To R.A.O group

[Lionel Chapuis]

Hello everybody,

Yesterday I have answered a little bit hardly to Dave Weil after he
opens an other thread about Arny Krueger. In my answer in French I
suggested him to create a new NG with Mr Krueger for central topic in
order to stop pollution of R.A.O.

It seemed me that from a purely technical point of view Mr Krueger has a
knowledge and experience. When he limits his answers to technical
statements some of his opinion are interesting, some of his ideas find
naturally place on this forum.

But after a deeper search in the group history I must acknowledge that
Mr Krueger is an insane sadist and I don't want to deal with any of his
technical tips even if they are exact and helpful.

For those who can be surprised by my today position I let you find just
one excerpt of what I have found :

>"Arny Krüger wrote to Jennifer:
>
>"It's really amazing how you can be so dominated by hate. You have some
>physical condition that puts you in pain a lot of the time?"
>
>Jennifer replies:
>
>"Arnold, you are one basty nastard. Not for referring to my
"handicap", >but for lying about having no knowledge of it...and
insinuating I had >attempted to take some kind of devious advantage of you.
>
>You, like most of the regulars on RAO, know I also happen to be blind.
>What no one else knows about this little gig of yours is that you and
I >exchanged email several months ago concerning your wife's terrible
>trials with arthritis, We discussed my similar situation and specific
>medication protocols."

I think in France this man could have some big troubles with justice for
such public attacks. But in the other hand we can estimate we are happy
because I imagine what we can fear if we have to deal with such sadist
guy in a dictatorial state...

Many apologies to the group and particurlarly to Dave Weil.

Sincerely,
Lionel

[Arny Krueger]

"Lionel Chapuis" > wrote in message


> Yesterday I have answered a little bit hardly to Dave Weil after he
> opens an other thread about Arny Krueger. In my answer in French I
> suggested him to create a new NG with Mr Krueger for central topic in
> order to stop pollution of R.A.O.

> It seemed me that from a purely technical point of view Mr Krueger
> has a knowledge and experience. When he limits his answers to
> technical statements some of his opinion are interesting, some of his
> ideas find naturally place on this forum.

> But after a deeper search in the group history I must acknowledge that
> Mr Krueger is an insane sadist and I don't want to deal with any of
> his technical tips even if they are exact and helpful.

Gosh, it didn't take Midius and his group of creeps long to get to you, did
it?


> For those who can be surprised by my today position I let you find
> just one excerpt of what I have found :

> >"Arny Krüger wrote to Jennifer:

> >"It's really amazing how you can be so dominated by hate. You have
> some >physical condition that puts you in pain a lot of the time?"

> >Jennifer replies:

> >"Arnold, you are one basty nastard. Not for referring to my
> "handicap", >but for lying about having no knowledge of it...and
> insinuating I had >attempted to take some kind of devious advantage
> of you. >

Nice job of deleting massive relevant context and presuming that I was
lying. The fact of the matter is that Jennifer has a long history of very
nasty gratuitous personal attacks against me, and this was just one more of
them.

Neither you nor she had any way of knowing for sure whether or not I knew
that she was blind at the time, and for the record I didn't.

I was simply asking her why she had such a personal grudge against me when
I'd never personally responded to her in any negative way.

Bottom line, you should look before you leap into this quagmire.

>> You, like most of the regulars on RAO, know I also happen to be blind.
>> What no one else knows about this little gig of yours is
>> that you and I exchanged email several months ago concerning your
>> wife's terrible trials with arthritis, We discussed my similar
>> situation and specific medication protocols."

This is a complete and total distortion of the relevant facts. Furthermore
it's completely irrelevant.

I have zero recollection of ever exchanging private email with *anybody*
about my wife's medication. If anybody has proof of such a discussion with
Jennifer, I'd like to see them post it.

Even the facts in this statement are wrong. My wife never had any terrible
trials with Arthritis. As bad as things got she still went on a 12 day
backwoods canoe trip with me in Quetico, hiked miles and even helped
portage our canoe a few times. She was able to get effective medical
assistance in a timely fashion and is now in almost complete remission, and
has been for years.

There's an contradiction here. Weil recently claimed that my wife is
supporting me, and then he points you at this quote saying that my wife is
or was having terrible trials with arthritis. If she was having terrible
trials with arthritis, how is it that she's been supporting me? The answer
is that both claims are false.

> I think in France this man could have some big troubles with justice
> for such public attacks.

I think that in France you have such a thing as due process and even a
little freedom of speech.

Your so-called *facts* that you are presenting here are a highly incomplete
recitation of the true history. Do I see the hand of Middius and/or Weil in
this?

This whole Jennifer Burton thing struck at me out of the blue. It
subsequently developed that she was a client of a certain audio dealer who
was a sworn enemy to me. He used his influence with some of his customers to
personally attack me on RAO. I guess that Jennifer was one more example of
this.

Subsequently Jennifer made a long series of posts where she claimed that
this same audio dealer cheated her. Despite her long series of personal
attacks against me I supported her cause because I thought it was the right
thing to do based on the facts that both of them were able to present.

At he time I did a little searching on Jennifer's ID and found a more
complete story about her personal situation on other groups. It included
many very big personal problems that really tugged at my heart strings. She
seems to have had a lot of REALLY SEVERE personal catastrophes. That might
explain why she was so bitter.

> But in the other hand we can estimate we are
> happy because I imagine what we can fear if we have to deal with such
> sadist guy in a dictatorial state...

The closest I come to being a sadist to repeatedly engage in debates with
dumb guys who make factual error upon factual error, and don't know how to
argue clearly on top of that, like Dave Weil.

> Many apologies to the group and particularly to Dave Weil.

Well, that explains that, doesn't it?

[dave weil]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:02:39 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Lionel Chapuis" > wrote in message

>
>> Yesterday I have answered a little bit hardly to Dave Weil after he
>> opens an other thread about Arny Krueger. In my answer in French I
>> suggested him to create a new NG with Mr Krueger for central topic in
>> order to stop pollution of R.A.O.
>
>> It seemed me that from a purely technical point of view Mr Krueger
>> has a knowledge and experience. When he limits his answers to
>> technical statements some of his opinion are interesting, some of his
>> ideas find naturally place on this forum.
>
>> But after a deeper search in the group history I must acknowledge that
>> Mr Krueger is an insane sadist and I don't want to deal with any of
>> his technical tips even if they are exact and helpful.
>
>Gosh, it didn't take Midius and his group of creeps long to get to you, did
>it?

Here it comes...

>> For those who can be surprised by my today position I let you find
>> just one excerpt of what I have found :
>
>> >"Arny Krüger wrote to Jennifer:
>
>> >"It's really amazing how you can be so dominated by hate. You have
>> some >physical condition that puts you in pain a lot of the time?"
>
>> >Jennifer replies:
>
>> >"Arnold, you are one basty nastard. Not for referring to my
>> "handicap", >but for lying about having no knowledge of it...and
>> insinuating I had >attempted to take some kind of devious advantage
>> of you. >
>
>Nice job of deleting massive relevant context and presuming that I was
>lying. The fact of the matter is that Jennifer has a long history of very
>nasty gratuitous personal attacks against me, and this was just one more of
>them.
>
>Neither you nor she had any way of knowing for sure whether or not I knew
>that she was blind at the time, and for the record I didn't.
>
>I was simply asking her why she had such a personal grudge against me when
>I'd never personally responded to her in any negative way.
>
>Bottom line, you should look before you leap into this quagmire.
>
>>> You, like most of the regulars on RAO, know I also happen to be blind.
>>> What no one else knows about this little gig of yours is
>>> that you and I exchanged email several months ago concerning your
>>> wife's terrible trials with arthritis, We discussed my similar
>>> situation and specific medication protocols."
>
>This is a complete and total distortion of the relevant facts. Furthermore
>it's completely irrelevant.

How is the fact that you had PRIOR knowledge of Jennifer's terrible
trials with arthritis and your claim that you were "simply asking her
why she had such a personal grudge against me when I'd never
personally responded to her in any negative way" irrelevant when it's
CLEAR that you knew that she had a physical condition that puts her in
pain a lot of the time?

>I have zero recollection of ever exchanging private email with *anybody*
>about my wife's medication. If anybody has proof of such a discussion with
>Jennifer, I'd like to see them post it.

It's nice to have selective memory, isn't it? You can always claim
that you didn't remember if it turns out that Jennifer kept the
correspondence.

>Even the facts in this statement are wrong. My wife never had any terrible
>trials with Arthritis. As bad as things got she still went on a 12 day
>backwoods canoe trip with me in Quetico, hiked miles and even helped
>portage our canoe a few times. She was able to get effective medical
>assistance in a timely fashion and is now in almost complete remission, and
>has been for years.

So, are you lying NOW, or were you lying when you wrote this:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=i5qa9.1342%24Mz7.832%40newssvr19.news. prodigy.com

"It's called receiving them as unsolicited email attachments,
forgetting that they existed, and simply not deleting them because
they were forgotten. Lots of bad things happened in the same general
period of time. For example, back in 1999 my wife was first showing
strong symptoms of Rheumatoid Arthritis, and it looked like she might
end up bedridden and in considerable pain for the rest of her life".

So, let's look carefully at this statement. You claim that it was
looking like she might end up bedridden and in considerable painfor
the rest of her life and this FIRST occured less than 4 years ago. And
then you claim that she's been in almost complete remission FOR YEARS,
implying that it wasn't any big deal around the time that Jennifer was
on this group.

And then there's this, from almost exactly 4 years ago:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl96616516d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=arhw3.4334%24Pv4.2429%40news.rdc1.mi.home.com

There are alleged to be a number of web sites that will sell you
pretty much any prescription drug with minimal checking. Offhand, I
don't know their names, but I presume a little searching about might
do the job. If I knew something specific, I'd tell you in heartbeat
because my wife is suffering with Rheumatoid Arthritis, and if there
was a drug that would help her that was unavailable, I'd do what I
could to get it. Period.

