing acceptance of what has been “ learned” in naïve youth or, in the alternative, a state of mind founded in fear rather than reason, in an attempt to give meaning to life and ease the apprehension of death.

Clearly a desire for something to be true does not make it so. A truthful answer to whether or not a “God”, however defined, exists can only be grounded in observation and logical deduction.

It is clear that numerous questions can be asked for which we have no answers and may never have answers. Did time have a beginning? How could the universe have had a beginning without there being something present to cause the beginning? Is the universe finite? Are there other universes? The fact that there are imponderables does not, however, prevent intelligent beings from coming to some conclusions with a high degree of confidence in their correctness, based on observation and logical deduction.

As stated by Descartes; “Cogito ergo sum (I think therefore I am)”. The fact that we think leads to the inescapable conclusion that we do exist.

Based on the anthropological evidence, no thinking mind can doubt that we and all other species are here as a result of evolution, through countless individual episodes of mutation and natural slection.

Another inescapable conclusion from endless observation is that mass and energy consistently behave in space and time according to laws of physics which have been largely, although not yet entirely, elucidated.

The foregoing statement, accepting it to be true, leads to the corollary that there is no “God” that interferes in the operation of the universe. Moreover, the postulation of a “God” to explain creation does not serve that purpose, as there would follow an even more imponderable question as to the origin of that “God”. The only plausible conclusion is thus that there is no “God”, however reasonable defined.

Another corollary of the laws of physics is that we have no “free will”. Each of us has a physical existence analogous to the hardware and software of a computer. Just as the response of a computer to any input follows from how it is built and programmed, our response does likewise.

If automatons were built with human appearance and adequately programmed to simulate human behavior, how could an objective observer conclude that the human has free will but the automaton does not? There is undoubtedly a subjective “feeling” within each of us that we are “free” to make certain choices. However, the fact that we consist of mass-energy, albeit of very complex structure, and the fact that mass-energy believes according to laws of physics must mean that every event of the future, including our every future though and action, is predetermined by the present. Free will is an illusion.

“Meaning” and “purpose” are, by definition, dependent on an intelligent being having an intent in mind. A corollary of the nonexistence of a “God” is that we are here with no “meaning” or “purpose” to our lives.

In summary, I hold the following to be self-evident truths:
1. There is no “God”.
2. There is a universe and we do exist.
3. We and all other species are here as a result of evolution.
4. Mass and energy behave in space and time according to laws of physics that have been largely, but not yet entirely, elucidated.
5. Free will is an illusion.
6. Life has no meaning or purpose.

https://www.scribd.com/document/367757654/A-Legacy-Of-Thoughts-by-Bernard-C-Sherman

 

[SteveHolt!]

Is it also the current home listed in HS’s name? If so perhaps BS was against the new home, HS asserted herself and listed the current home. Not requiring BS signature. Although I think I n certain provinces title doesn’t mean much - the spouse still has a claim on the residence.

 

[JDG]

The patent thing is often paid for by the govt in the US. For instance, the epipen.

Pharma does all kinds of tricks to keep their patents such as changing the size of the pill. My pharmacist told me that when I asked about a med. I do not recall which as it was awhile ago.

Lower costs of meds are critical in the US which does not have universal health care. It is a trip in terror. Some people cut meds in half or do without.

Barry said people do not do things altruistically He got money, but he did share it.

How many rich people do that? Some buy gold toilets and gold leaf their furniture

Hi, just curious about the phrase, 'the patent thing is often paid for by the govt in the US'. Do you mean that it doesn't cost money to get a US Patent? That the fees are covered by the US govt? Thank you

 

[Grey-St]

In Canada our publicly funded healthcare system doesn't cover prescriptions either. Same thing here, the high cost can be unaffordable to some -- which results in hospitalization, where treatment and drugs are covered. Lower priced generic drugs are a lifeline especially in those situations. JMO

But even as BS said himself, no one is truly altruistic (at least in his circles). It's not like Apotex was a non-profit organization. The man became a multi-billionaire. It was a business. Finding a need, exploiting it and profiting off of it. How can I provide folks with cheaper drugs (need), and also make a crap ton of money doing so (profit)? It's a grey area, IMO.

And as much as I admire his incredibly generous donations over his lifetime, he didn't have to do any of that, it still mostly all went to large institutions or political entities which he often had a vested interest in. I couldn't begin to tell you how many non-profit organizations doing incredibly valuable and vital work, that don't get the same platform, who could have benefited greatly from his generosity.

I don't know. Like I said, grey area. I think with his wealth, I may have done things a little differently, however. He's a genius with a bright mind, nonetheless.

