Worst newsgroup ever?

[Robert Rellant]

There are five regular posters here, all taking turns leaving posts
indistinguisable from bowel movements, and then there are the one or
two lurkers who lurk for a few hours then post a message along the
lines of "**** off you assholes, I'm unsubscribing!"

This is my **** OFF you assholes post. Enjoy yourselves. I've never
seen a newsgroup with more "I'm unsubscribing" posts. You regulars
should be proud. I guess.

RR

PS The door won't hit me on the way out - I kicked it down. Figure
out some other stupid thing to say, I know you regulars are well
practiced at it.

[Margaret von Busenhalter]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Rellant" > wrote in message
> om
>
> > There are five regular posters here, all taking turns leaving posts
> > indistinguisable from bowel movements, and then there are the one or
> > two lurkers who lurk for a few hours then post a message along the
> > lines of "**** off you assholes, I'm unsubscribing!"
>
> Good move, there's lots of good audio groups in Usenet. See you there!
>

"See you in church," said the pimp to the departing john.


MvB

[Thine Deville]

On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 09:24:40 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>The vinyl bigots should really find a new newsgroup that was set up for
>their benefit: uk.rec.audio.vinyl.
>
>The tube bigots should really find an old newsgroup that was set up for
>their benefit: rec.audio.tubes.
>
>Of course that would cut into their proselytizing, but them's the breaks.
>You see its the proselytizing that its really all about.

And what newsgroup is for the benefit of digital bigots?

--
Thine

[Arny Krueger]

"Margaret von Busenhalter" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Robert Rellant" > wrote in message
>> om
>>
>>> There are five regular posters here, all taking turns leaving posts
>>> indistinguisable from bowel movements, and then there are the one or
>>> two lurkers who lurk for a few hours then post a message along the
>>> lines of "**** off you assholes, I'm unsubscribing!"
>>
>> Good move, there's lots of good audio groups in Usenet. See you
>> there!

> "See you in church," said the pimp to the departing john.

Probably more factual in some contexts than you may think, Mr. Maggie.

BTW, Thanks for the autobiographical comment.

[Arny Krueger]

"Thine Deville" > wrote in message
n.net
> On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 09:24:40 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> The vinyl bigots should really find a new newsgroup that was set up
>> for their benefit: uk.rec.audio.vinyl.
>>
>> The tube bigots should really find an old newsgroup that was set up
>> for their benefit: rec.audio.tubes.
>>
>> Of course that would cut into their proselytizing, but them's the
>> breaks. You see its the proselytizing that its really all about.
>
> And what newsgroup is for the benefit of digital bigots?

Just about all of them in the 21st century.

You'll find out when you arrive...

;-)

[Thine Deville]

On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 10:05:23 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>BTW, Thanks for the autobiographical comment.

Another IKYABWAI? You are the menstrual ****-crap of a pig with
prosthetic porking pieces.

--
Thine

[Arny Krueger]

"Thine Deville" > wrote in message
n.net

> On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 10:05:23 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:

>> BTW, Thanks for the autobiographical comment.

> Another IKYABWAI?

Where's the first one in this thread?

>You are the menstrual ****-crap of a pig with
> prosthetic porking pieces.

Whatever fantasy that gets you hot enough so you can pee, Graham.

[Arny Krueger]

"Thine Deville" > wrote in message
n.net

> On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 10:06:02 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:

>>> "Thine Deville" > wrote in message
>>> n.net

>>> And what newsgroup is for the benefit of digital bigots?

>> Just about all of them in the 21st century.

> Sorry. What was the question?

So Graham, your short term memory is obviously shot. Senile dementia at your
young age? How much crack does that take, anyway?

>> You'll find out when you arrive...

> I arrived a long time ago.

But where? Clearly not in the 21st century.

>> ;-)

> Not that kind of arriving.

Right Graham, not the kind where you actually got some place in the real
world.

[Jacob Kramer]

On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 09:24:40 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>What's really going on is that once upon a time someone had a dream of
>turning RAO into a vinyl/tube lover's dream. When this didn't pan out, they
>decided to flame the people who were disagreeing with them until they left.
>As a result of this strategy the place is inhospitable to just about
>everybody, regardless of their audio politics.

What's really going on here is that once upon a time this newsgroup
was hospitable to all points of view and then Arny came in here trying
to shout down everyone who disagreed with his extreme conservative
views. He did this because his ABX box didn't get the attention he
felt it deserved in the press so he has been trying to spam Usenet
about it.

--

Jacob Kramer

[Lived EHT]

On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 10:20:23 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>Where's the first one in this thread?

Which thread? Stop lying.

>Whatever fantasy that gets you hot enough so you can pee, Graham.

I pee when the nerves in my bladder say it's time to pee. Where does
fantasy come into peeing? Are you trying to snap back the twisted and
greasy bolt and invite us into your Heavenly Golden Bedroom for a
demonstration of another Special Perversion?

--
200KV And Counting.

[Lived EHT]

On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 10:30:45 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>So Graham, your short term memory is obviously shot.

Shot: n. Nautical. A length of chain equal to 15 fathoms (90 feet) in
the United States and 12 1/2 fathoms (75 feet) in Great Britain.

So you're trying to say that my mind is like a piece of 90-foot chain
in the US and a piece of 75-foot chain in the UK. Learn to use
language properly.

>Senile dementia at your young age? How much crack does
>that take, anyway?

Depends how much she charges.

>>> You'll find out when you arrive...
>
>> I arrived a long time ago.
>
>But where? Clearly not in the 21st century.

Clearly as in totally without any basis in fact. Correct.

>> Not that kind of arriving.
>
>Right Graham, not the kind where you actually got some place in the real
>world.

I have multiple places. The table was certainly never set for you
though, was it.

--
Thine

[Lived EHT]

On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 10:52:25 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

><Obviously, Graham's short term memory is shot. Notice that he wouldn't
>answer the question about how much crack he's taken, even deleted it
>completely.

LOL!

Ah, this brings back memories. What fun was had by I!

I answered your question, you raving arse pudding with candles. You
asked how much crack it takes to make one demented. I replied that it
depends how much she's charging. What's so difficult to understand
about that?

>I obviously struck a nerve, so to speak.

I think you struck all of them when you sat on the toilet too quickly.

>When we're talking
>about Graham and nerves, we're speaking figuratively, of course!>

No, you're talking crap, characteristically.

>For most people there's some kind of a connection between their nerves and
>their brain. How about you, Graham?

My nerves really get on my brain.

>> Where does fantasy come into peeing?
>
>Are you saying that the nerve connection from your bladder to your brain has
>been severed, Graham?

No. I'm saying that you should be burnt to death.

>Graham, can't you go to the bathroom without messing up the bedroom, too?

Your thoughts gel as well as snot on a stove.

--
230KV

[Arny Krueger]

"Lived EHT" > wrote in message
n.net
> On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 10:44:36 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> ABX got a whole lot more attention than I anticipated
>
> So did your paedophilia.

Graham, projecting again? Your very recent comments about roasting and
eating your son are here for all to see.

> Never noticed that other parents had their mouths closed when they
> kissed their kids?

Obviously, another one of your little fantasies that helps you get enough
feeling down there to pee.

So Graham, you're trying to make us believe you ate your son without opening
your mouth? How did you do that?

Ooohh, I get it, nasty!

[dave weil]

On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 12:08:13 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Lived EHT" > wrote in message
n.net
>> On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 11:30:48 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> So did your paedophilia.
>>>
>>> Graham, projecting again? Your very recent comments about roasting
>>> and eating your son are here for all to see.
>>
>> Yes--but I didn't **** him first.
>
>All the cannibals seem to say that these days no matter what they really
>did. Often it turns out that the killing (which you've admitted to) was for
>the purpose of silencing the victim. The eating (which you've even bragged
>about) is for the purpose of disposing of the body.
>
>Then, they act surprised when one points out that Pedophilia a horrible
>perversion that one simply does not engage in, not to mention murder which
>of course should also be dealt with.
>
>So why would I expect that you would be any different, Graham?

Does this make you a "borderline sociopath" since you're joking about
the hideous and serious practice of cannabilism, Mr. Krueger?

Lots!

[George M. Middius]

dave weil said to ****-for-Brains:

> Does this make you a "borderline sociopath" since you're joking about
> the hideous and serious practice of cannabilism, Mr. Krueger?

If Krooger is "borderline", that means the rest of us can breathe a
deep sigh of relief, knowing we'll never, ever be indicted for any
crime.

[Dead Decrepit Nate]

>On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 10:44:36 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>wrote:
>
>>ABX got a whole lot more attention than I anticipated
>
>So did your paedophilia.

Why are you making fun of my father?

Please stop.

I never had sex with him in spite of what you say.

A few of my friends, on the other hand...

And thanks for the obligatory references to me. It's nice to be remembered.
:-))))

Remember too that every day above ground is a good day. Take it from me.

Wanna have a sing-along?

Okay. Here we go then:

The worms crawl in
The worms crawl out
Into my stomach and
Out out of my mouth ...

Love and rot

Dead Decrepit Nate

[Lived EHT]

On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 12:08:13 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>All the cannibals seem to say that these days no matter what they really
>did.

I've not mingled with any cannibals, so I wouldn't know what they're
saying these days. Do you imagine you need cannibals in your church
choir to equalise the harmonies? Didn't you get fulfillment from
playing Pacman with one of your young friends?