Now it's time to refresh your memory, with your own words (or maybe
you were lying then as well:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=arny+arthritis+group:rec.audio.opinion&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=Lazt4.200%24ye.18484%40news.rdc2.mi.home.com&rnum=10

"Probably, yet another Middius "Reality enhancement".

Some time (months?) ago I wrote something here about the
anti-arthritic medicines my wife was taking and Jennifer, in a
strange about-face from her months-long history of gratuitous public
attacks on me, wrote me about hers.

I recall very little about her letter, except that I learned from it
that Jennifer was being treated for arthritis. If she said something
about her sight, I don't remember it.

My wife's treatments are pretty successful as she works a full-time
job, etc. etc., including participating in our usual physically
demanding family camping/canoeing trips.

I (apparently erroneously) presumed that medications were working
for Jennifer, as well.

I recall other people saying they were taking arthritis medications
around here, including Mike McElvey, and Ed Shain who mentioned
Celebrex. People take Celebrex to help with wide range of
conditions.

My wife is also taking a chemotherapy drug to try to correct the
immune system disorder that is thought to be at the root of this
problem. Unlike the Celebrex, it does not seem to be doing much.
Next on the agenda is something that is new and quite costly. We
have good medical insurance, which is a real blessing".

Let me highlight the pertinent passage:

"Some time (months?) ago I wrote something here about the
anti-arthritic medicines my wife was taking and Jennifer, in a
strange about-face from her months-long history of gratuitous public
attacks on me, wrote me about hers.

I recall very little about her letter, except that I learned from it
that Jennifer was being treated for arthritis. If she said something
about her sight, I don't remember it".

So, here's your admission that Jennifer wrote you and discussed your
wife's condition. And here we have you claming back then that you
couldn't remember whether or not you had discussed her blindness just
months prior. Considering that you have tied the same dodge to avoid
responsibility for your words, I'm guessing that it was probably true
that he discussed her blindness with you. Of course, this is
irrelevant, since you seem to be the only person who didn't know the
well-p[ublicized fact that she was blind, and now it turns out that
you knew that she was suffereing from the same painful condition that
you wife suffered from.

Really now Arnold, you should check the Google record before you make
these easily checked claims (of wait, youeither don'tknow how to do
it, or it will lie to you!)

Of course, by 2002, her arthritis *was* in remission and you felt the
need to publish her WORK telephone number on this forum:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=arny+arthritis+group:rec.audio.opinion&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=9_ig9.12%246t2.3%40newssvr19.news.prodigy.com&rnum=13

"My wife's rheumatoid arthritis is in remission because of drug
therapy. She takes Enbrel, http://www.enbrel.com , Methothrexate, and
Celebrex. If you wish to talk to her at her place of business you can
call 313 881 3460".

Apparently, her remission occured between August of 1999 and August of
2000.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=arny+arthritis+group:rec.audio.opinion&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=6x375.15218%24fR2.177236%40news1.rdc1.mi.home .com&rnum=14

"Mr. Bamborough may have thought that he was accomplishing something
by beating me up when my wife caused me grave concern due to her
illness. I'm happy to report that there is a drug named Enbrel that
works wonders, and with negligable side effects in her case. Please
see http://arthritis.about.com/health/arthritis/library/blenbrel.htm
for more information if you are interestsed".

Of course, the exchanges with Jennifer occured before this miracle.

And note that he had "grave concerns" about her condition, which is
NOT the impression that he gives when he says this:

"Even the facts in this statement are wrong. My wife never had any
terrible trials with Arthritis. As bad as things got she still went on
a 12 day backwoods canoe trip with me in Quetico, hiked miles and
even helped portage our canoe a few times. She was able to get
effective medical assistance in a timely fashion and is now in almost
complete remission, and has been for years".

>There's an contradiction here. Weil recently claimed that my wife is
>supporting me, and then he points you at this quote saying that my wife is
>or was having terrible trials with arthritis. If she was having terrible
>trials with arthritis, how is it that she's been supporting me? The answer
>is that both claims are false.

First of all, I didn't point him at the quote. This is a false claim.
I *did* tell him that if he wanted to know why you get so much grief
here, he should look you up in google.

Here is the sum total of the private correspondence that I had with
Lionel, who wrote me privately to wonder why I gave you such a hard
time:

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 22:22:24 +0200, you wrote:

>Sorry Dave, I know that you didn't write that but I forgot to cancel the
>automatic header. The message has to be read like that :
>
>A present for you :
>http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm
>
>Just a try to make you laugh and bring the object back to the forum title.
>
>Lionel

I know. I'm just trying to make you laugh as well.

The point is, Arnold Krueger is such a nasty presence on RAO, that he
needs to be drawn and quartered sometimes. It can muddy the waters on
RAO, but one can always ignore those "Arnold posts".

And then:

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 00:36:41 +0200, you wrote:

>> The point is, Arnold Krueger is such a nasty presence on RAO, that he
>> needs to be drawn and quartered sometimes. It can muddy the waters on
>> RAO, but one can always ignore those "Arnold posts".
>>
>
>Thank you Dave for answering directly to my mail and to give me
>opportunity to put you a question which cannot be put on RAO.
>Please excuse my "on-the-limits" curiosity but I am new reader on RAO
>and I don't understand all subtility of the numerous exchanges
>concerning Arny Krueger. The question is :
>I am only interested in reading experiences concerning audio. From a
>purely technical point of view Mr Krueger has a knowledge and
>experience. When he limits his answers to technical statements some of
>his opinion are interesting, some of his ideas find naturally place on
>this forum.
>Where is the bad, pervert point ?
> From a newbie point of view, when you go deep for the first time in RAO
>you are totaly astonished by the mix of interesting threads and the
>incredibily violent ones. I could accept/understand that when the
>discussion goes to politic, religion or other very hot and difficult
>subjects, but audio...?
>Feel free to answer, no offense anyway.
>One thing last, please accept my excuses for playing policeman in a game
> I'm not sure to understand.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Lionel

Lionel,

All you have to do is do a google search for Arnold Krueger and read
some of his postings.

If you think that Arnold is a benign force on RAO, you're sadly
mistaken. But, I'll tell you what I tell all other newbies on this
forum. Stick around long enough and Arnold will turn on you as well.
All you have to do is disagree with him.

Oh yeah, don't profess a love for vinyl LPs or analog, because he will
get nasty with you.

I could give you countless examples but I don't have time. Just look
at Schizoid Man's recent adventures with him.

Take care,

dave

So, I *did* point him in a certain direction but it was to the recent
fracas with Schizoid Man, not to Jennifer Burton. Frankly, it's a
crapshoot to try to figure out what disgusting posts someone searching
for your name on Google will come up with because there are so many.

>> I think in France this man could have some big troubles with justice
>> for such public attacks.
>
>I think that in France you have such a thing as due process and even a
>little freedom of speech.
>
>Your so-called *facts* that you are presenting here are a highly incomplete
>recitation of the true history. Do I see the hand of Middius and/or Weil in
>this?

Well, if *my* hand were in this (other than advising him to search
Google, he would be quoting the recent misadventures with Schizoid
Man.

>This whole Jennifer Burton thing struck at me out of the blue. It
>subsequently developed that she was a client of a certain audio dealer who
>was a sworn enemy to me. He used his influence with some of his customers to
>personally attack me on RAO. I guess that Jennifer was one more example of
>this.
>
>Subsequently Jennifer made a long series of posts where she claimed that
>this same audio dealer cheated her. Despite her long series of personal
>attacks against me I supported her cause because I thought it was the right
>thing to do based on the facts that both of them were able to present.
>
>At he time I did a little searching on Jennifer's ID and found a more
>complete story about her personal situation on other groups. It included
>many very big personal problems that really tugged at my heart strings. She
>seems to have had a lot of REALLY SEVERE personal catastrophes. That might
>explain why she was so bitter.

What explains *your* bitterness?

>> But in the other hand we can estimate we are
>> happy because I imagine what we can fear if we have to deal with such
>> sadist guy in a dictatorial state...
>
>The closest I come to being a sadist to repeatedly engage in debates with
>dumb guys who make factual error upon factual error, and don't know how to
>argue clearly on top of that, like Dave Weil.

In English please.

>> Many apologies to the group and particularly to Dave Weil.
>
>Well, that explains that, doesn't it?

Well, it explains that Lionel seems to be a man who's willing to
apologize, although it wasn't necessary nor solicited.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:02:39 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:

>> "Lionel Chapuis" > wrote in message
>>

>>> Yesterday I have answered a little bit hardly to Dave Weil after he
>>> opens an other thread about Arny Krueger. In my answer in French I
>>> suggested him to create a new NG with Mr Krueger for central topic
>>> in order to stop pollution of R.A.O.

>>> It seemed me that from a purely technical point of view Mr Krueger
>>> has a knowledge and experience. When he limits his answers to
>>> technical statements some of his opinion are interesting, some of
>>> his ideas find naturally place on this forum.

>>> But after a deeper search in the group history I must acknowledge
>>> that Mr Krueger is an insane sadist and I don't want to deal with
>>> any of his technical tips even if they are exact and helpful.

>> Gosh, it didn't take Middius and his group of creeps long to get to
>> you, did it?

> Here it comes...

>>> For those who can be surprised by my today position I let you find
>>> just one excerpt of what I have found :

Here's the more complete listing of the context with proper references:

Jennifer wrote on RAO about Arny to Mike McKelvy. This means that the
statement at that point was completely gratuitous on her part:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.BSF.4.10.10002230655430.14198-100000%
40jed.deltaforce.net

"It's time to embrace that love for objectivity and read Arnold's posts
with an open mind. Arny's blatancies are not only intentional, they are
often premeditated and designed to slur."

"I don't often agree with you regarding audio or politics, but I consider
you to be an honest and very direct man. How you can ignore or even
condone Arny's lying, twisted behavior on RAO is beyond my comprehension,
Mike."

Arny Krüger wrote to Jennifer:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=jcRs4.12397%24AG2.290423%40news.rdc2.m i.ho
me.com

on Feb 23, 2000

"It's really amazing how you can be so dominated by hate. You have some
physical condition that puts you in pain a lot of the time?"