 

[dotr]

Wondering what will happen now with this family feud?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/winter-siblings-lawsuit-barry-sherman-1.4457330
Dec 20 2017

Barry Sherman's orphaned cousins fight for cut of Apotex fortune in lawsuit appeal


Lawsuit concerns Toronto billionaire's purchase of his uncle's company 50 years ago

Before he died, Barry Sherman was dealing with a family lawsuit that had dragged on for a decade.

The Toronto billionaire's orphaned cousins sued Sherman for a cut of his Apotex fortune in 2007. A judge dismissed the case in September as an abuse of process, but court records show they filed an appeal a month later.

Four brothers — Kerry, Jeffrey, Paul and Dana Winter — started the action a decade ago, although Dana's widow Julia is now acting as his representative, and Jeffrey is not involved in the appeal.

The Winter brothers' lawyer, Brad Teplitsky says his clients will be moving forward with their appeal because they believe the judge made legal errors in dismissing the case.

Teplitsky has been in contact with Kerry Winter since the Shermans' deaths and says Winter has "no comment at this time other than to express his sincere condolences to the Sherman family and is requesting that the media respect their privacy during this period."

Teplitsky told CBC Toronto his clients will not be attending the funeral Thursday, and have had no contact with the Shermans since they've been "in litigation for many years."

In the suit, the siblings claim they're collectively owed 20 per cent of Sherman's interest in Apotex, which would likely amount to millions of dollars.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2017/2017onsc5492/2017onsc5492.pdf

 

[gremlingrrl]

I wonder, did you read the memoir SeeSeas linked on post #1030? The one line quote is somewhat deceiving when taken out of context. It's contained is a chapter outlining several reasons why he's an atheist and doesn't believe in God. I interpret "life has no meaning or purpose" was his manner of refuting the common religious belief of "God's plan".

Yes. This. !! Thank you.

 

[Ashley96]

so very sad to me... such a sad, small minded, self/man-centred world view..I wish someone could have made him see the alternate reality...

(This is obviously only my opinion and was a heart reaction to the worldview Mr Sherman subscribed to at the time of this writing ...it is not meant to insult or belittle Mr Sherman who DID do some good in his lifetime...nor any fellow websleuthers who hold a similiar belief system...I apologize if I offended... )

Does 'no meaning or purpose to life' attitude make murder/suicide more palatable and feasible given the right circumstances? More a philosophical question than anything...

https://www.scribd.com/document/367757654/A-Legacy-Of-Thoughts-by-Bernard-C-Sherman

A LEGACY OF THOUGHTS
by Bernard C. Sherman

Excerpts:

CHAPTER 1 – THE MEANING OF LIFE

From my earliest years, I have been an atheist.

I find it incomprehensible that countless persons, including some of apparent intelligence, believe not only in existence of a “Supreme Being”, but in very specific and seemingly preposterous mythologies.

Having debated with numerous theists, I have come to realize that the best way to bring debate to a brief conclusion is to explain that one cannot have meaningful dialogue without a mutual understanding of what is meant by words to be used. I thus ask that, before the conversation proceeds, the theist define exactly what he means by the word “God”. Is it an intelligent three-headed monster who created the universe and who intercedes in our lives at its whim? Is it an evil being that creates suffering for its sadistic gratification? Where did this creature come from? If our universe needed a creator to explain its existence, then why did this creature not also need a creator?

There follow invariably an inability to answer my questions as a prerequisite to debate.

What seems clear is that most if not all theists cannot define that in which they purport to believe, and any attempt at explanation leads to absurdities.

It thus appears that theistic beliefs are not a result of observation and logical deduction, but are either a thoughtless continuing acceptance of what has been “ learned” in naïve youth or, in the alternative, a state of mind founded in fear rather than reason, in an attempt to give meaning to life and ease the apprehension of death.

Clearly a desire for something to be true does not make it so. A truthful answer to whether or not a “God”, however defined, exists can only be grounded in observation and logical deduction.

It is clear that numerous questions can be asked for which we have no answers and may never have answers. Did time have a beginning? How could the universe have had a beginning without there being something present to cause the beginning? Is the universe finite? Are there other universes? The fact that there are imponderables does not, however, prevent intelligent beings from coming to some conclusions with a high degree of confidence in their correctness, based on observation and logical deduction.

As stated by Descartes; “Cogito ergo sum (I think therefore I am)”. The fact that we think leads to the inescapable conclusion that we do exist.

Based on the anthropological evidence, no thinking mind can doubt that we and all other species are here as a result of evolution, through countless individual episodes of mutation and natural slection.