>Often it turns out that the killing (which you've admitted to) was for
>the purpose of silencing the victim. The eating (which you've even bragged
>about) is for the purpose of disposing of the body.

Rest assured that no one would want to eat you, no matter how nuts
they were.

--
240KV And Sparking

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 16:25:09 -0000, Rich Andrews >
> wrote:
>
>> Lived EHT > wrote in
>> n.net:
>>
>>> On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 10:30:45 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So Graham, your short term memory is obviously shot.
>>>
>>> Shot: n. Nautical. A length of chain equal to 15 fathoms (90 feet)
>>> in the United States and 12 1/2 fathoms (75 feet) in Great Britain.
>>>
>>> So you're trying to say that my mind is like a piece of 90-foot
>>> chain in the US and a piece of 75-foot chain in the UK. Learn to use
>>> language properly.
>>>
>>>> Senile dementia at your young age? How much crack does
>>>> that take, anyway?
>>>
>>> Depends how much she charges.
>>>
>>>>>> You'll find out when you arrive...
>>>>
>>>>> I arrived a long time ago.
>>>>
>>>> But where? Clearly not in the 21st century.
>>>
>>> Clearly as in totally without any basis in fact. Correct.
>>>
>>>>> Not that kind of arriving.
>>>>
>>>> Right Graham, not the kind where you actually got some place in
>>>> the real world.
>>>
>>> I have multiple places. The table was certainly never set for you
>>> though, was it.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Thine
>>>
>>
>> Can't figure the difference between a noun and an adjective?
>>
>> Shot:
>>
>> 3 : reduced to a state of ruin, prostration, or uselessness <his
>> nerves are shot>
>
> Can't figure out that the word shot in Mr. Krueger's initial post can
> be interpreted as either noun or adjective? In other words, shot can
> be a direct object as well...
>
> If you wish to quibble about a dig, so can others...


Note the well-known Weil talent for reducing *anything* and *everything* to
a quibble over unlikely meanings.

[Lived EHT]

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 16:25:09 -0000, Rich Andrews >
wrote:

>Can't figure the difference between a noun and an adjective?

Go back to sleep. You'll wake your mother.

--
Thine

[dave weil]

On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 12:54:36 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>> On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 12:08:13 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Lived EHT" > wrote in message
>>> n.net
>>>> On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 11:30:48 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> So did your paedophilia.
>>>>>
>>>>> Graham, projecting again? Your very recent comments about roasting
>>>>> and eating your son are here for all to see.
>>>>
>>>> Yes--but I didn't **** him first.
>>>
>>> All the cannibals seem to say that these days no matter what they
>>> really did. Often it turns out that the killing (which you've
>>> admitted to) was for the purpose of silencing the victim. The eating
>>> (which you've even bragged about) is for the purpose of disposing of
>>> the body.
>>>
>>> Then, they act surprised when one points out that Pedophilia a
>>> horrible perversion that one simply does not engage in, not to
>>> mention murder which of course should also be dealt with.
>>>
>>> So why would I expect that you would be any different, Graham?
>>
>> Does this make you a "borderline sociopath" since you're joking about
>> the hideous and serious practice of cannabilism, Mr. Krueger?
>>
>> Lots!
>
>Weil, if you think that I'm joking when I call Pedophilia a horrible
>perversion, then you've got serious perceptual problems. Perhaps you
>disagree with me?

I do. I didn't mention "Pedophilia".

You lose.

Again.

Nice strawman though. Which Schopenhauer is that?

<dusting hands off again>

....it's like shooting ducks in a pickle (as Mr. Krueger might say)

[Lived EHT]

On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 14:06:10 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>>> Can't figure the difference between a noun and an adjective?
>>
>> Go back to sleep. You'll wake your mother.
>
>IOW Andrews got Graham good, but as usual Graham tries to bluster and lie
>his way out of it.

Good grief. Talk about spastics with attitude. I was making fun of
your penchant for attributing ridiculous meanings to common words.

--
Thine

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 12:54:36 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>
>>> On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 12:08:13 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Lived EHT" > wrote in message
>>>> n.net
>>>>> On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 11:30:48 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> So did your paedophilia.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Graham, projecting again? Your very recent comments about
>>>>>> roasting and eating your son are here for all to see.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes--but I didn't **** him first.
>>>>
>>>> All the cannibals seem to say that these days no matter what they
>>>> really did. Often it turns out that the killing (which you've
>>>> admitted to) was for the purpose of silencing the victim. The
>>>> eating (which you've even bragged about) is for the purpose of
>>>> disposing of the body.
>>>>
>>>> Then, they act surprised when one points out that Pedophilia a
>>>> horrible perversion that one simply does not engage in, not to
>>>> mention murder which of course should also be dealt with.
>>>>
>>>> So why would I expect that you would be any different, Graham?
>>>
>>> Does this make you a "borderline sociopath" since you're joking
>>> about the hideous and serious practice of cannabilism, Mr. Krueger?
>>>
>>> Lots!
>>
>> Weil, if you think that I'm joking when I call Pedophilia a horrible
>> perversion, then you've got serious perceptual problems. Perhaps you
>> disagree with me?
>
> I do. I didn't mention "Pedophilia".

Weil, you jumped right in and quoted it. Seeing it obviously peaked your
interest in the thread!

[dave weil]

On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 14:17:14 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>> On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 12:54:36 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 12:08:13 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Lived EHT" > wrote in message
>>>>> n.net
>>>>>> On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 11:30:48 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So did your paedophilia.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Graham, projecting again? Your very recent comments about
>>>>>>> roasting and eating your son are here for all to see.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes--but I didn't **** him first.
>>>>>
>>>>> All the cannibals seem to say that these days no matter what they
>>>>> really did. Often it turns out that the killing (which you've
>>>>> admitted to) was for the purpose of silencing the victim. The
>>>>> eating (which you've even bragged about) is for the purpose of
>>>>> disposing of the body.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then, they act surprised when one points out that Pedophilia a
>>>>> horrible perversion that one simply does not engage in, not to
>>>>> mention murder which of course should also be dealt with.
>>>>>
>>>>> So why would I expect that you would be any different, Graham?
>>>>
>>>> Does this make you a "borderline sociopath" since you're joking
>>>> about the hideous and serious practice of cannabilism, Mr. Krueger?
>>>>
>>>> Lots!
>>>
>>> Weil, if you think that I'm joking when I call Pedophilia a horrible
>>> perversion, then you've got serious perceptual problems. Perhaps you
>>> disagree with me?
>>
>> I do. I didn't mention "Pedophilia".
>
>Weil, you jumped right in and quoted it. Seeing it obviously peaked your
>interest in the thread!

No, you're wrong. It was the kidding about cannabilism that attracted
my attention.

Seemed like rampant hypocrisy after your previous accusations about me
being a "borderline sociopath" because I "kidded" about homicide.

If I had wanted to mention your comments about "Pedophila", I would
have mentioned your preoccupation with the subject.

Damn, are you a dense one...

[George M. Middius]

Lived EHT said:

> >Can't figure the difference between a noun and an adjective?
>
> Go back to sleep. You'll wake your mother.

Robot is in the throes of another Kroopologism seizure, I believe.

[George M. Middius]

Lived EHT said:

> Good grief. Talk about spastics with attitude. I was making fun of
> your penchant for attributing ridiculous meanings to common words.

Maybe Arnii has a dictionary that lies to him, LOt"S!

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 15:30:53 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Same question as before Weil, why aren't you joining me in condemning
>> Pedophilia? Why aren't you joining me in condemning murder? I
>> conclude, following your logic that no specific condemnation
>> indicates approval that you approve of murder and Pedophilia.

> Well, you'd be wrong, of course.

Hey Weil, its logic you just applied. Why are you knowingly applying bad
logic?

> But that's just Kroologic at work, I suppose.

Sorry Weil but this is logic that you just applied. Of course it's like you
to not take responsibilitiy for your actions.

> Kroologic never takes a day off...

Weil's dissembling under stress seems to be a 24/7 operation.

BTW Weil what's with you and penny-ante refrigerator magnets? Trying to
build up an impressive eBay record on a shoestring? Want people to look at
your name and say "90 transactions, what a guy", not knowing that some of
them were truly for just a penny?

LOL!

[kgs]

whats your angle
"Lived EHT" > wrote in message
n.net...
> On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 12:56:02 -0500, dave weil >
> wrote:
>
> >...it's like shooting ducks in a pickle (as Mr. Krueger might say)
>
> Or batting coffins* through the eye of a camel.
>
> --
> Thine
>
> * Obligatory dead-Nate mention

[Lionel]

kgs wrote:

[snip]

Just a question please, what's your nickname in imperial size ?

[Gary Bishop]

"kgs" > wrote:

>whats your angle
>"Lived EHT" > wrote in message
n.net...
>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 12:56:02 -0500, dave weil >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >...it's like shooting ducks in a pickle (as Mr. Krueger might say)
>>
>> Or batting coffins* through the eye of a camel.
>>
>> --
>> Thine
>>
>> * Obligatory dead-Nate mention
>

What the hell are they talking about?

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Gary Bishop" > wrote in message
...
> "kgs" > wrote:
>
> >whats your angle
> >"Lived EHT" > wrote in message
> n.net...
> >> On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 12:56:02 -0500, dave weil >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >...it's like shooting ducks in a pickle (as Mr. Krueger might say)
> >>
> >> Or batting coffins* through the eye of a camel.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Thine
> >>
> >> * Obligatory dead-Nate mention
> >
>
> What the hell are they talking about?