Jennifer replies:

"Yes, a severe allergy to your filth!!!"

So the following is not a direct response to my comment as was deceptively
claimed by Lionel. In fact it was posted two days later:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.BSF.4.10.10002250025140.30133-100000%
40jed.deltaforce.net

on Feb 25, 2000

"Arnold, you are one basty nastard. Not for referring to my
handicap", but for lying about having no knowledge of it...and
insinuating I had attempted to take some kind of devious advantage
of you."

Thus we have some obvious questions about Lionel's intent, because he has
deleted several days worth of comments between Jennifer and I, in an obvious
attempt to make the situation look far worse for me than it actually ways.
Jennifer and I had been going around for two days at that point.

>> Nice job of deleting massive relevant context and presuming that I
>> was lying. The fact of the matter is that Jennifer has a long
>> history of very nasty gratuitous personal attacks against me, and
>> this was just one more of them.

>> Neither you nor she had any way of knowing for sure whether or not I
>> knew that she was blind at the time, and for the record I didn't.
>>
>> I was simply asking her why she had such a personal grudge against
>> me when I'd never personally responded to her in any negative way.

>> Bottom line, you should look before you leap into this quagmire.

Still very good advice as the rest of this post will underscore.

>>>> You, like most of the regulars on RAO, know I also happen to be
>>>> blind. What no one else knows about this little gig of yours is
>>>> that you and I exchanged email several months ago concerning your
>>>> wife's terrible trials with arthritis, We discussed my similar
>>>> situation and specific medication protocols."

>> This is a complete and total distortion of the relevant facts.
>> Furthermore it's completely irrelevant.

> How is the fact that you had PRIOR knowledge of Jennifer's terrible
> trials '

I've specifically denied that. I denied it at the time. Note that this
related specifically to her blindness.

>with arthritis and your claim that you were "simply asking her
> why she had such a personal grudge against me when I'd never
> personally responded to her in any negative way" irrelevant

For one thing it's simply not true.

> when it's
> CLEAR that you knew that she had a physical condition that puts her in
> pain a lot of the time?

It's not clear at all. For the record had I known of her blindness, I would
have never asked the question. In fact the phrasing of the question strongly
indicates that I knew nothing about her personal problems. All I knew was
that she had a history of making gratuitous attacks on me.


>> I have zero recollection of ever exchanging private email with
>> *anybody* about my wife's medication. If anybody has proof of such a
>> discussion with Jennifer, I'd like to see them post it.

> It's nice to have selective memory, isn't it?

It's not a matter of selective memory, its a matter of having imperfect
memory. I regret that I'm not perfect like you are Weil, except of course we
know that you're far from perfect.

>You can always claim
> that you didn't remember if it turns out that Jennifer kept the
> correspondence.

If Jennifer has a problem with me, let her present her own evidence and
argue her own case.

>> Even the facts in this statement are wrong. My wife never had any
>> terrible trials with Arthritis. As bad as things got she still went
>> on a 12 day backwoods canoe trip with me in Quetico, hiked miles
>> and even helped portage our canoe a few times. She was able to get
>> effective medical assistance in a timely fashion and is now in
>> almost complete remission, and has been for years.

> So, are you lying NOW, or were you lying when you wrote this:

>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=i5qa9.1342%24Mz7.832%40newssvr19.news. p
rodigy.com
>
> "It's called receiving them as unsolicited email attachments,
> forgetting that they existed, and simply not deleting them because
> they were forgotten. Lots of bad things happened in the same general
> period of time. For example, back in 1999 my wife was first showing
> strong symptoms of Rheumatoid Arthritis, and it looked like she might
> end up bedridden and in considerable pain for the rest of her life".

What's unclear about "it looked like she might..."

Obviously, a speculative statement on my part.

Or Weil do you need some basic education about the meaning of the word
*might*?

> So, let's look carefully at this statement. You claim that it was
> looking like she might end up bedridden and in considerable pain for
> the rest of her life and this FIRST occurred less than 4 years ago.

That appears to be the case. What's wrong with that?

> And
> then you claim that she's been in almost complete remission FOR YEARS,
> implying that it wasn't any big deal around the time that Jennifer was
> on this group.

What a weird interpretation of the facts! As you show below, my wife had a
near-total remission of her worst symptoms not that long after this exchange
with Jennifer. Wiel, your own *facts* show that this happened years (more
than 2 years) ago.

> And then there's this, from almost exactly 4 years ago:

>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl96616516d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe
=off&selm=arhw3.4334%24Pv4.2429%40news.rdc1.mi.home.com

> There are alleged to be a number of web sites that will sell you
> pretty much any prescription drug with minimal checking. Offhand, I
> don't know their names, but I presume a little searching about might
> do the job. If I knew something specific, I'd tell you in heartbeat
> because my wife is suffering with Rheumatoid Arthritis, and if there
> was a drug that would help her that was unavailable, I'd do what I
> could to get it. Period.

Which means what? It means that I don't want my wife to suffer
unnecessarily. Seems reasonable enough.

> Now it's time to refresh your memory, with your own words (or maybe
> you were lying then as well:

Nope, as I said at the time, I recalled very little about the letter and
now some 3 years later, I recall even less.

>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=arny+arthritis+group:rec.audio.opinion&hl=
en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=Lazt4.200%24ye.18484%40news.rdc2.mi.home.com&r
num=10

> "Probably, yet another Middius "Reality enhancement".

> Some time (months?) ago I wrote something here about the
> anti-arthritic medicines my wife was taking and Jennifer, in a
> strange about-face from her months-long history of gratuitous public
> attacks on me, wrote me about hers.

> I recall very little about her letter, except that I learned from it
> that Jennifer was being treated for arthritis. If she said something
> about her sight, I don't remember it.

> My wife's treatments are pretty successful as she works a full-time
> job, etc. etc., including participating in our usual physically
> demanding family camping/canoeing trips.

> I (apparently erroneously) presumed that medications were working
> for Jennifer, as well.

> I recall other people saying they were taking arthritis medications
> around here, including Mike McElvey, and Ed Shain who mentioned
> Celebrex. People take Celebrex to help with wide range of
> conditions.

> My wife is also taking a chemotherapy drug to try to correct the
> immune system disorder that is thought to be at the root of this
> problem. Unlike the Celebrex, it does not seem to be doing much.
> Next on the agenda is something that is new and quite costly. We
> have good medical insurance, which is a real blessing".

> Let me highlight the pertinent passage:

> "Some time (months?) ago I wrote something here about the
> anti-arthritic medicines my wife was taking and Jennifer, in a
> strange about-face from her months-long history of gratuitous public
> attacks on me, wrote me about hers.
>
> I recall very little about her letter, except that I learned from it
> that Jennifer was being treated for arthritis. If she said something
> about her sight, I don't remember it".

> So, here's your admission that Jennifer wrote you and discussed your
> wife's condition.

Along with the fact that I had very little recollection of it years ago,
explaining why I have even less recollection of it now.

>And here we have you claming back then that you
> couldn't remember whether or not you had discussed her blindness just
> months prior.

What's wrong with that?

>Considering that you have tied the same dodge to avoid
> responsibility for your words, I'm guessing that it was probably true
> that he discussed her blindness with you.

Guess as you will. All the evidence you've shown indicates that we briefly
discussed arthritis, and that I had pretty well forgotten about it years
ago. Now you're making a big point out of the fact that I forgot it even
more thoroughly now.

>Of course, this is
> irrelevant, since you seem to be the only person who didn't know the
> well-p[ublicized fact that she was blind, and now it turns out that
> you knew that she was suffering from the same painful condition that
> you wife suffered from.

It was obviously not well-publicized to me that she was blind. As I said, I
hoped that her treatment for arthritis was as effective as that for my wife.
That leaves her with zero serious problems according to my knowledge at the
time.

> Really now Arnold, you should check the Google record before you make
> these easily checked claims (of wait, youeither don'tknow how to do
> it, or it will lie to you!)

Like the quotes show, I had pretty well forgotten about her arthritis then
and I had forgotten about the whole interchange now.

> Of course, by 2002, her arthritis *was* in remission and you felt the
> need to publish her WORK telephone number on this forum:

>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=arny+arthritis+group:rec.audio.opinion&hl=
en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=9_ig9.12%246t2.3%40newssvr19.news.prodigy.com&
rnum=13

>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...

>>>> Let's put aside the absence of value in everything you just said,
>>>> and talk for a moment about what -you- are. You are just a loser
>>>> on welfare,

>>>This is a lie. My wife and I are completely self-supporting. We
>>>receive no public assistance. We are both gainfully employed.

>>>with a wife suffering from crippling arthritis,

> "My wife's rheumatoid arthritis is in remission because of drug
> therapy. She takes Enbrel, http://www.enbrel.com , Methothrexate, and
> Celebrex. If you wish to talk to her at her place of business you can
> call 313 881 3460".

What's wrong with that?

> Apparently, her remission occurred between August of 1999 and August of
> 2000.

Well dooh. What's wrong with that?

>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=arny+arthritis+group:rec.audio.opinion&hl=
en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=6x375.15218%24fR2.177236%40news1.rdc1.mi.home .
com&rnum=14

> "Mr. Bamborough may have thought that he was accomplishing something
> by beating me up when my wife caused me grave concern due to her
> illness. I'm happy to report that there is a drug named Enbrel that
> works wonders, and with negligible side effects in her case. Please
> see http://arthritis.about.com/health/arthritis/library/blenbrel.htm
> for more information if you are interested".

What's wrong with that?

> Of course, the exchanges with Jennifer occurred before this miracle.

So that all fits. What's wrong with that?

BTW, the effects of Enbrel were nearly miraculous.

> And note that he had "grave concerns" about her condition, which is
> NOT the impression that he gives when he says this:

> "Even the facts in this statement are wrong. My wife never had any
> terrible trials with Arthritis. As bad as things got she still went on
> a 12 day backwoods canoe trip with me in Quetico, hiked miles and
> even helped portage our canoe a few times. She was able to get
> effective medical assistance in a timely fashion and is now in almost
> complete remission, and has been for years".