Another inescapable conclusion from endless observation is that mass and energy consistently behave in space and time according to laws of physics which have been largely, although not yet entirely, elucidated.

The foregoing statement, accepting it to be true, leads to the corollary that there is no “God” that interferes in the operation of the universe. Moreover, the postulation of a “God” to explain creation does not serve that purpose, as there would follow an even more imponderable question as to the origin of that “God”. The only plausible conclusion is thus that there is no “God”, however reasonable defined.

Another corollary of the laws of physics is that we have no “free will”. Each of us has a physical existence analogous to the hardware and software of a computer. Just as the response of a computer to any input follows from how it is built and programmed, our response does likewise.

If automatons were built with human appearance and adequately programmed to simulate human behavior, how could an objective observer conclude that the human has free will but the automaton does not? There is undoubtedly a subjective “feeling” within each of us that we are “free” to make certain choices. However, the fact that we consist of mass-energy, albeit of very complex structure, and the fact that mass-energy believes according to laws of physics must mean that every event of the future, including our every future though and action, is predetermined by the present. Free will is an illusion.

“Meaning” and “purpose” are, by definition, dependent on an intelligent being having an intent in mind. A corollary of the nonexistence of a “God” is that we are here with no “meaning” or “purpose” to our lives.

In summary, I hold the following to be self-evident truths:
1. There is no “God”.
2. There is a universe and we do exist.
3. We and all other species are here as a result of evolution.
4. Mass and energy behave in space and time according to laws of physics that have been largely, but not yet entirely, elucidated.
5. Free will is an illusion.
6. Life has no meaning or purpose.

https://www.scribd.com/document/367757654/A-Legacy-Of-Thoughts-by-Bernard-C-Sherman

 

[2Hope4]

Wondering what will happen now with this family feud?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/winter-siblings-lawsuit-barry-sherman-1.4457330
Dec 20 2017





https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2017/2017onsc5492/2017onsc5492.pdf

IMO, money can buy what you need. IMO, this case needs to be heard again, but I'm sadly of the belief that money will still prevail. Though in reading the reason for the suit, it does seem that money from the first company is what allowed Apotex to exist, period. Without that prior company, Sherman would have had to start from zero. Thus I think they should have been given part of the company. But I just don't think a court will rule in their favor. Maybe the Sherman children will decide they should let the cousins have something, Barry wasn't going to let that happen, but I don't know his children and their personalities.

In a MUCH MUCH smaller degree, I've seen how the donor of money CAN and DOES receive different acknowledgements and perks. For instance, in rescue, if a donor asks for help with a neighbor's dog/cat, the rescue will do it. Meanwhile someone else needed help the day before, and the rescue says "We can't." If a few hundred dollars can affect reactions, than millions most certainly can!

 

[Grey-St]

IMO, this case needs to be heard again, but I'm sadly of the belief that money will still prevail. Though in reading the reason for the suit, it does seem that money from the first company is what allowed Apotex to exist, period. Without that prior company, Sherman would have had to start from zero. Thus I think they should have been given part of the company. But I just don't think a court will rule in their favor. Maybe the Sherman children will decide they should let the cousins have something, Barry wasn't going to let that happen, but I don't know his children and their personalities.

Respectfully snipped for clarity.

I tend to agree with this. Although the cousins sound quite hardened by life, I think they were deeply wronged to begin with, and just want things to be corrected. It's a pretty sad situation in all honesty. I think what these cousins needed from an early age was a sense of family, support and opportunity (in business or otherwise). I don't think BS's handouts over the years really facilitated any of that.

It's a little disheartening that the courts sided with BS on this one... however unsurprising.

 

[MistyWaters]

IMO, money can buy what you need. IMO, this case needs to be heard again, but I'm sadly of the belief that money will still prevail. Though in reading the reason for the suit, it does seem that money from the first company is what allowed Apotex to exist, period. Without that prior company, Sherman would have had to start from zero. Thus I think they should have been given part of the company. But I just don't think a court will rule in their favor. Maybe the Sherman children will decide they should let the cousins have something, Barry wasn't going to let that happen, but I don't know his children and their personalities.

In a MUCH MUCH smaller degree, I've seen how the donor of money CAN and DOES receive different acknowledgements and perks. For instance, in rescue, if a donor asks for help with a neighbor's dog/cat, the rescue will do it. Meanwhile someone else needed help the day before, and the rescue says "We can't." If a few hundred dollars can affect reactions, than millions most certainly can!

The CBC article is a very simplistic, abbreviated version. There's numerous other media articles to be found that go into much greater detail including the long term complexities involved in the relationship between the two parties.