RAO's policy is don't ask, don't tell.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Lionel]

Gary Bishop wrote:

> "kgs" > wrote:
>
>
>>whats your angle
>>"Lived EHT" > wrote in message
n.net...
>>
>>>On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 12:56:02 -0500, dave weil >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>...it's like shooting ducks in a pickle (as Mr. Krueger might say)
>>>
>>>Or batting coffins* through the eye of a camel.
>>>
>>>--
>>>Thine
>>>
>>>* Obligatory dead-Nate mention
>>
>
> What the hell are they talking about?

<George, type your message in here. When you are finished hit send.>

[Arny Krueger]

"Gary Bishop" > wrote in message

> "kgs" > wrote:
>
>> whats your angle
>> "Lived EHT" > wrote in message
>> n.net...
>>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 12:56:02 -0500, dave weil >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> ...it's like shooting ducks in a pickle (as Mr. Krueger might say)
>>>
>>> Or batting coffins* through the eye of a camel.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Thine
>>>
>>> * Obligatory dead-Nate mention
>>
>
> What the hell are they talking about?

Their pathological desire to capitalize on a family tragedy that afflicted a
RAO regular they don't like.

Pretty sick, eh?

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Gary Bishop" > wrote in message
>
> > "kgs" > wrote:
> >
> >> whats your angle
> >> "Lived EHT" > wrote in message
> >> n.net...
> >>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 12:56:02 -0500, dave weil >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> ...it's like shooting ducks in a pickle (as Mr. Krueger might say)
> >>>
> >>> Or batting coffins* through the eye of a camel.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Thine
> >>>
> >>> * Obligatory dead-Nate mention
> >>
> >
> > What the hell are they talking about?
>
> Their pathological desire to capitalize on a family tragedy that afflicted
a
> RAO regular they don't like.
>
> Pretty sick, eh?
>
>

Yes, it was very sick when the first one
to try and capitalize on the death of
your son Nate was you, yourself.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[trotsky]

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Gary Bishop" > wrote in message

>>
>>>"kgs" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>whats your angle
>>>>"Lived EHT" > wrote in message
n.net...
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 12:56:02 -0500, dave weil >
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>...it's like shooting ducks in a pickle (as Mr. Krueger might say)
>>>>>
>>>>>Or batting coffins* through the eye of a camel.
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>Thine
>>>>>
>>>>>* Obligatory dead-Nate mention
>>>>
>>>What the hell are they talking about?
>>
>>Their pathological desire to capitalize on a family tragedy that afflicted
>
> a
>
>>RAO regular they don't like.
>>
>>Pretty sick, eh?
>>
>>
>
>
> Yes, it was very sick when the first one
> to try and capitalize on the death of
> your son Nate was you, yourself.


And Arny's was the only heinous behavior in the matter?

[George M. Middius]

Gregipus Batticus begs for more punishment.

> > Yes, it was very sick when the first one
> > to try and capitalize on the death of
> > your son Nate was you, yourself.

> And Arny's was the only heinous behavior in the matter?

You helped your "cause" by taunting Mr. **** about beating Nate to
death with a baseball bat. I guess everything you do is OK since
you're a piece of **** with a name, not an anonymous piece of ****.

[trotsky]

George M. Middius wrote:
>
> Gregipus Batticus begs for more punishment.
>
>
>>>Yes, it was very sick when the first one
>>>to try and capitalize on the death of
>>>your son Nate was you, yourself.
>
>
>
>>And Arny's was the only heinous behavior in the matter?
>
>
> You helped your "cause" by taunting Mr. **** about beating Nate to
> death with a baseball bat. I guess everything you do is OK since
> you're a piece of **** with a name, not an anonymous piece of ****.


George, guilt always makes me laugh. Here's the exchange:

trotsky: "I find your son's cause of death questionable."
Arny: "Are you saying I beat my son to death with a baseball bat?"

Apparently your own guilt on the matter has you so twisted that you now
lie by claiming I was "taunting" Arny "about beating Nate to death with
a baseball bat." I can't believe how far you've fallen from your high
horse, George. It's hardly my fault that you're a few scruples short of
a full deck.

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"trotsky" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>"Gary Bishop" > wrote in message
>
> >>
> >>>"kgs" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>whats your angle
> >>>>"Lived EHT" > wrote in message
> n.net...
> >>>>
> >>>>>On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 12:56:02 -0500, dave weil >
> >>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>...it's like shooting ducks in a pickle (as Mr. Krueger might say)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Or batting coffins* through the eye of a camel.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>--
> >>>>>Thine
> >>>>>
> >>>>>* Obligatory dead-Nate mention
> >>>>
> >>>What the hell are they talking about?
> >>
> >>Their pathological desire to capitalize on a family tragedy that
afflicted
> >
> > a
> >
> >>RAO regular they don't like.
> >>
> >>Pretty sick, eh?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > Yes, it was very sick when the first one
> > to try and capitalize on the death of
> > your son Nate was you, yourself.
>
>
> And Arny's was the only heinous behavior in the matter?
>

Arny is a completely despicable asshole.
based upon his behavioir here, his lies, deceit,
and mostly by his arrogance and demeaning of others,
deserved to have all the **** he has dumped here
thrown right back in his face.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[George M. Middius]

Gregipus, did you smash your widdle cwystal bawl?

> > Gregipus Batticus begs for more punishment.

> >>And Arny's was the only heinous behavior in the matter?

> > You helped your "cause" by taunting Mr. **** about beating Nate to
> > death with a baseball bat. I guess everything you do is OK since
> > you're a piece of **** with a name, not an anonymous piece of ****.

> George, guilt always makes me laugh.

That is a lie. You never laugh.

> trotsky: "I find your son's cause of death questionable."
> Arny: "Are you saying I beat my son to death with a baseball bat?"

See what you did? Always taunting, never apportioning blame to
yourself, no matter filthy you behaved.

> Apparently your own guilt on the matter

What guilt is that? Did this "guilt" get assigned to me in the Court
of trotsky? ;-)


> claiming I was "taunting" Arny "about beating Nate to death with
> a baseball bat."

If you can't stand the recriminations, don't do the taunting. It's
pretty simple. I can go over this as many mother****ing times as
necessary. Let us know when you are done, with forks, presumably in
your ample butt. No, you may not suck my dick.

> I can't believe how far you've fallen from your high
> horse, George. It's hardly my fault that you're a few scruples short of
> a full deck.

You are still RAO's master gibberer, Lionella notwithstanding. Sorry.

[George M. Middius]

Sockpuppet Yustabe said:

> > And Arny's was the only heinous behavior in the matter?

> Arny is a completely despicable asshole.
> based upon his behavioir here, his lies, deceit,
> and mostly by his arrogance and demeaning of others,
> deserved to have all the **** he has dumped here
> thrown right back in his face.

Gregipus doesn't care about that because Arnii has "audio discussions"
on RAO.

[trotsky]

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> "trotsky" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>>
>>>"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Gary Bishop" > wrote in message

>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"kgs" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>whats your angle
>>>>>>"Lived EHT" > wrote in message
n.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 12:56:02 -0500, dave weil >
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>...it's like shooting ducks in a pickle (as Mr. Krueger might say)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Or batting coffins* through the eye of a camel.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>--
>>>>>>>Thine
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>* Obligatory dead-Nate mention
>>>>>>
>>>>>What the hell are they talking about?
>>>>
>>>>Their pathological desire to capitalize on a family tragedy that
>
> afflicted
>
>>>a
>>>
>>>
>>>>RAO regular they don't like.
>>>>
>>>>Pretty sick, eh?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, it was very sick when the first one
>>>to try and capitalize on the death of
>>>your son Nate was you, yourself.
>>
>>
>>And Arny's was the only heinous behavior in the matter?
>>
>
>
> Arny is a completely despicable asshole.


Agreed.


> based upon his behavioir here, his lies, deceit,
> and mostly by his arrogance and demeaning of others,
> deserved to have all the **** he has dumped here
> thrown right back in his face.


Uh, I don't believe you. I don't believe you think "Arny, did you ****
your dead son?" is in any way justified on any level. The words
themselves don't bother me, nor does Arny being insulted at all. What
bothers me is the idea that there are people on this group that can say
that as a joke, and that there are people like you that can confuse
themselves into thinking that's acceptable.

Let's try a different tack: what could a George Middius, a
Roy/the/Graham Briggs/Devil/Davies/Davis, a "ScottW", or a Stephen
McElroy say on this group that, in your opinion, that they should be
held accountable for?

[trotsky]

George M. Middius wrote:
>
> Gregipus, did you smash your widdle cwystal bawl?
>
>
>>>Gregipus Batticus begs for more punishment.
>
>
>>>>And Arny's was the only heinous behavior in the matter?
>
>
>>>You helped your "cause" by taunting Mr. **** about beating Nate to
>>>death with a baseball bat. I guess everything you do is OK since
>>>you're a piece of **** with a name, not an anonymous piece of ****.
>
>
>
>>George, guilt always makes me laugh.
>
>
> That is a lie. You never laugh.


That's a laughable statement.