You can interpret this any way you want Weil, but there's no contradiction
at all.

>> There's an contradiction here. Weil recently claimed that my wife is
>> supporting me, and then he points you at this quote saying that my
>> wife is or was having terrible trials with arthritis. If she was
>> having terrible trials with arthritis, how is it that she's been
>> supporting me? The answer is that both claims are false.

> First of all, I didn't point him at the quote. This is a false claim.
> I *did* tell him that if he wanted to know why you get so much grief
> here, he should look you up in google.

It's very clear to me that his study of google was highly selective. He
needs to explain why he presented a quote as being a direct reply when in
fact it happened two days later.

> Here is the sum total of the private correspondence that I had with
> Lionel, who wrote me privately to wonder why I gave you such a hard
> time:

> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 22:22:24 +0200, you wrote:

>> Sorry Dave, I know that you didn't write that but I forgot to cancel
>> the automatic header. The message has to be read like that :

>> A present for you :
>> http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm

>> Just a try to make you laugh and bring the object back to the forum
>> title.

>> Lionel

> I know. I'm just trying to make you laugh as well.

> The point is, Arnold Krueger is such a nasty presence on RAO, that he
> needs to be drawn and quartered sometimes. It can muddy the waters on
> RAO, but one can always ignore those "Arnold posts".

So what are you trying to prove Dave, that Lionel was primed to make
gratuitous attacks on me?

> And then:
>
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 00:36:41 +0200, you wrote:
>
>>> The point is, Arnold Krueger is such a nasty presence on RAO, that
>>> he needs to be drawn and quartered sometimes. It can muddy the
>>> waters on RAO, but one can always ignore those "Arnold posts".
>
>> Thank you Dave for answering directly to my mail and to give me
>> opportunity to put you a question which cannot be put on RAO.
>> Please excuse my "on-the-limits" curiosity but I am new reader on RAO
>> and I don't understand all subtlety of the numerous exchanges
>> concerning Arny Krueger. The question is :
>> I am only interested in reading experiences concerning audio. From a
>> purely technical point of view Mr Krueger has a knowledge and
>> experience. When he limits his answers to technical statements some
>> of his opinion are interesting, some of his ideas find naturally
>> place on this forum.
>> Where is the bad, pervert point ?
>> From a newbie point of view, when you go deep for the first time in
>> RAO you are totally astonished by the mix of interesting threads and
>> the incredibly violent ones. I could accept/understand that when the
>> discussion goes to politic, religion or other very hot and difficult
>> subjects, but audio...?
>> Feel free to answer, no offense anyway.
>> One thing last, please accept my excuses for playing policeman in a
>> game I'm not sure to understand.

>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Lionel

> Lionel,

> All you have to do is do a google search for Arnold Krueger and read
> some of his postings.

> If you think that Arnold is a benign force on RAO, you're sadly
> mistaken. But, I'll tell you what I tell all other newbies on this
> forum. Stick around long enough and Arnold will turn on you as well.
> All you have to do is disagree with him.

> Oh yeah, don't profess a love for vinyl LPs or analog, because he will
> get nasty with you.

> I could give you countless examples but I don't have time. Just look
> at Schizoid Man's recent adventures with him.
>
> Take care,
>
> dave
>
> So, I *did* point him in a certain direction but it was to the recent
> fracas with Schizoid Man, not to Jennifer Burton. Frankly, it's a
> crapshoot to try to figure out what disgusting posts someone searching
> for your name on Google will come up with because there are so many.
>
>>> I think in France this man could have some big troubles with justice
>>> for such public attacks.
>>
>> I think that in France you have such a thing as due process and even
>> a little freedom of speech.
>>
>> Your so-called *facts* that you are presenting here are a highly
>> incomplete recitation of the true history. Do I see the hand of
>> Middius and/or Weil in this?

> Well, if *my* hand were in this (other than advising him to search
> Google, he would be quoting the recent misadventures with Schizoid
> Man.

Well Dave, it's as if we could count on you to tell us the whole truth about
these exchanges.

>> This whole Jennifer Burton thing struck at me out of the blue. It
>> subsequently developed that she was a client of a certain audio
>> dealer who was a sworn enemy to me. He used his influence with some
>> of his customers to personally attack me on RAO. I guess that
>> Jennifer was one more example of this.

>> Subsequently Jennifer made a long series of posts where she claimed
>> that this same audio dealer cheated her. Despite her long series of
>> personal attacks against me I supported her cause because I thought
>> it was the right thing to do based on the facts that both of them
>> were able to present.

>> At he time I did a little searching on Jennifer's ID and found a more
>> complete story about her personal situation on other groups. It
>> included many very big personal problems that really tugged at my
>> heart strings. She seems to have had a lot of REALLY SEVERE personal
>> catastrophes. That might explain why she was so bitter.

> What explains *your* bitterness?

Jennifer's history of gratuitous attacks on me, of course.

>>> But in the other hand we can estimate we are
>>> happy because I imagine what we can fear if we have to deal with
>>> such sadist guy in a dictatorial state...
>>
>> The closest I come to being a sadist to repeatedly engage in debates
>> with dumb guys who make factual error upon factual error, and don't
>> know how to argue clearly on top of that, like Dave Weil.

> In English please.

Thanks for another example of what a dumb guy you are, Weil.

>>> Many apologies to the group and particularly to Dave Weil.

>> Well, that explains that, doesn't it?

> Well, it explains that Lionel seems to be a man who's willing to
> apologize, although it wasn't necessary nor solicited.

It appears to me that Lionel was primed to make gratuitous attacks on me by
*somebody*. If I weren't so bored with the antics of the children around
here, I might be interested in knowing who it was.

[Anon E Mouse]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Lionel Chapuis" > wrote in message
>
>
> [...]
>
> Gosh, it didn't take Midius and his group of creeps long to get to you, did
> it?

Mr. Krüger, when will you stop responding to phonies? Don't you understand
what's really going on here? Will I have to post RAO's Who's Who for you to
learn that your interlocuteurs are in fact a very small vocal group (The
Usual Suspects) who, when tired of playing with their pecker, are ready to
spend inordinate amounts of time (and one has plenty when on welfare) to make
you look bad? C'est incroyable toute l'énergie que vous dépensez sur ces
quelques p'tits trou-d'culs qui n'en valent même pas la peine. Ne leur
donnez pas cette satisfaction et cessez de jeter des perles aux pourceaux!


> [...]

--
Anon E. Mouse

[Playing] "À la Chinoise" (Léo Ornstein) - Marc-André Hamelin, piano (Hyperion)

[Arny Krueger]

"Anon E Mouse" > wrote in message

> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "Lionel Chapuis" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Gosh, it didn't take Midius and his group of creeps long to get to
>> you, did it?
>
> Mr. Krüger, when will you stop responding to phonies? Don't you
> understand what's really going on here? Will I have to post RAO's
> Who's Who for you to learn that your interlocuteurs are in fact a
> very small vocal group (The Usual Suspects) who, when tired of
> playing with their pecker, are ready to spend inordinate amounts of
> time (and one has plenty when on welfare) to make you look bad?
> C'est incroyable toute l'énergie que vous dépensez sur ces quelques
> p'tits trou-d'culs qui n'en valent même pas la peine. Ne leur
> donnez pas cette satisfaction et cessez de jeter des perles aux
> pourceaux!

Well yes, that RAO Who's Who looks like it could be an interesting read.

One of the interlocuteurs claims that I'm being paranoid when I suggest that
this may be how things are.

Even if satisfying my curiosity is of little value to you, it seems like
this knowledge would be interesting to the rest of the group.

[dave weil]

On 28 Jul 2003 18:12:18 +0200, Anon E Mouse > wrote:

>
>On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "Lionel Chapuis" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Gosh, it didn't take Midius and his group of creeps long to get to you, did
>> it?
>
> Mr. Krüger, when will you stop responding to phonies? Don't you understand
> what's really going on here? Will I have to post RAO's Who's Who for you to
> learn that your interlocuteurs are in fact a very small vocal group (The
> Usual Suspects) who, when tired of playing with their pecker, are ready to
> spend inordinate amounts of time (and one has plenty when on welfare) to make
> you look bad? C'est incroyable toute l'énergie que vous dépensez sur ces
> quelques p'tits trou-d'culs qui n'en valent même pas la peine. Ne leur
> donnez pas cette satisfaction et cessez de jeter des perles aux pourceaux!

As if Arnold could help himself spending all of that pent up energy
here on RAO (to our unending sorrow!)

And he doesn't cast pearls before swine, he *is* swine.

Oder?

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message


> On 28 Jul 2003 18:12:18 +0200, Anon E Mouse > wrote:

> As if Arnold could help himself spending all of that pent up energy
> here on RAO (to our unending sorrow!)

Thanks for admitting Weil that I've caused you a lot of grief. I'm happy to
admit that you've caused me some amusement in your better days. More
recently you've caused me boredom as your mental state continues to
decline.

> And he doesn't cast pearls before swine, he *is* swine.

Again Weil, it's always helpful when your critics admit that they are sore
losers.

Could you expand on these statements for the google record?

[dave weil]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 12:06:16 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:02:39 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>
>>> "Lionel Chapuis" > wrote in message
>>>
>
>>>> Yesterday I have answered a little bit hardly to Dave Weil after he
>>>> opens an other thread about Arny Krueger. In my answer in French I
>>>> suggested him to create a new NG with Mr Krueger for central topic
>>>> in order to stop pollution of R.A.O.
>
>>>> It seemed me that from a purely technical point of view Mr Krueger
>>>> has a knowledge and experience. When he limits his answers to
>>>> technical statements some of his opinion are interesting, some of
>>>> his ideas find naturally place on this forum.
>
>>>> But after a deeper search in the group history I must acknowledge
>>>> that Mr Krueger is an insane sadist and I don't want to deal with
>>>> any of his technical tips even if they are exact and helpful.
>
>>> Gosh, it didn't take Middius and his group of creeps long to get to
>>> you, did it?
>
>> Here it comes...
>
>>>> For those who can be surprised by my today position I let you find
>>>> just one excerpt of what I have found :
>
>Here's the more complete listing of the context with proper references:
>
>Jennifer wrote on RAO about Arny to Mike McKelvy. This means that the
>statement at that point was completely gratuitous on her part:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.BSF.4.10.10002230655430.14198-100000%
40jed.deltaforce.net

"It's time to embrace that love for objectivity and read Arnold's
posts with an open mind. Arny's blatancies are not only intentional,
they are often premeditated and designed to slur."

"I don't often agree with you regarding audio or politics, but I
consider you to be an honest and very direct man. How you can ignore
or even condone Arny's lying, twisted behavior on RAO is beyond my
comprehension, Mike."

Now who's doing selective and deceptive posting. Here, let's post THE
ENTIRE post that you gave a link for:

>
>http://www.google.com/groups?selmOn 23 Feb 2000, Mikeylikst wrote:

> Date: 23 Feb 2000 05:47:04 GMT
> From: Mikeylikst >
> Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
> Subject: Re: Dither Again
>
> >From:
> >Because, Stephen, Glenn committed the ultimate sin in ArnyWorld: he
> >disagreed with him in public.
> >
> >--
> >John Atkinson
> >Editor, Stereophile
>
> The only real sin I saw was Glenn complaining what a **** Arni is, while
> proving he can be a cruder and more obscene opponent in a debate.
>
>
> Mike McKelvy
>
> "The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence
> clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of
> hobgoblins,all imagnary."
>
>
> http://members.aol.com/rlspeakers/THEREALLIFESOUNDPAGE.html
>
>
Mike, I have championed you several times here on RAO, protested the
ugly stuff thrown your way, but even I have to call you on this one!!!

It's time to embrace that love for objectivity and read Arnold's posts
with an open mind. ARny's blatancies are not only intentional, they
are often premeditated and designed to slur.

I don't often agree with you regarding audio or politics, but I
consider you to be an honest and very direct man. How you can ignore
or even condone Arny's lying, twisted behavior on RAO is beyond my
comprehenstion, Mike.

Jennifer
=Pine.BSF.4.10.10002230655430.14198-100000%40jed.deltaforce.net
>
>"It's time to embrace that love for objectivity and read Arnold's posts
>with an open mind. Arny's blatancies are not only intentional, they are
>often premeditated and designed to slur."
>
>"I don't often agree with you regarding audio or politics, but I consider
>you to be an honest and very direct man. How you can ignore or even
>condone Arny's lying, twisted behavior on RAO is beyond my comprehension,
>Mike."

>Jennifer

Here's a direct question. why did you delete this line?:

"The only real sin I saw was Glenn complaining what a **** Arni is,
while proving he can be a cruder and more obscene opponent in a
debate".

That was Mike's line, the line that Jennifer was responding to. Did
you delete it because it would have put lie to the statement that her
mention of you was GRATUITOUS?

It obviously *wasn't* gratuitous, so you need to answer the question,
or retract and apologize.

[Lionel Chapuis]

Anon E Mouse a écrit :


> C'est incroyable toute l'énergie que vous dépensez sur ces
> quelques p'tits trou-d'culs qui n'en valent même pas la peine. Ne leur
> donnez pas cette satisfaction et cessez de jeter des perles aux pourceaux!
>
Too much easy but I can't resist

http://images.google.fr/imgres?imgurl=www.venomousreptiles.org/data/profile/anonemouse/photo.jpeg&imgrefurl=http://www.venomousreptiles.org/user/profile/AnonEMouse&h=457&w=450&prev=/images%3Fq%3D%2522Anon%2BE%2BMouse%2522%26svnum%3D 10%26hl%3Dfr%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DN

The aboves URL gives :

Real Name:
Anon E. Mouse

Photo:

Email address:


Age:
Old enough to pay my own bills!

Where are you from?
Florida

What is your occupation ?
Middle Management, Office Executive

What venomous species do you keep ?
Crotalus, Sistrurus, Agkistrodon, Micrurus.... Arny Krueger

What is your favorite species ?
Aspidelaps (all) and Crotalus Arnycius Kruegerus molossus

What advice do you have for new venomous keepers ?
This is a "grown up" hobby. Childishness, impatience and inattention are
often rewarded with death.
Pay attention to what you are doing, to those with more experience than
you, and to your surroundings
and you might live through it.
Otherwise take up knitting instead.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message



> Here's a direct question. why did you delete this line?:

> "The only real sin I saw was Glenn complaining what a **** Arni is,
> while proving he can be a cruder and more obscene opponent in a
> debate".

Because Weil IMO it shed no useful light on the discussion at hand. But
since you brought it up I'll show how it proves my point about Jennifer's
comments being gratuitous, and how mentioning it shows how hysterical and
stupid you really are.

Furthermore Weil as you admit, I posted a proper link to the post so people
could easily read the whole thing at their leisure. That means that I
effectively provided the entire context, even adjacent posts which google
will quickly provide once you have my link.

In contrast Weil, neither you nor Lionel posted a proper link, but
preferred to let the out-of-context quote stand in its deceptive, and
incomplete state. Nobody would be likely to search this out but me, your
intended victim. And that suited your deceptive purposes, quite nicely.

> That was Mike's line, the line that Jennifer was responding to. Did
> you delete it because it would have put lie to the statement that her
> mention of you was GRATUITOUS?

Mike's line clearly proves that from Jennifer's comment was gratuitous since
she was commenting on something written by Glenn about me, and not something
that I wrote about her.

Since Jennifer was NOT responding to something I wrote about her, her
personal attack was obviously completely gratuitous.

In fact, Jennifer was engaging in the time-honored RAO practice of piling-on
to someone else's flames.

> It obviously *wasn't* gratuitous, so you need to answer the question, or
retract and apologize.

This just shows how completely hysterical and stupid you are, Weil. You're
obviously very confused about what it means to join in on someone else's
personal attacks on a third party. You actually seem to think its not a
gratuitous attack on your part!

<And this folks is one of the things I meant when I was talking about "dumb
guys">

[dave weil]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 12:52:29 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>
>
>> Here's a direct question. why did you delete this line?:
>
>> "The only real sin I saw was Glenn complaining what a **** Arni is,
>> while proving he can be a cruder and more obscene opponent in a
>> debate".
>
>Because Weil IMO it shed no useful light on the discussion at hand.

Of course it did. I means that Jennifer didn't just 'attack" you out
of the blue. It was in response to a statement made by one of your
supporters.

>But
>since you brought it up I'll show how it proves my point about Jennifer's
>comments being gratuitous, and how mentioning it shows how hysterical and
>stupid you really are.

Yes, dear reader, please follow along.

>Furthermore Weil as you admit, I posted a proper link to the post so people
>could easily read the whole thing at their leisure. That means that I
>effectively provided the entire context, even adjacent posts which google
>will quickly provide once you have my link.
>
>In contrast Weil, neither you nor Lionel posted a proper link,

I certainly *did* provide the proper link. It was in the quoted
material of the post and therefore was provided again by me in my
first address of this particular issue.

> but
>preferred to let the out-of-context quote stand in its deceptive, and
>incomplete state.

Not true. I provided not only the entire link but the entire post as
well, something that you didn't do.

>Nobody would be likely to search this out but me, your
>intended victim. And that suited your deceptive purposes, quite nicely.

I don't know what you're talking about. The link is *clearly* in my
post about the subject and the entire post is quoted, something that
you didn't do. You quoted it to make it look like Jennifer just wrote
that without any prior reference to you (hence your use of the term
gratuitous).

>> That was Mike's line, the line that Jennifer was responding to. Did
>> you delete it because it would have put lie to the statement that her
>> mention of you was GRATUITOUS?
>
>Mike's line clearly proves that from Jennifer's comment was gratuitous since
>she was commenting on something written by Glenn about me, and not something
>that I wrote about her.

Can't you read? She was commenting on something Mike said about you
and an exchange you had with Glenn.

Want to admit that you're wrong now?

You see, because Mike brought your name up FIRST, she was clearly
responding to that remark, which means that it wasn't gratuitious to
talk about your behavior, since Mike had already brought it up.

>Since Jennifer was NOT responding to something I wrote about her, her
>personal attack was obviously completely gratuitous.

No it wasn't. It was a direct reply to something that someone else
said about you. That means it wasn't gratuitous, no matter *how* you
spin it.

>In fact, Jennifer was engaging in the time-honored RAO practice of piling-on
>to someone else's flames.

No, she was commenting on what Mike said.

>> It obviously *wasn't* gratuitous, so you need to answer the question, or
>retract and apologize.
>
>This just shows how completely hysterical and stupid you are, Weil. You're
>obviously very confused about what it means to join in on someone else's
>personal attacks on a third party. You actually seem to think its not a
>gratuitous attack on your part!

I have no idae what you're talking about here.

><And this folks is one of the things I meant when I was talking about "dumb
>guys">

Whew! You're digging your own grave here, Arnold.

Well folks, look like Arnold lost.

Again.

[dave weil]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 18:46:22 +0200, Lionel Chapuis
> wrote:

>Anon E Mouse a écrit :
>
>
>> C'est incroyable toute l'énergie que vous dépensez sur ces
>> quelques p'tits trou-d'culs qui n'en valent même pas la peine. Ne leur
>> donnez pas cette satisfaction et cessez de jeter des perles aux pourceaux!
>>
>Too much easy but I can't resist
>
>http://images.google.fr/imgres?imgurl=www.venomousreptiles.org/data/profile/anonemouse/photo.jpeg&imgrefurl=http://www.venomousreptiles.org/user/profile/AnonEMouse&h=457&w=450&prev=/images%3Fq%3D%2522Anon%2BE%2BMouse%2522%26svnum%3D 10%26hl%3Dfr%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DN
>
>The aboves URL gives :
>
>Real Name:
>Anon E. Mouse
>
>Photo:
>
>Email address:

>
>Age:
>Old enough to pay my own bills!
>
>Where are you from?
>Florida
>
>What is your occupation ?
>Middle Management, Office Executive
>
>What venomous species do you keep ?
>Crotalus, Sistrurus, Agkistrodon, Micrurus.... Arny Krueger
>
>What is your favorite species ?
>Aspidelaps (all) and Crotalus Arnycius Kruegerus molossus
>
>What advice do you have for new venomous keepers ?
>This is a "grown up" hobby. Childishness, impatience and inattention are
>often rewarded with death.
>Pay attention to what you are doing, to those with more experience than
>you, and to your surroundings
>and you might live through it.
>Otherwise take up knitting instead.