>>trotsky: "I find your son's cause of death questionable."
>>Arny: "Are you saying I beat my son to death with a baseball bat?"
>
>
> See what you did? Always taunting, never apportioning blame to
> yourself, no matter filthy you behaved.
>
>
>>Apparently your own guilt on the matter
>
>
> What guilt is that? Did this "guilt" get assigned to me in the Court
> of trotsky? ;-)


Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.


>>claiming I was "taunting" Arny "about beating Nate to death with
>>a baseball bat."
>
>
> If you can't stand the recriminations, don't do the taunting.


What taunting? The only think self-evident is that you're a big fat liar.


It's
> pretty simple. I can go over this as many mother****ing times as
> necessary. Let us know when you are done, with forks, presumably in
> your ample butt. No, you may not suck my dick.
>
>
>>I can't believe how far you've fallen from your high
>>horse, George. It's hardly my fault that you're a few scruples short of
>>a full deck.
>
>
> You are still RAO's master gibberer, Lionella notwithstanding. Sorry.


Where's the taunting, George--up your ass with the WMDs?

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Sockpuppet Yustabe said:
>
> > > And Arny's was the only heinous behavior in the matter?
>
> > Arny is a completely despicable asshole.
> > based upon his behavioir here, his lies, deceit,
> > and mostly by his arrogance and demeaning of others,
> > deserved to have all the **** he has dumped here
> > thrown right back in his face.
>
> Gregipus doesn't care about that because Arnii has "audio discussions"
> on RAO.
>

Arny's most deceitful, arrogant and demeaning posts 'are' his
audio discussions.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[George M. Middius]

Gregipus Virginicus tries some dirty talk.

> Where's the taunting, George--up your ass with the WMDs?

Why do you think anybody is the least bit interested in answering your
asinine questions?

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"trotsky" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> > "trotsky" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...

> >>And Arny's was the only heinous behavior in the matter?
> >>
> >
> >
> > Arny is a completely despicable asshole.
>
>
> Agreed.
>
>
> > based upon his behavioir here, his lies, deceit,
> > and mostly by his arrogance and demeaning of others,
> > deserved to have all the **** he has dumped here
> > thrown right back in his face.
>
>
> Uh, I don't believe you.

Don't confuse believing me with agreeing with me.


> I don't believe you think "Arny, did you ****
> your dead son?" is in any way justified on any level. The words
> themselves don't bother me, nor does Arny being insulted at all. What
> bothers me is the idea that there are people on this group that can say
> that as a joke, and that there are people like you that can confuse
> themselves into thinking that's acceptable.
>

You make no sense. The words don't offend you if they are
seriously or meant as an insult, but used as a joke they offend you.
No offense intended, but you're a mommy****er.

BTW, tell me what I meant by that.


> Let's try a different tack: what could a George Middius, a
> Roy/the/Graham Briggs/Devil/Davies/Davis, a "ScottW", or a Stephen
> McElroy say on this group that, in your opinion, that they should be
> held accountable for?
>

It's a different tack, alright.

Either eveybody should be held accountable for everything, or
nobody should held accountable for nothing.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[ScottW]

"trotsky" > wrote in message
nk.net...

> > based upon his behavioir here, his lies, deceit,
> > and mostly by his arrogance and demeaning of others,
> > deserved to have all the **** he has dumped here
> > thrown right back in his face.
>
>
> Uh, I don't believe you. I don't believe you think "Arny, did you ****
> your dead son?" is in any way justified on any level.

I don't think it is justified. There is simply no excuse. It is
disturbing and needs more justification and rationalization than Arny
deserves it. The question that comes to mind, Is there anything that
crosses the line?


> The words
> themselves don't bother me, nor does Arny being insulted at all. What
> bothers me is the idea that there are people on this group that can say
> that as a joke, and that there are people like you that can confuse
> themselves into thinking that's acceptable.

Yeah, that makes sense.... not.
>
> Let's try a different tack: what could a George Middius, a
> Roy/the/Graham Briggs/Devil/Davies/Davis, a "ScottW", or a Stephen
> McElroy say on this group that, in your opinion, that they should be
> held accountable for?

How about playing a subjectivist yet trashing equipment never heard based
on something as stupid as country of origin?

ScottW

[trotsky]

George M. Middius wrote:
>
> Gregipus Virginicus tries some dirty talk.
>
>
>>Where's the taunting, George--up your ass with the WMDs?
>
>
> Why do you think anybody is the least bit interested in answering your
> asinine questions?


Tacit admission or your lying duly noted.

[trotsky]

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> "trotsky" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
>>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>>
>>>"trotsky" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
>
>>>>And Arny's was the only heinous behavior in the matter?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Arny is a completely despicable asshole.
>>
>>
>>Agreed.
>>
>>
>>
>>>based upon his behavioir here, his lies, deceit,
>>>and mostly by his arrogance and demeaning of others,
>>>deserved to have all the **** he has dumped here
>>>thrown right back in his face.
>>
>>
>>Uh, I don't believe you.
>
>
> Don't confuse believing me with agreeing with me.
>
>
>
>>I don't believe you think "Arny, did you ****
>>your dead son?" is in any way justified on any level. The words
>>themselves don't bother me, nor does Arny being insulted at all. What
>>bothers me is the idea that there are people on this group that can say
>>that as a joke, and that there are people like you that can confuse
>>themselves into thinking that's acceptable.
>>
>
>
> You make no sense. The words don't offend you if they are
> seriously or meant as an insult, but used as a joke they offend you.
> No offense intended, but you're a mommy****er.
>
> BTW, tell me what I meant by that.


I'm not sure what you're question is. Do you really think there
are/were circumstances when you could take the question "Arny, did you
**** your dead kid?" seriously?


>>Let's try a different tack: what could a George Middius, a
>>Roy/the/Graham Briggs/Devil/Davies/Davis, a "ScottW", or a Stephen
>>McElroy say on this group that, in your opinion, that they should be
>>held accountable for?
>>
>
>
> It's a different tack, alright.
>
> Either eveybody should be held accountable for everything, or
> nobody should held accountable for nothing.


Good cop out. I should've figured you wouldn't be able to say anything
substantive. At least your anus gets a good workout, right?

[trotsky]

ScottW wrote:
> "trotsky" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
>
>>>based upon his behavioir here, his lies, deceit,
>>>and mostly by his arrogance and demeaning of others,
>>>deserved to have all the **** he has dumped here
>>>thrown right back in his face.
>>
>>
>>Uh, I don't believe you. I don't believe you think "Arny, did you ****
>>your dead son?" is in any way justified on any level.
>
>
> I don't think it is justified. There is simply no excuse. It is
> disturbing and needs more justification and rationalization than Arny
> deserves it. The question that comes to mind, Is there anything that
> crosses the line?


I agree, that's a valid question.


>>The words
>>themselves don't bother me, nor does Arny being insulted at all. What
>>bothers me is the idea that there are people on this group that can say
>>that as a joke, and that there are people like you that can confuse
>>themselves into thinking that's acceptable.
>
>
> Yeah, that makes sense.... not.
>
>>Let's try a different tack: what could a George Middius, a
>>Roy/the/Graham Briggs/Devil/Davies/Davis, a "ScottW", or a Stephen
>>McElroy say on this group that, in your opinion, that they should be
>>held accountable for?
>
>
> How about playing a subjectivist yet trashing equipment never heard based
> on something as stupid as country of origin?


And that's an invalid question. You discount a person's experiences
because you're not bright.

[George M. Middius]

Scottie said:

> I don't think it is justified. There is simply no excuse.

Oh yes there is. What you're trying to say, I believe, is that
according to *your* morality, there is no *justification* that *you*
accept for such a comment.

> disturbing and needs more justification and rationalization than Arny
> deserves it.

Not in my mind. the fact that you don't understand why that pile of
turds does, *in fact*, deserve it shows a major gap in your prized
moral code.


> The question that comes to mind, Is there anything that
> crosses the line?

In my view, nothing crosses the line with Krooger.

Have you considered that nobody on RAO says anything similar to
anybody other than Krooger? Is it possible you're failing to perceive
a great big part of why Mr. **** is so offensive to most of us?

The underlying fact that you're ignoring is that it was Turdy who
*originally* set the bar for personal insults. If you look back at his
early posts on RAO, you'll see the whack comments about his wife being
a whore, his descriptions of his own alleged sexual activities, his
stated beliefs that others want to have sex with him, etc. I've posted
collections of Kroo-quotes on this subject many times. Do you think
****-for-Brains has any right to complain because he can't take the
same **** he dishes out?


> > Let's try a different tack: what could a George Middius, a
> > Roy/the/Graham Briggs/Devil/Davies/Davis, a "ScottW", or a Stephen
> > McElroy say on this group that, in your opinion, that they should be
> > held accountable for?

> How about playing a subjectivist yet trashing equipment never heard based
> on something as stupid as country of origin?

Good, Scottie -- you nailed Gregipus's irrationality nicely. Now just
work on understanding why Krooger is so much worse than any other RAO
regular.

[George M. Middius]

Gregipus Vertiginous skates on the thin ice of his cascading ego
trips.

> > Why do you think anybody is the least bit interested in answering your
> > asinine questions?

> Tacit admission or your lying duly noted.

Random degeneration of so-called "world class" language skills noted.
Ridiculously overblown idea of your intellect observed. Inability to
remember lessons from last week acknowledged. Grotesque failure as a
human being accepted. Suicide eagerly anticipated.

[ScottW]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Scottie said:
>
> > I don't think it is justified. There is simply no excuse.
>
> Oh yes there is. What you're trying to say, I believe, is that
> according to *your* morality, there is no *justification* that *you*
> accept for such a comment.

Thanks for the clarification. I forget that you do suffer from alternate
morality.
>
> > disturbing and needs more justification and rationalization than Arny
> > deserves it.
>
> Not in my mind. the fact that you don't understand why that pile of
> turds does, *in fact*, deserve it shows a major gap in your prized
> moral code.

He may deserve it but this is a public forum. You cannot restrict or
guarantee that Arny is the only one who has to deal with this. If nothin
else, the disrespect of a dead person you never knew is wrong.

>
>
> > The question that comes to mind, Is there anything that
> > crosses the line?
>
> In my view, nothing crosses the line with Krooger.

Then Trotsky is right and you are far more dangerous than Arny.
>
> Have you considered that nobody on RAO says anything similar to
> anybody other than Krooger?

Irrelevant.

> Is it possible you're failing to perceive
> a great big part of why Mr. **** is so offensive to most of us?

I don't care how offensive he is. You can't justify everything with
that.
You sound like a guy who agrees with Latino machismo where killing wives
to defend honor is ok.
>
> The underlying fact that you're ignoring is that it was Turdy who
> *originally* set the bar for personal insults.

Hey, great excuse. Let turdy set the standard for your own behavior.
Some backbone you got there George. So Turdy knows he can drag you into the
pit with him because you have no moral fiber of your own. I'm impressed.

> If you look back at his
> early posts on RAO, you'll see the whack comments about his wife being
> a whore, his descriptions of his own alleged sexual activities, his
> stated beliefs that others want to have sex with him, etc. I've posted
> collections of Kroo-quotes on this subject many times. Do you think
> ****-for-Brains has any right to complain because he can't take the
> same **** he dishes out?

No. But you're missing the point.

ScottW

[George M. Middius]

Scottie reverts to his earlier disease.

> > If you look back at his
> > early posts on RAO, you'll see the whack comments about his wife being
> > a whore, his descriptions of his own alleged sexual activities, his
> > stated beliefs that others want to have sex with him, etc. I've posted
> > collections of Kroo-quotes on this subject many times. Do you think
> > ****-for-Brains has any right to complain because he can't take the
> > same **** he dishes out?
>
> No. But you're missing the point.

If you think the point is how much you're appalled at what I say to
Turdborg, then it's you who is actually missing the point.

[ScottW]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Scottie reverts to his earlier disease.
>
> > > If you look back at his
> > > early posts on RAO, you'll see the whack comments about his wife
being
> > > a whore, his descriptions of his own alleged sexual activities, his
> > > stated beliefs that others want to have sex with him, etc. I've
posted
> > > collections of Kroo-quotes on this subject many times. Do you think
> > > ****-for-Brains has any right to complain because he can't take the
> > > same **** he dishes out?
> >
> > No. But you're missing the point.
>
> If you think the point is how much you're appalled at what I say to
> Turdborg, then it's you who is actually missing the point.
>
>
That premise is wrong so I am apparently not missing the point.

The fact that you have no limits when it comes to dealing with Arny is
undoubtedly satisfying to Arny. In effect, you're pleasing him. You two
have developed a very sick symbiotic relationship.
How naive can you be, George? You take the low road and Arny is assured
in his mind, that he is the better man. Ever notice that when someone
takes the high road on Arny is when his problems become most apparent?

ScottW

[George M. Middius]

Scottie said:

> > If you think the point is how much you're appalled at what I say to
> > Turdborg, then it's you who is actually missing the point.

> That premise is wrong so I am apparently not missing the point.

Is that what passes for "logic" in your world?

> The fact that you have no limits when it comes to dealing with Arny is
> undoubtedly satisfying to Arny. In effect, you're pleasing him. You two
> have developed a very sick symbiotic relationship.

That's a theory, but it falls short when you consider Mr. ****'s
frequent and bitchy complaints about the "abuse" he claims to receive.
If he loves it, why does he bitch about it?

> How naive can you be, George? You take the low road and Arny is assured
> in his mind, that he is the better man. Ever notice that when someone
> takes the high road on Arny is when his problems become most apparent?

The fact that you're ascribing human-type motivations to that twisted
sack of **** tells me your own circuits are misfiring badly. Who cares
what that sack of **** feels or believes? Oh -- you do. 'Nuff said.

[ScottW]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Scottie said:
>
> > > If you think the point is how much you're appalled at what I say to
> > > Turdborg, then it's you who is actually missing the point.
>
> > That premise is wrong so I am apparently not missing the point.
>
> Is that what passes for "logic" in your world?
>
> > The fact that you have no limits when it comes to dealing with Arny is
> > undoubtedly satisfying to Arny. In effect, you're pleasing him. You
two
> > have developed a very sick symbiotic relationship.
>
> That's a theory, but it falls short when you consider Mr. ****'s
> frequent and bitchy complaints about the "abuse" he claims to receive.
> If he loves it, why does he bitch about it?

Im going to paste your own words here:
The fact that you're ascribing human-type motivations to that twisted
sack of **** tells me your own circuits are misfiring badly.

>
> > How naive can you be, George? You take the low road and Arny is
assured
> > in his mind, that he is the better man. Ever notice that when someone
> > takes the high road on Arny is when his problems become most apparent?
>
> The fact that you're ascribing human-type motivations to that twisted
> sack of **** tells me your own circuits are misfiring badly. Who cares
> what that sack of **** feels or believes? Oh -- you do. 'Nuff said.

Can't admit that you need Arny, eh? I know that reality is hard for you
to stomach, but all your squealing doesn't change that sad truth.

ScottW

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"trotsky" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> George M. Middius wrote:
> >
> > Gregipus Virginicus tries some dirty talk.
> >
> >
> >>Where's the taunting, George--up your ass with the WMDs?
> >
> >
> > Why do you think anybody is the least bit interested in answering your
> > asinine questions?
>
>
> Tacit admission or your lying duly noted.
>

Trots evasion of George's question duly noted.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"trotsky" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> > "trotsky" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> >
> >>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> >>
> >>>"trotsky" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> >
> >>>>And Arny's was the only heinous behavior in the matter?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Arny is a completely despicable asshole.
> >>
> >>
> >>Agreed.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>based upon his behavioir here, his lies, deceit,
> >>>and mostly by his arrogance and demeaning of others,
> >>>deserved to have all the **** he has dumped here
> >>>thrown right back in his face.
> >>
> >>
> >>Uh, I don't believe you.
> >
> >
> > Don't confuse believing me with agreeing with me.
> >
> >
> >
> >>I don't believe you think "Arny, did you ****
> >>your dead son?" is in any way justified on any level. The words
> >>themselves don't bother me, nor does Arny being insulted at all. What
> >>bothers me is the idea that there are people on this group that can say
> >>that as a joke, and that there are people like you that can confuse
> >>themselves into thinking that's acceptable.
> >>
> >
> >
> > You make no sense. The words don't offend you if they are
> > seriously or meant as an insult, but used as a joke they offend you.
> > No offense intended, but you're a mommy****er.
> >
> > BTW, tell me what I meant by that.
>
>
> I'm not sure what you're question is. Do you really think there
> are/were circumstances when you could take the question "Arny, did you
> **** your dead kid?" seriously?
>

As much so as the question "Do you think I killed
him with a baseball bat?"


>
> >>Let's try a different tack: what could a George Middius, a
> >>Roy/the/Graham Briggs/Devil/Davies/Davis, a "ScottW", or a Stephen
> >>McElroy say on this group that, in your opinion, that they should be
> >>held accountable for?
> >>
> >
> >
> > It's a different tack, alright.
> >
> > Either eveybody should be held accountable for everything, or
> > nobody should held accountable for nothing.
>
>
> Good cop out. I should've figured you wouldn't be able to say anything
> substantive. At least your anus gets a good workout, right?
>

It is the logical and correct answer.
Now answer this: Held accountable in what way?




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:65Vmb.34409$gi2.30643@fed1read01...
>

>
> He may deserve it but this is a public forum. You cannot restrict or
> guarantee that Arny is the only one who has to deal with this. If nothin
> else, the disrespect of a dead person you never knew is wrong.
>

I have no disrespect for Nate. It is a shame that Arny has
no respect for him, nor for his wife.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[George M. Middius]

The Idiot said:

> > > That premise is wrong so I am apparently not missing the point.

> > Is that what passes for "logic" in your world?

Inability to explain faulty syllogism noted. Rank stupidity observed.


> > That's a theory, but it falls short when you consider Mr. ****'s
> > frequent and bitchy complaints about the "abuse" he claims to receive.
> > If he loves it, why does he bitch about it?

> Im going to paste your own words here:
> The fact that you're ascribing human-type motivations to that twisted
> sack of **** tells me your own circuits are misfiring badly.

Do enlighten me. Just answer the question, which wasn't rhetorical in
the first place: If he loves it, why does he bitch about it?


> > > How naive can you be, George? You take the low road and Arny is
> assured

Please fix your newsreader, Idiot.

> > > in his mind, that he is the better man. Ever notice that when someone
> > > takes the high road on Arny is when his problems become most apparent?

> > The fact that you're ascribing human-type motivations to that twisted
> > sack of **** tells me your own circuits are misfiring badly. Who cares
> > what that sack of **** feels or believes? Oh -- you do. 'Nuff said.