Damn, he looks like my cousin Cletus...

<chuckle>

[Lionel Chapuis]

dave weil a écrit :

> Damn, he looks like my cousin Cletus...
>
> <chuckle>
>
You can choose your friend, not your family.

[dave weil]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:48:15 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 12:52:29 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >> Here's a direct question. why did you delete this line?:
>> >
>> >> "The only real sin I saw was Glenn complaining what a **** Arni is,
>> >> while proving he can be a cruder and more obscene opponent in a
>> >> debate".
>> >
>> >Because Weil IMO it shed no useful light on the discussion at hand.
>>
>> Of course it did. I means that Jennifer didn't just 'attack" you out
>> of the blue. It was in response to a statement made by one of your
>> supporters.
>>
>> >But
>> >since you brought it up I'll show how it proves my point about Jennifer's
>> >comments being gratuitous, and how mentioning it shows how hysterical and
>> >stupid you really are.
>>
>> Yes, dear reader, please follow along.
>
>Yes follow along and you will find that Weil believes that any attack on me
>is justified if it is in response to something someone else says about me.
>
>Ain't that weird?
>
>Ain't that twisted?
>
>Ain't that wild?
>
>Ain't that Weil?
>
>> >Furthermore Weil as you admit, I posted a proper link to the post so
>people
>> >could easily read the whole thing at their leisure. That means that I
>> >effectively provided the entire context, even adjacent posts which google
>> >will quickly provide once you have my link.
>
>> >In contrast Weil, neither you nor Lionel posted a proper link,
>
>> I certainly *did* provide the proper link.
>
>Not in your 11:12 EDT post.

That post wasn't addressed in that post.

You lose.

Again.

Or maybe you can show me a reference to the post that we're discussing
in that post.

You can't.

So apologize please.

>> It was in the quoted
>> material of the post and therefore was provided again by me in my
>> first address of this particular issue.
>
>Weil, you provided several links, but not a link to Jennifer's post, in your
>first response in this thread, which was a response to my post. Your links
>all related to the arthritis issue, not Jennifer's post.

That's right. The first time I addressed the issue of the post that
you are referring to, the link WAS included.

I obviously didn't include a link before because that post wasn't
referenced AT ALL.

> > > but
>> >preferred to let the out-of-context quote stand in its deceptive, and
>> >incomplete state.
>
>> Not true. I provided not only the entire link but the entire post as
>> well, something that you didn't do.
>
>Eventually, after I first provided the link.

The first time I commented on that post, the link was included in my
post.

>> >Nobody would be likely to search this out but me, your
>> >intended victim. And that suited your deceptive purposes, quite nicely.
>
>> I don't know what you're talking about.
>
>Clearly, you don't understand what you're talking about, either.

I don't know what you're talking about.

>> The link is *clearly* in my
>> post about the subject and the entire post is quoted, something that
>> you didn't do.
>
>Eventually, after I first provided the link.

Nope. The 11:12 EST post that you refer to doesn't reference that
post. I didn't comment on it until after you provided the link and I
included the link in my reply.

You lose.

Again.

>> You quoted it to make it look like Jennifer just wrote
>> that without any prior reference to you (hence your use of the term
>> gratuitous).
>
>You do a great job of missing critical points Weil when doing so suits your
>purposes.

Nice dodge. I'll take this to mean that you can't quarrel with my
statement and that it is factually true.

>> >> That was Mike's line, the line that Jennifer was responding to. Did
>> >> you delete it because it would have put lie to the statement that her
>> >> mention of you was GRATUITOUS?
>
>> >Mike's line clearly proves that from Jennifer's comment was gratuitous
>since
>> >she was commenting on something written by Glenn about me, and not
>something
>> >that I wrote about her.
>
>> Can't you read? She was commenting on something Mike said about you
>> and an exchange you had with Glenn.
>
>Same difference.

That's right. It's the same difference that she commented IN RESPONSE
to something that was said about you that she disagreed with. She did
*not* gratuitously mention you out of thin air.

>The important point is that Jennifer wasn't responding to
>something that I said to or about her, but about something that someone else
>said about me.

That's correct. That means it wasn't gratuitousness. There was a
context.

>> Want to admit that you're wrong now?
>
>Since the only thing that is wrong Weil is your interpretation of my
>statements, no I won't admit that I'm wrong.

Then you lose.

Again.

I've shown conclusively that the use of the word gratuitous is clearly
incorrect.

>> You see, because Mike brought your name up FIRST, she was clearly
>> responding to that remark, which means that it wasn't gratuitous to
>> talk about your behavior, since Mike had already brought it up.
>
>You've got a weird idea of gratuitous, Weil. Was Jennifer attacking me
>because of something I did or said to her in that thread, or was she piling
>on someone else's attack on me?

Neither. She was disagreeing with someone's support of you.

Damn, this is just too easy.

> She was NOT attacking me because of
>something I did or said to her in that thread or any recent post about her.
>She was publicly attacking me gratuitously.

No she wasn't. She was commenting on someone's support of you, a
support that she disagreed with.

>> >Since Jennifer was NOT responding to something I wrote about her, her
>> >personal attack was obviously completely gratuitous.
>
>> No it wasn't.
>
>Sure it was.

Nope. Gratuitous would mean that she simply attacked you without any
context. Something that you routinely have done to me, BTW.

>>It was a direct reply to something that someone else
>> said about you.
>
>Yes, she was piling-on.

Nope. She was disagreeing with one of your supporters, Mike McKelvy.

>> That means it wasn't gratuitous, no matter *how* you spin it.
>
>If Jennifer was not responding to me or a recent attack by me on her, then
>she was attacking me gratuitously.

You had just recently claimed that she was actually John Atkinson.
Isn't that insulting enough for you? <chuckle>

>> >In fact, Jennifer was engaging in the time-honored RAO practice of
>piling-on
>> >to someone else's flames.
>
>> No, she was commenting on what Mike said.
>
>She was piling-on.
>
>> >> It obviously *wasn't* gratuitous, so you need to answer the question,
>or
>> >retract and apologize.
>
>> >This just shows how completely hysterical and stupid you are, Weil.
>You're
>> >obviously very confused about what it means to join in on someone else's
>> >personal attacks on a third party. You actually seem to think its not a
>> >gratuitous attack on your part!
>
>> I have no idae what you're talking about here.
>
>Obviously, since an idae is not something that exists.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

>> ><And this folks is one of the things I meant when I was talking about
>"dumb
>> >guys">
>
>> Whew! You're digging your own grave here, Arnold.
>
>No Weil, you are showing how you'll bend the definition of things to exclude
>anything that doesn't fit your agenda of hate. In your hateful and twisted
>view of things, any attack on me is justified if it is in response to
>something someone else says about me.

And you have a twisted idea of the definition of the word
"gratuitous".

>> Well folks, look like Arnold lost.
>
>No, I just trapped you into exposing your pretzel logic, Weil.
>
>>Again.
>
>Yes Weil, I trapped you again.

Nope. You've been shown to be deceptive, confused and rather broken at
this point.

>Keep up the good work!

I always do.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:48:15 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:

>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>> ...


>>>> Furthermore Weil as you admit, I posted a proper link to the post
>>>> so people could easily read the whole thing at their leisure. That
>>>> means that I effectively provided the entire context, even
>>>> adjacent posts which google will quickly provide once you have my
>>>> link.

>>>> In contrast Weil, neither you nor Lionel posted a proper link,

>>> I certainly *did* provide the proper link.
>>
>> Not in your 11:12 EDT post.

> That post wasn't addressed in that post.

Horsefeathers:

"dave weil" > wrote in message
at 11:12 EDT


>>> >"Arny Krüger wrote to Jennifer:

>>> >"It's really amazing how you can be so dominated by hate. You have
>>> some >physical condition that puts you in pain a lot of the time?"

>>> >Jennifer replies:

>>> >"Arnold, you are one basty nastard. Not for referring to my
>>> "handicap", >but for lying about having no knowledge of it...and
>>> insinuating I had >attempted to take some kind of devious advantage
>>> of you. >

Note absence of URLs

Weil has been caught yet again!

When will his madness end?

[dave weil]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:40:52 -0400, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:48:15 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>
>>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>
>
>>>>> Furthermore Weil as you admit, I posted a proper link to the post
>>>>> so people could easily read the whole thing at their leisure. That
>>>>> means that I effectively provided the entire context, even
>>>>> adjacent posts which google will quickly provide once you have my
>>>>> link.
>
>>>>> In contrast Weil, neither you nor Lionel posted a proper link,
>
>>>> I certainly *did* provide the proper link.
>>>
>>> Not in your 11:12 EDT post.
>
>> That post wasn't addressed in that post.
>
>Horsefeathers:
>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
at 11:12 EDT
>
>
>>>> >"Arny Krüger wrote to Jennifer:
>
>>>> >"It's really amazing how you can be so dominated by hate. You have
>>>> some >physical condition that puts you in pain a lot of the time?"
>
>>>> >Jennifer replies:
>
>>>> >"Arnold, you are one basty nastard. Not for referring to my
>>>> "handicap", >but for lying about having no knowledge of it...and
>>>> insinuating I had >attempted to take some kind of devious advantage
>>>> of you. >
>
>Note absence of URLs

Note that this deceptive edited quoting is actually quoting me quoting
someone else and has nothing to do with the post in question anyway.