Here, I used the word "care" in the meaning of care, not in the
meaning of speculate or guess. In the example above, where you
stupidly repeated my own words back to me, the context was that *you*
were attempting to explain Mr. ****'s emotions. You ascribed
satisfaction to him in the context of lecturing me on why I should do
something in order to deprive Turdy of the satisfaction you claimed he
feels.

These are two different situations, Idiot.

> Can't admit that you need Arny, eh?

The premise is faulty so there's nothing to admit.

> I know that reality is hard for you
> to stomach, but all your squealing doesn't change that sad truth.

Are you familiar with the acronym "OSAF"? Or maybe you're just trying
to provoke me with random thrusts. The net effect is that you are,
typically, being stupid. Idiot.

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:ceXmb.35313$gi2.26128@fed1read01...
Ever notice that when someone
> takes the high road on Arny is when his problems become most apparent?
>
yes, like Atkinson.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Lionel]

George M. Middius wrote:

> Just answer the question, which wasn't rhetorical in
> the first place: If he loves it, why does he bitch about it?

Did you ever play tennis George ?
What would happen if one of the player keep the ball for himself ?
Who is stupid George ?

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
> That's a theory, but it falls short when you consider Mr. ****'s
> frequent and bitchy complaints about the "abuse" he claims to receive.
> If he loves it, why does he bitch about it?
>
He loves to receive abuse, and he loves to play the pity
card by bitching about it. Remember, this is the nerd in
high school who purposefully acts obnoxiously to provoke
beatings, then loves to whine about them. I just figures out
his inhereht psychologiacl problem:
Arny has a Jesus complex. He feels the need to be crucified,
so he has to act so obnoxiously, that he brings such abuse
raining down on his head. He needs to be seen as Jesus.
The suffering, the martyrdom, the adoration. His behavior
is part and parcel of his sick and twisted version of
Christianity.

My new nickname for Arny, henceforth is this: "Baby Jesus".




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[ScottW]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> The Idiot said:
>
> > > > That premise is wrong so I am apparently not missing the point.
>
> > > Is that what passes for "logic" in your world?
>
> Inability to explain faulty syllogism noted. Rank stupidity observed.
>
>
> > > That's a theory, but it falls short when you consider Mr. ****'s
> > > frequent and bitchy complaints about the "abuse" he claims to
receive.
> > > If he loves it, why does he bitch about it?

>
> > Im going to paste your own words here:
> > The fact that you're ascribing human-type motivations to that twisted
> > sack of **** tells me your own circuits are misfiring badly.
>
> Do enlighten me. Just answer the question, which wasn't rhetorical in
> the first place: If he loves it, why does he bitch about it?

So you'll do it some more. It's like some kids need attention and even
negative attention will do.

>
>
> > > > How naive can you be, George? You take the low road and Arny is
> > assured
>
> Please fix your newsreader, Idiot.

Don't obfuscate, moron.
>
> > > > in his mind, that he is the better man. Ever notice that when
someone
> > > > takes the high road on Arny is when his problems become most
apparent?
>
> > > The fact that you're ascribing human-type motivations to that twisted
> > > sack of **** tells me your own circuits are misfiring badly. Who
cares
> > > what that sack of **** feels or believes? Oh -- you do. 'Nuff said.
>
> Here, I used the word "care" in the meaning of care, not in the
> meaning of speculate or guess. In the example above, where you
> stupidly repeated my own words back to me, the context was that *you*
> were attempting to explain Mr. ****'s emotions. You ascribed
> satisfaction to him in the context of lecturing me on why I should do
> something in order to deprive Turdy of the satisfaction you claimed he
> feels.
>
> These are two different situations, Idiot.

Maybe that is why I didn't paste the entire paragraph.
Could you be as challenged as Trots with comprehension?
>
> > Can't admit that you need Arny, eh?
>
> The premise is faulty so there's nothing to admit.
>
> > I know that reality is hard for you
> > to stomach, but all your squealing doesn't change that sad truth.
>
> Are you familiar with the acronym "OSAF"? Or maybe you're just trying
> to provoke me with random thrusts. The net effect is that you are,
> typically, being stupid. Idiot.

Apparently you are provoked, thought that isn't my objective.
Idiot, moron, stupid...... apparently you are incapable of rational
discussion of this topic.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> news:ceXmb.35313$gi2.26128@fed1read01...
> Ever notice that when someone
> > takes the high road on Arny is when his problems become most apparent?
> >
> yes, like Atkinson.

Exactly.

ScottW

[George M. Middius]

Sockpuppet Yustabe said:

> > That's a theory, but it falls short when you consider Mr. ****'s
> > frequent and bitchy complaints about the "abuse" he claims to receive.
> > If he loves it, why does he bitch about it?
> >
> He loves to receive abuse, and he loves to play the pity
> card by bitching about it. Remember, this is the nerd in
> high school who purposefully acts obnoxiously to provoke
> beatings, then loves to whine about them. I just figures out
> his inhereht psychologiacl problem:
> Arny has a Jesus complex. He feels the need to be crucified,
> so he has to act so obnoxiously, that he brings such abuse
> raining down on his head. He needs to be seen as Jesus.
> The suffering, the martyrdom, the adoration. His behavior
> is part and parcel of his sick and twisted version of
> Christianity.

Good working theory.


> My new nickname for Arny, henceforth is this: "Baby Jesus".

How about JesusBorg? ;-)

[ScottW]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Sockpuppet Yustabe said:
>
> > > That's a theory, but it falls short when you consider Mr. ****'s
> > > frequent and bitchy complaints about the "abuse" he claims to
receive.
> > > If he loves it, why does he bitch about it?
> > >
> > He loves to receive abuse, and he loves to play the pity
> > card by bitching about it. Remember, this is the nerd in
> > high school who purposefully acts obnoxiously to provoke
> > beatings, then loves to whine about them. I just figures out
> > his inhereht psychologiacl problem:
> > Arny has a Jesus complex. He feels the need to be crucified,
> > so he has to act so obnoxiously, that he brings such abuse
> > raining down on his head. He needs to be seen as Jesus.
> > The suffering, the martyrdom, the adoration. His behavior
> > is part and parcel of his sick and twisted version of
> > Christianity.
>
> Good working theory.

So why accomodate him?

ScottW

[trotsky]

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> "trotsky" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>George M. Middius wrote:
>>
>>>Gregipus Virginicus tries some dirty talk.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Where's the taunting, George--up your ass with the WMDs?
>>>
>>>
>>>Why do you think anybody is the least bit interested in answering your
>>>asinine questions?
>>
>>
>>Tacit admission or your lying duly noted.
>>
>
>
> Trots evasion of George's question duly noted.


Is that how it works? I ask George a question which he is too gay to
answer, and you blame *me*? Pretty twisted stuff. Methinks you're on
the hunt for butt buddies.

[trotsky]

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> "trotsky" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>>
>>>"trotsky" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"trotsky" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>And Arny's was the only heinous behavior in the matter?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Arny is a completely despicable asshole.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Agreed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>based upon his behavioir here, his lies, deceit,
>>>>>and mostly by his arrogance and demeaning of others,
>>>>>deserved to have all the **** he has dumped here
>>>>>thrown right back in his face.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Uh, I don't believe you.
>>>
>>>
>>>Don't confuse believing me with agreeing with me.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I don't believe you think "Arny, did you ****
>>>>your dead son?" is in any way justified on any level. The words
>>>>themselves don't bother me, nor does Arny being insulted at all. What
>>>>bothers me is the idea that there are people on this group that can say
>>>>that as a joke, and that there are people like you that can confuse
>>>>themselves into thinking that's acceptable.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>You make no sense. The words don't offend you if they are
>>>seriously or meant as an insult, but used as a joke they offend you.
>>>No offense intended, but you're a mommy****er.
>>>
>>>BTW, tell me what I meant by that.
>>
>>
>>I'm not sure what you're question is. Do you really think there
>>are/were circumstances when you could take the question "Arny, did you
>>**** your dead kid?" seriously?
>>
>
>
> As much so as the question "Do you think I killed
> him with a baseball bat?"


What, you think that was Arny making a "joke"? WTF?


>>>>Let's try a different tack: what could a George Middius, a
>>>>Roy/the/Graham Briggs/Devil/Davies/Davis, a "ScottW", or a Stephen
>>>>McElroy say on this group that, in your opinion, that they should be
>>>>held accountable for?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>It's a different tack, alright.
>>>
>>>Either eveybody should be held accountable for everything, or
>>>nobody should held accountable for nothing.
>>
>>
>>Good cop out. I should've figured you wouldn't be able to say anything
>>substantive. At least your anus gets a good workout, right?
>>
>
>
> It is the logical and correct answer.
> Now answer this: Held accountable in what way?


No, sorry, you've already taken sides in your last post.
You have no interest in accountibility that I can see.

[trotsky]

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> news:65Vmb.34409$gi2.30643@fed1read01...
>
>
>> He may deserve it but this is a public forum. You cannot restrict or
>>guarantee that Arny is the only one who has to deal with this. If nothin
>>else, the disrespect of a dead person you never knew is wrong.
>>
>
>
> I have no disrespect for Nate. It is a shame that Arny has
> no respect for him, nor for his wife.


How's that? Because he put the kid's picture on a website? I think
most normal people would've grieved privately, but that's hardly a sign
of disrespect. Can you explain your comment, please?

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:2mYmb.35793$gi2.6331@fed1read01...
>
> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Sockpuppet Yustabe said:
> >
> > > > That's a theory, but it falls short when you consider Mr. ****'s
> > > > frequent and bitchy complaints about the "abuse" he claims to
> receive.
> > > > If he loves it, why does he bitch about it?
> > > >
> > > He loves to receive abuse, and he loves to play the pity
> > > card by bitching about it. Remember, this is the nerd in
> > > high school who purposefully acts obnoxiously to provoke
> > > beatings, then loves to whine about them. I just figures out
> > > his inhereht psychologiacl problem:
> > > Arny has a Jesus complex. He feels the need to be crucified,
> > > so he has to act so obnoxiously, that he brings such abuse
> > > raining down on his head. He needs to be seen as Jesus.
> > > The suffering, the martyrdom, the adoration. His behavior
> > > is part and parcel of his sick and twisted version of
> > > Christianity.
> >
> > Good working theory.
>
> So why accomodate him?
>

If we beat him up enough, maybe he will go away
and take his obnoxious behavior somewhere else.
At worst, it will leave him half fulfilled, suffering
without the adulation.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"trotsky" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> > "trotsky" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >
> >>George M. Middius wrote:
> >>
> >>>Gregipus Virginicus tries some dirty talk.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Where's the taunting, George--up your ass with the WMDs?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Why do you think anybody is the least bit interested in answering your
> >>>asinine questions?
> >>
> >>
> >>Tacit admission or your lying duly noted.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Trots evasion of George's question duly noted.
>
>
> Is that how it works? I ask George a question which he is too gay to
> answer, and you blame *me*? Pretty twisted stuff. Methinks you're on
> the hunt for butt buddies.
>

Just like you, I prefer pussy. Maybe a little leaner and younger, though.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"trotsky" > wrote in message
ink.net...

>
>
> No, sorry, you've already taken sides in your last post.
> You have no interest in accountibility that I can see.
>

Accountable in what way?
Who's accountability for what?
Who gets an exemption, and what things are exempt?




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"trotsky" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> > "ScottW" > wrote in message
> > news:65Vmb.34409$gi2.30643@fed1read01...
> >
> >
> >> He may deserve it but this is a public forum. You cannot restrict or
> >>guarantee that Arny is the only one who has to deal with this. If
nothin
> >>else, the disrespect of a dead person you never knew is wrong.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I have no disrespect for Nate. It is a shame that Arny has
> > no respect for him, nor for his wife.
>
>
> How's that? Because he put the kid's picture on a website? I think
> most normal people would've grieved privately, but that's hardly a sign
> of disrespect. Can you explain your comment, please?
>

Baby Jesus publicly trolled his tragedy for sympathy and adulation.
Its part of thehis Jesus complex.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[ScottW]

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > So why accomodate him?
> >
>
> If we beat him up enough, maybe he will go away
> and take his obnoxious behavior somewhere else.

Next idea?

> At worst, it will leave him half fulfilled, suffering
> without the adulation.

I don't see any benefit to this.

ScottW

[George M. Middius]

Scottie said:

> > Good working theory.
>
> So why accomodate him?

God, are you stupid.

[ScottW]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Scottie said:
>
> > > Good working theory.
> >
> > So why accomodate him?
>
> God, are you stupid.

Answer the question.

ScottW

[trotsky]

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> news:2mYmb.35793$gi2.6331@fed1read01...
>
>>"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>
>>>Sockpuppet Yustabe said:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>That's a theory, but it falls short when you consider Mr. ****'s
>>>>>frequent and bitchy complaints about the "abuse" he claims to
>>
>>receive.
>>
>>>>>If he loves it, why does he bitch about it?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>He loves to receive abuse, and he loves to play the pity
>>>>card by bitching about it. Remember, this is the nerd in
>>>>high school who purposefully acts obnoxiously to provoke
>>>>beatings, then loves to whine about them. I just figures out
>>>>his inhereht psychologiacl problem:
>>>>Arny has a Jesus complex. He feels the need to be crucified,
>>>>so he has to act so obnoxiously, that he brings such abuse
>>>>raining down on his head. He needs to be seen as Jesus.
>>>>The suffering, the martyrdom, the adoration. His behavior
>>>>is part and parcel of his sick and twisted version of
>>>>Christianity.
>>>
>>>Good working theory.
>>
>> So why accomodate him?
>>
>
>
> If we beat him up enough, maybe he will go away
> and take his obnoxious behavior somewhere else.
> At worst, it will leave him half fulfilled, suffering
> without the adulation.


It's official: you really are stupid. I've gotten a thousand times the
bull**** that Arny's gotten.

[trotsky]

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> "trotsky" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>>
>>>"trotsky" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>George M. Middius wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Gregipus Virginicus tries some dirty talk.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Where's the taunting, George--up your ass with the WMDs?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Why do you think anybody is the least bit interested in answering your
>>>>>asinine questions?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Tacit admission or your lying duly noted.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Trots evasion of George's question duly noted.
>>
>>
>>Is that how it works? I ask George a question which he is too gay to
>>answer, and you blame *me*? Pretty twisted stuff. Methinks you're on
>>the hunt for butt buddies.
>>
>
>
> Just like you, I prefer pussy. Maybe a little leaner and younger, though.


Okay then, McElroy--he's definitely a pussy.

[trotsky]

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> "trotsky" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>
>>
>>No, sorry, you've already taken sides in your last post.
>> You have no interest in accountibility that I can see.
>>
>
>
> Accountable in what way?
> Who's accountability for what?
> Who gets an exemption, and what things are exempt?


Why are you asking me? Mother Hen's the one attempting to make the
rules. I'm the one tearing them asunder.

[trotsky]

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> "trotsky" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
>>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>>
>>>"ScottW" > wrote in message
>>>news:65Vmb.34409$gi2.30643@fed1read01...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> He may deserve it but this is a public forum. You cannot restrict or
>>>>guarantee that Arny is the only one who has to deal with this. If
>
> nothin
>
>>>>else, the disrespect of a dead person you never knew is wrong.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I have no disrespect for Nate. It is a shame that Arny has
>>>no respect for him, nor for his wife.
>>
>>
>>How's that? Because he put the kid's picture on a website? I think
>>most normal people would've grieved privately, but that's hardly a sign
>>of disrespect. Can you explain your comment, please?
>>
>
>
> Baby Jesus publicly trolled his tragedy for sympathy and adulation.
> Its part of thehis Jesus complex.


Oh, I see. I wonder what type of trolling I'm guilty of by posting a
link to my website.

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message

> Gregipus Batticus begs for more punishment.
>
>>> Yes, it was very sick when the first one
>>> to try and capitalize on the death of
>>> your son Nate was you, yourself.
>
>> And Arny's was the only heinous behavior in the matter?
>
> You helped your "cause" by taunting Mr. **** about beating Nate to
> death with a baseball bat. I guess everything you do is OK since
> you're a piece of **** with a name, not an anonymous piece of ****.

Let's talk about the fact that you did essentially the same thing, Middius.

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:tiUmb.34401$gi2.7093@fed1read01
> "trotsky" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
>>> based upon his behavioir here, his lies, deceit,
>>> and mostly by his arrogance and demeaning of others,
>>> deserved to have all the **** he has dumped here
>>> thrown right back in his face.
>>
>>
>> Uh, I don't believe you. I don't believe you think "Arny, did you
>> **** your dead son?" is in any way justified on any level.
>
> I don't think it is justified. There is simply no excuse. It is
> disturbing and needs more justification and rationalization than Arny
> deserves it. The question that comes to mind, Is there anything that
> crosses the line?

On RAO? Apparently not.

Thanks.

[MiNE 109]

In article et>,
trotsky > wrote:

> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> > "ScottW" > wrote in message
> > news:2mYmb.35793$gi2.6331@fed1read01...
> >
> >>"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>>
> >>>Sockpuppet Yustabe said:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>That's a theory, but it falls short when you consider Mr. ****'s
> >>>>>frequent and bitchy complaints about the "abuse" he claims to
> >>
> >>receive.
> >>
> >>>>>If he loves it, why does he bitch about it?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>He loves to receive abuse, and he loves to play the pity
> >>>>card by bitching about it. Remember, this is the nerd in
> >>>>high school who purposefully acts obnoxiously to provoke
> >>>>beatings, then loves to whine about them. I just figures out
> >>>>his inhereht psychologiacl problem:
> >>>>Arny has a Jesus complex. He feels the need to be crucified,
> >>>>so he has to act so obnoxiously, that he brings such abuse
> >>>>raining down on his head. He needs to be seen as Jesus.
> >>>>The suffering, the martyrdom, the adoration. His behavior
> >>>>is part and parcel of his sick and twisted version of
> >>>>Christianity.
> >>>
> >>>Good working theory.
> >>
> >> So why accomodate him?
> >>
> >
> >
> > If we beat him up enough, maybe he will go away
> > and take his obnoxious behavior somewhere else.
> > At worst, it will leave him half fulfilled, suffering
> > without the adulation.
>
>
> It's official: you really are stupid. I've gotten a thousand times the
> bull**** that Arny's gotten.

Great. Duelling Messiahs.