>Weil has been caught yet again!

Looks like you caught yourself this time, Arnold.

>When will his madness end?

Where is the reference to the McKelvy post that we were talking about?

Guess what? It doesn't exist in that post.

However, here is the first of FIVE proper links that I posted in that
post:

So, are you lying NOW, or were you lying when you wrote this:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=i5qa9.1342%24Mz7.832%40newssvr19.news. prodigy.com

"It's called receiving them as unsolicited email attachments,
forgetting that they existed, and simply not deleting them because
they were forgotten. Lots of bad things happened in the same general
period of time. For example, back in 1999 my wife was first showing
strong symptoms of Rheumatoid Arthritis, and it looked like she might
end up bedridden and in considerable pain for the rest of her life".

So, let's look carefully at this statement. You claim that it was
looking like she might end up bedridden and in considerable painfor
the rest of her life and this FIRST occured less than 4 years ago. And
then you claim that she's been in almost complete remission FOR YEARS,
implying that it wasn't any big deal around the time that Jennifer was
on this group.
-----------------------------------

Therefore, your statement, "In contrast Weil, neither you nor Lionel
posted a proper link", is FIVE times a lie.

Do you wish to acknowledge your error now? Or do you want to continue
making a fool of yourself som more?

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:40:52 -0400, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:
>
> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
>
> >> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:48:15 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> >> wrote:
> >
> >>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >
> >
> >>>>> Furthermore Weil as you admit, I posted a proper link to the post
> >>>>> so people could easily read the whole thing at their leisure. That
> >>>>> means that I effectively provided the entire context, even
> >>>>> adjacent posts which google will quickly provide once you have my
> >>>>> link.
> >
> >>>>> In contrast Weil, neither you nor Lionel posted a proper link,
> >
> >>>> I certainly *did* provide the proper link.
> >>>
> >>> Not in your 11:12 EDT post.
> >
> >> That post wasn't addressed in that post.
> >
> >Horsefeathers:
> >
> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
> at 11:12 EDT
> >
> >
> >>>> >"Arny Krüger wrote to Jennifer:
> >
> >>>> >"It's really amazing how you can be so dominated by hate. You have
> >>>> some >physical condition that puts you in pain a lot of the time?"
> >
> >>>> >Jennifer replies:
> >
> >>>> >"Arnold, you are one basty nastard. Not for referring to my
> >>>> "handicap", >but for lying about having no knowledge of it...and
> >>>> insinuating I had >attempted to take some kind of devious advantage
> >>>> of you. >
> >
> >Note absence of URLs
>
> Note that this deceptive edited quoting is actually quoting me quoting
> someone else and has nothing to do with the post in question anyway.
>
> >Weil has been caught yet again!
>
> Looks like you caught yourself this time, Arnold.
>
> >When will his madness end?
>
> Where is the reference to the McKelvy post that we were talking about?

In the post I posted the URL for, Weil.

Anybody who wants to can read it here:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.BSF.4.10.10002230655430.14198-100000%
40jed.deltaforce.net

It's got a clear reference to the McKelvy post that we were talking about,
which I won't quote because its already been quoted to death in this thread.

You've obviously gone way off the deep end, Weil.

Weil, I'll leave you to drown in your lies unless you can come up with
something more interesting than such obvious lies.

[Marc Phillips]

dave said:

>On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:40:52 -0400, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:
>
>>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>>> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:48:15 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>
>>
>>>>>> Furthermore Weil as you admit, I posted a proper link to the post
>>>>>> so people could easily read the whole thing at their leisure. That
>>>>>> means that I effectively provided the entire context, even
>>>>>> adjacent posts which google will quickly provide once you have my
>>>>>> link.
>>
>>>>>> In contrast Weil, neither you nor Lionel posted a proper link,
>>
>>>>> I certainly *did* provide the proper link.
>>>>
>>>> Not in your 11:12 EDT post.
>>
>>> That post wasn't addressed in that post.
>>
>>Horsefeathers:
>>
>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
at 11:12 EDT
>>
>>
>>>>> >"Arny Krüger wrote to Jennifer:
>>
>>>>> >"It's really amazing how you can be so dominated by hate. You have
>>>>> some >physical condition that puts you in pain a lot of the time?"
>>
>>>>> >Jennifer replies:
>>
>>>>> >"Arnold, you are one basty nastard. Not for referring to my
>>>>> "handicap", >but for lying about having no knowledge of it...and
>>>>> insinuating I had >attempted to take some kind of devious advantage
>>>>> of you. >
>>
>>Note absence of URLs
>
>Note that this deceptive edited quoting is actually quoting me quoting
>someone else and has nothing to do with the post in question anyway.
>
>>Weil has been caught yet again!
>
>Looks like you caught yourself this time, Arnold.
>
>>When will his madness end?
>
>Where is the reference to the McKelvy post that we were talking about?
>
>Guess what? It doesn't exist in that post.
>
>However, here is the first of FIVE proper links that I posted in that
>post:
>
>So, are you lying NOW, or were you lying when you wrote this:
>
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=i5qa9.1342%24Mz7.832%40newssvr19.new
s.prodigy.com
>
>"It's called receiving them as unsolicited email attachments,
>forgetting that they existed, and simply not deleting them because
>they were forgotten. Lots of bad things happened in the same general
>period of time. For example, back in 1999 my wife was first showing
>strong symptoms of Rheumatoid Arthritis, and it looked like she might
>end up bedridden and in considerable pain for the rest of her life".
>
>So, let's look carefully at this statement. You claim that it was
>looking like she might end up bedridden and in considerable painfor
>the rest of her life and this FIRST occured less than 4 years ago. And
>then you claim that she's been in almost complete remission FOR YEARS,
>implying that it wasn't any big deal around the time that Jennifer was
>on this group.
>-----------------------------------
>
>Therefore, your statement, "In contrast Weil, neither you nor Lionel
>posted a proper link", is FIVE times a lie.
>
>Do you wish to acknowledge your error now? Or do you want to continue
>making a fool of yourself som more?

dave, surely you know the answer to this question by now.

Boon

[Arny Krueger]

"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
...
> dave said:
>
> >On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:40:52 -0400, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:
> >
> >>"dave weil" > wrote in message
>
> >>> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:48:15 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> >>> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
> >>>> ...
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>> Furthermore Weil as you admit, I posted a proper link to the post
> >>>>>> so people could easily read the whole thing at their leisure. That
> >>>>>> means that I effectively provided the entire context, even
> >>>>>> adjacent posts which google will quickly provide once you have my
> >>>>>> link.
> >>
> >>>>>> In contrast Weil, neither you nor Lionel posted a proper link,
> >>
> >>>>> I certainly *did* provide the proper link.
> >>>>
> >>>> Not in your 11:12 EDT post.
> >>
> >>> That post wasn't addressed in that post.
> >>
> >>Horsefeathers:
> >>
> >>"dave weil" > wrote in message
> at 11:12 EDT
> >>
> >>
> >>>>> >"Arny Krüger wrote to Jennifer:
> >>
> >>>>> >"It's really amazing how you can be so dominated by hate. You have
> >>>>> some >physical condition that puts you in pain a lot of the time?"
> >>
> >>>>> >Jennifer replies:
> >>
> >>>>> >"Arnold, you are one basty nastard. Not for referring to my
> >>>>> "handicap", >but for lying about having no knowledge of it...and
> >>>>> insinuating I had >attempted to take some kind of devious advantage
> >>>>> of you. >
> >>
> >>Note absence of URLs
> >
> >Note that this deceptive edited quoting is actually quoting me quoting
> >someone else and has nothing to do with the post in question anyway.
> >
> >>Weil has been caught yet again!
> >
> >Looks like you caught yourself this time, Arnold.
> >
> >>When will his madness end?
> >
> >Where is the reference to the McKelvy post that we were talking about?
> >
> >Guess what? It doesn't exist in that post.
> >
> >However, here is the first of FIVE proper links that I posted in that
> >post:
> >
> >So, are you lying NOW, or were you lying when you wrote this:
> >
> >
> >http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=i5qa9.1342%24Mz7.832%40newssvr19.new
> s.prodigy.com
> >
> >"It's called receiving them as unsolicited email attachments,
> >forgetting that they existed, and simply not deleting them because
> >they were forgotten. Lots of bad things happened in the same general
> >period of time. For example, back in 1999 my wife was first showing
> >strong symptoms of Rheumatoid Arthritis, and it looked like she might
> >end up bedridden and in considerable pain for the rest of her life".
> >
> >So, let's look carefully at this statement. You claim that it was
> >looking like she might end up bedridden and in considerable painfor
> >the rest of her life and this FIRST occured less than 4 years ago. And
> >then you claim that she's been in almost complete remission FOR YEARS,
> >implying that it wasn't any big deal around the time that Jennifer was
> >on this group.
> >-----------------------------------
> >
> >Therefore, your statement, "In contrast Weil, neither you nor Lionel
> >posted a proper link", is FIVE times a lie.
> >
> >Do you wish to acknowledge your error now? Or do you want to continue
> >making a fool of yourself som more?

> dave, surely you know the answer to this question by now.

I surely know that Weil will tell any kind of lie to avoid admitting that I
caught him in a deception of this size. See my other post to see how he
screwed up yet again.

As I've shown yet again, Weil is digging himself in deeper and deeper.

And Phillips, your sudden presence here with maybe a sockpuppet or two, no
doubt shows how worried you guys are about how badly Weil is messing himself
up. You hope to distract me from my appointed rounds.

So Phillips when are you going to give us yet another demonstration of your
fascination with pedophilia, which you surely know that I hate?

[dave weil]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 15:24:28 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:40:52 -0400, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:
>>
>> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
>>
>> >> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:48:15 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> >> wrote:
>> >
>> >>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>> >>> ...
>> >
>> >
>> >>>>> Furthermore Weil as you admit, I posted a proper link to the post
>> >>>>> so people could easily read the whole thing at their leisure. That
>> >>>>> means that I effectively provided the entire context, even
>> >>>>> adjacent posts which google will quickly provide once you have my
>> >>>>> link.
>> >
>> >>>>> In contrast Weil, neither you nor Lionel posted a proper link,
>> >
>> >>>> I certainly *did* provide the proper link.
>> >>>
>> >>> Not in your 11:12 EDT post.
>> >
>> >> That post wasn't addressed in that post.
>> >
>> >Horsefeathers:
>> >
>> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
>> at 11:12 EDT
>> >
>> >
>> >>>> >"Arny Krüger wrote to Jennifer:
>> >
>> >>>> >"It's really amazing how you can be so dominated by hate. You have
>> >>>> some >physical condition that puts you in pain a lot of the time?"
>> >
>> >>>> >Jennifer replies:
>> >
>> >>>> >"Arnold, you are one basty nastard. Not for referring to my
>> >>>> "handicap", >but for lying about having no knowledge of it...and
>> >>>> insinuating I had >attempted to take some kind of devious advantage
>> >>>> of you. >
>> >
>> >Note absence of URLs
>>
>> Note that this deceptive edited quoting is actually quoting me quoting
>> someone else and has nothing to do with the post in question anyway.
>>
>> >Weil has been caught yet again!
>>
>> Looks like you caught yourself this time, Arnold.
>>
>> >When will his madness end?
>>
>> Where is the reference to the McKelvy post that we were talking about?
>
>In the post I posted the URL for, Weil.
>
>Anybody who wants to can read it here:
>
>http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.BSF.4.10.10002230655430.14198-100000%
>40jed.deltaforce.net
>
>It's got a clear reference to the McKelvy post that we were talking about,
>which I won't quote because its already been quoted to death in this thread.

Yes, but that post wasn't referenced in the 11:12 EDT post that you
talk about. The first time I actually mentioned that post, the link
*was* posted.

>You've obviously gone way off the deep end, Weil.
>
>Weil, I'll leave you to drown in your lies unless you can come up with
>something more interesting than such obvious lies.

I think you *are* insane. You accuse me of not posting the link in a
certain post in which I didn't even mention said post.

You need to either admit that you were wrong or just give it up
entirely.

You can't even admit your mistake.

[George M. Middius]

dave weil said to Kroo****:

> You can't even admit your mistake.

And your point....?

[George M. Middius]

Jacob Kramer said:

> Agreed. It's best to leave Arny and Mike to George. They deserve
> him, but none of the rest of us deserve them.

Your thought lacks a meaningful parallel structure, Mr. Deep-
Thinking Professional Student.

You might say that ****-for-Brains and his sidekick the Bug Eater
"deserve" me (although I'm hardly the only one who mocks their
raging stupidity), but what does that have to do with what or whom
"the rest of us" deserve? If I might stake an opinion, you deserve
duh-Mikey much more than I do because you're the one who spends so
much time and effort trying to argue with him. And duh is a lot like
his hero the Krooborg -- he believes the only way he can "lose a
debate" is to *admit* he lost it. The two of them believe that by
continuing to argue and never conceding, they "win" their "debates".
You, like Obie-wan Conspiracy and his wacky dances with Mr. ****,
therefore do deserve what you get from your respective nemeses.

[Jacob Kramer]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 17:44:04 -0400, George M. Middius
> wrote:

>
>
>Jacob Kramer said:
>
>> Agreed. It's best to leave Arny and Mike to George. They deserve
>> him, but none of the rest of us deserve them.
>
>Your thought lacks a meaningful parallel structure, Mr. Deep-
>Thinking Professional Student.
>
>You might say that ****-for-Brains and his sidekick the Bug Eater
>"deserve" me (although I'm hardly the only one who mocks their
>raging stupidity), but what does that have to do with what or whom
>"the rest of us" deserve? If I might stake an opinion, you deserve
>duh-Mikey much more than I do because you're the one who spends so
>much time and effort trying to argue with him. And duh is a lot like
>his hero the Krooborg -- he believes the only way he can "lose a
>debate" is to *admit* he lost it. The two of them believe that by
>continuing to argue and never conceding, they "win" their "debates".
>You, like Obie-wan Conspiracy and his wacky dances with Mr. ****,
>therefore do deserve what you get from your respective nemeses.

You're right--I let myself get roped in. You are the master.

--

Jacob Kramer

[Arny Krueger]

"Lionel Chapuis" > wrote in message



> Don't try to find a way to escape.

You've got the spider fly relationship reveresed here, my tasty little fly.

> I don't care anymore discussion with you or anybody else, I have
> readden to much in archives.

Well, that's where readden will get you.

> You always push your contradictor to far, it's your way of living.

So you are going to fault me for doing too good of a job of defending myself
from unfair criticism!

>You > don't like anything (audio too) than killing the adversity.

Sure I do. I like a good balanced discussion, particularly those that don't
attack me unfairly.

Remember that there are other topics in audio than senseless disputes and
unfair accusations from years ago.

> In all the occasions you have had a normal human being will have
> closed the discussion sooner.

Since many of my opponents like Weil routinely get the last word, that means
you think that they are abnormal, right?

>You, you are using sad arguments and
> unfair methods, your audio technical knowledge is just like a gun in
> your hand to kill people who are disagree with you.

If my factual arguments are sad and unfair, what are your out-of-context
quotes, false presumptions of guilt and implicit claims that you can read my
mind?

> Just because you cannot avoid yourself to write such horrors.

It takes two to tangle.

> "It's really amazing how you can be so dominated by hate.

You call a reasonable use of established facts to defend myself from unfair
criticism hate?

>You have some physical condition that puts you in pain a lot of the
time?".

Isn't it ironic that I nailed that one so correctly, and you're faulting me
for that, as well?

> If you really don't know, has you pretend you would have write "Have
> you some physical...".

20-20 hindsight is oh, so good.

> Enough for me you are a bloody *******, you stink throught the ocean.

Whatever winds your clock.

> <plonk>

You've got me confused with someone who cares that you are a coward and
refuse to take responsibility for your actions, Lionel.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message

> On 28 Jul 2003 19:24:38 GMT, (Marc Phillips) wrote:
>
>>> Do you wish to acknowledge your error now? Or do you want to
>>> continue making a fool of yourself som more?
>>
>> dave, surely you know the answer to this question by now.
>>
>> Boon
>
> Agreed. It's best to leave Arny and Mike to George. They deserve
> him, but none of the rest of us deserve them.

As if the world benfits from your posturing and crazy politics, Kramer. It
was bad enough when you stuck to audio.

[Margaret von Busenhalter]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Lionel Chapuis" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > Don't try to find a way to escape.
>
> You've got the spider fly relationship reveresed here, my tasty little
fly.
>

Cut off that homosexual banter already, Krueger. Do your "fly tasting" away
from RAO. Enough is enough.


MvB

[S888Wheel]

> Mr. Krüger, when will you stop responding to phonies? Don't you understand
>
> what's really going on here? Will I have to post RAO's Who's Who for you
>to
> learn that your interlocuteurs are in fact a very small vocal group (The
> Usual Suspects) who, when tired of playing with their pecker, are ready to
> spend inordinate amounts of time (and one has plenty when on welfare) to
>make
> you look bad?

let's see the list.

[Lionel Chapuis]

Little fly ? it's not really the good word.
Tasty ? Don't be so flattering, I'm sure I haven't provided you any
pleasure at all.My english is too poor, I don't follow you in your
google jungle, I don't quote and requote to prove what I've written so
I'm sure that you feel no pleasure...

Your are usually very clever, but here you miss the point. To use a
metaphor, the system is built, I have choosen the components, paid the
bill and I'm listening to your music, there's nothing to demonstrate, I
feel you are insane, sadist, paranoid and I tell that, full point.

You are a scientist, a man of facts and figures, I am too slow to follow
you in your demonstration, but as you are the object of this thread
there's now a particular statistic I love...

[George M. Middius]

Lionel Chapuis said to PervBorg:

> Your are usually very clever, but here you miss the point. To use a
> metaphor, the system is built, I have choosen the components, paid the
> bill and I'm listening to your music, there's nothing to demonstrate, I
> feel you are insane, sadist, paranoid and I tell that, full point.

Yes, the Kroo is insane and paranoid. But he's not a sadist, he's a
masochist. And don't forget that his coffeemaker lied to him this
morning.

[Marc Phillips]

Arny said:

>So Phillips when are you going to give us yet another demonstration of your
>fascination with pedophilia, which you surely know that I hate?

See, Arny...here's the basic flaw in your thinking. I've continually produced,
in black and white, evidence of your involvement with child pornography.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Arny,+daddy,+fellatio&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&
safe=off&selm=afvB2.12%24lz6.48%40news.flash.net&rnum=1

See? That was easy.

But when you make weird, pathetic claims that circumvent logic, such as I must
be a pedophile, too, because I object to your pedophilia, it only proves that
you have no real defense against your criminal behavior. You can't prove
you're not a pedophile, so your only course of action is IKYABWAIs. It's sad
and pathetic.

I say these things about you because I have easily retrievable facts at my
disposal.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Arny,+daddy,+fellatio&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&
safe=off&selm=afvB2.12%24lz6.48%40news.flash.net&rnum=1

You are making things up about me, however, and if you continue to do so, I can
guarantee that we WILL meet the next time I'm in town. Is that what you want?

Boon

[Browntimdc]

Jacob Kramer > wrote in
:

> On 28 Jul 2003 19:24:38 GMT, (Marc Phillips) wrote:
>
>>>Do you wish to acknowledge your error now? Or do you want to continue
>>>making a fool of yourself som more?
>>
>>dave, surely you know the answer to this question by now.
>>
>>Boon
>
> Agreed. It's best to leave Arny and Mike to George. They deserve
> him, but none of the rest of us deserve them.
>
> --
>
> Jacob Kramer
>

I think this quote fits:

"One wants to be loved; failing this, to be admired; failing this,
to be feared; failing even this, to be hated and despised.
One wants to arouse some sort of feeling in people. The soul
shrinks from the void and wants contact at any price."
~ Hjalmar Soderberg