[MiNE 109]

In article et>,
trotsky > wrote:

> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> > "trotsky" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> >
> >>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> >>
> >>>"ScottW" > wrote in message
> >>>news:65Vmb.34409$gi2.30643@fed1read01...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> He may deserve it but this is a public forum. You cannot restrict or
> >>>>guarantee that Arny is the only one who has to deal with this. If
> >
> > nothin
> >
> >>>>else, the disrespect of a dead person you never knew is wrong.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I have no disrespect for Nate. It is a shame that Arny has
> >>>no respect for him, nor for his wife.
> >>
> >>
> >>How's that? Because he put the kid's picture on a website? I think
> >>most normal people would've grieved privately, but that's hardly a sign
> >>of disrespect. Can you explain your comment, please?
> >>
> >
> >
> > Baby Jesus publicly trolled his tragedy for sympathy and adulation.
> > Its part of thehis Jesus complex.
>
>
> Oh, I see. I wonder what type of trolling I'm guilty of by posting a
> link to my website.
>

That would be "spamming".

Stephen

[George M. Middius]

The Idiot said:

> > > > Good working theory.
> > >
> > > So why accomodate him?
> >
> > God, are you stupid.
>
> Answer the question.

I already did, Idiot. Short-term memory compromised? Intelligence
disemboweled? Perhaps you need a booster shot of Kroofulness.

[George M. Middius]

MiNE 109 said:

> Great. Duelling Messiahs.

Unless Gregipus fancies himself the baby Jesus, that is.

[George M. Middius]

Langis said:

> >Baby Jesus publicly trolled his tragedy for sympathy and adulation.
>
> You are correct, but please do NOT refer to Arnold as "Baby Jesus"
> that is simply horrendous.

How about "Crybaby Jesus"?

[ScottW]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> The Idiot said:
>
> > > > > Good working theory.
> > > >
> > > > So why accomodate him?
> > >
> > > God, are you stupid.
> >
> > Answer the question.
>
> I already did, Idiot.

No, You didn't. Obviously the truth in this matter is terrifying for you.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Langis" > wrote in message
...
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote:
>
> >Baby Jesus publicly trolled his tragedy for sympathy and adulation.
>
> You are correct, but please do NOT refer to Arnold as "Baby Jesus"
> that is simply horrendous.

Audio related?

ScottW

[George M. Middius]

The Idiot said:

> > > > > > Good working theory.
> > > > >
> > > > > So why accomodate him?
> > > >
> > > > God, are you stupid.
> > >
> > > Answer the question.
> >
> > I already did, Idiot.
>
> No, You didn't.

Prove it, Idiot.

> Obviously the truth in this matter is terrifying for you.

Not at all. I've been facing the truth that you are a monumental Idiot
for quite some time. It's simply a fact of life that I accept with
aplomb. Remember how you used to adore the Krooborg? Silly me, I
thought you'd been knocked upside the head and some sense accidentally
got mixed in with the Idiocy. Oh well.

[ScottW]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> The Idiot said:
>
> > > > > > > Good working theory.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So why accomodate him?
> > > > >
> > > > > God, are you stupid.
> > > >
> > > > Answer the question.
> > >
> > > I already did, Idiot.
> >
> > No, You didn't.
>
> Prove it, Idiot.
>
> > Obviously the truth in this matter is terrifying for you.
>
> Not at all. I've been facing the truth that you are a monumental Idiot
> for quite some time. It's simply a fact of life that I accept with
> aplomb. Remember how you used to adore the Krooborg? Silly me, I
> thought you'd been knocked upside the head and some sense accidentally
> got mixed in with the Idiocy. Oh well.

I told you that any discussion on this topic drives you into an us vs them
nether world.
Oh well.

ScottW

[Arny Krueger]

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message


> He loves to receive abuse, and he loves to play the pity
> card by bitching about it.

Nope, I just think that there are reasonable limits to how people express
themselves in public.

>Remember, this is the nerd in
> high school who purposefully acts obnoxiously to provoke
> beatings, then loves to whine about them.

Wrong again. You do have some wild fantasies, don't you sockpuppet Yustabe?

BTW, perchance this is really autobiographical, or maybe a story from the
life of Middius?

>I just figures out
> his inhereht psychologiacl problem:

I'm sorry I've got you so upset you're writing this badly!

LOL!

> Arny has a Jesus complex. He feels the need to be crucified,
> so he has to act so obnoxiously, that he brings such abuse
> raining down on his head. He needs to be seen as Jesus.

You're one sick puppy, sockpuppet Yustabe.

> The suffering, the martyrdom, the adoration. His behavior
> is part and parcel of his sick and twisted version of
> Christianity.

> My new nickname for Arny, henceforth is this: "Baby Jesus".

If you have the courage of your convictions sockpuppet Yustabe and aren't
just a pathetic blow hard you'll use it early and often.

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:2mYmb.35793$gi2.6331@fed1read01
> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> Sockpuppet Yustabe said:
>>
>>>> That's a theory, but it falls short when you consider Mr. ****'s
>>>> frequent and bitchy complaints about the "abuse" he claims to
>>>> receive. If he loves it, why does he bitch about it?
>>>>
>>> He loves to receive abuse, and he loves to play the pity
>>> card by bitching about it. Remember, this is the nerd in
>>> high school who purposefully acts obnoxiously to provoke
>>> beatings, then loves to whine about them. I just figures out
>>> his inhereht psychologiacl problem:
>>> Arny has a Jesus complex. He feels the need to be crucified,
>>> so he has to act so obnoxiously, that he brings such abuse
>>> raining down on his head. He needs to be seen as Jesus.
>>> The suffering, the martyrdom, the adoration. His behavior
>>> is part and parcel of his sick and twisted version of
>>> Christianity.
>>
>> Good working theory.
>
> So why accomodate him?

You're all nuts. All 4 of you. Hopelessly nuts.

[Gary Bishop]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>"Gary Bishop" > wrote in message

>> "kgs" > wrote:
>>
>>> whats your angle
>>> "Lived EHT" > wrote in message
>>> n.net...
>>>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 12:56:02 -0500, dave weil >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ...it's like shooting ducks in a pickle (as Mr. Krueger might say)
>>>>
>>>> Or batting coffins* through the eye of a camel.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Thine
>>>>
>>>> * Obligatory dead-Nate mention
>>>
>>
>> What the hell are they talking about?
>
>Their pathological desire to capitalize on a family tragedy that afflicted a
>RAO regular they don't like.
>
>Pretty sick, eh?
>

I have just been reading about you. Yes Sick!

[ScottW]

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

> > So why accomodate him?
>
> You're all nuts. All 4 of you. Hopelessly nuts.

You're as afraid as Middius to face this question.

ScottW

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"trotsky" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> > "ScottW" > wrote in message
> > news:2mYmb.35793$gi2.6331@fed1read01...
> >
> >>"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>>
> >>>Sockpuppet Yustabe said:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>That's a theory, but it falls short when you consider Mr. ****'s
> >>>>>frequent and bitchy complaints about the "abuse" he claims to
> >>
> >>receive.
> >>
> >>>>>If he loves it, why does he bitch about it?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>He loves to receive abuse, and he loves to play the pity
> >>>>card by bitching about it. Remember, this is the nerd in
> >>>>high school who purposefully acts obnoxiously to provoke
> >>>>beatings, then loves to whine about them. I just figures out
> >>>>his inhereht psychologiacl problem:
> >>>>Arny has a Jesus complex. He feels the need to be crucified,
> >>>>so he has to act so obnoxiously, that he brings such abuse
> >>>>raining down on his head. He needs to be seen as Jesus.
> >>>>The suffering, the martyrdom, the adoration. His behavior
> >>>>is part and parcel of his sick and twisted version of
> >>>>Christianity.
> >>>
> >>>Good working theory.
> >>
> >> So why accomodate him?
> >>
> >
> >
> > If we beat him up enough, maybe he will go away
> > and take his obnoxious behavior somewhere else.
> > At worst, it will leave him half fulfilled, suffering
> > without the adulation.
>


Sweet baby of Sweet Baby Jesus!!!
> It's official: you really are stupid. I've gotten a thousand times the
> bull**** that Arny's gotten.
>




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"trotsky" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> > "trotsky" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> >
> >>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> >>
> >>>"ScottW" > wrote in message
> >>>news:65Vmb.34409$gi2.30643@fed1read01...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> He may deserve it but this is a public forum. You cannot restrict
or
> >>>>guarantee that Arny is the only one who has to deal with this. If
> >
> > nothin
> >
> >>>>else, the disrespect of a dead person you never knew is wrong.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I have no disrespect for Nate. It is a shame that Arny has
> >>>no respect for him, nor for his wife.
> >>
> >>
> >>How's that? Because he put the kid's picture on a website? I think
> >>most normal people would've grieved privately, but that's hardly a sign
> >>of disrespect. Can you explain your comment, please?
> >>
> >
> >
> > Baby Jesus publicly trolled his tragedy for sympathy and adulation.
> > Its part of thehis Jesus complex.
>
>
> Oh, I see. I wonder what type of trolling I'm guilty of by posting a
> link to my website.
>

You are not Baby Jesus.
You can be Baby of Baby Jesus, if you want.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"MiNE 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>,
> trotsky > wrote:
>
> > Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> > > "ScottW" > wrote in message
> > > news:2mYmb.35793$gi2.6331@fed1read01...
> > >
> > >>"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>>Sockpuppet Yustabe said:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>>That's a theory, but it falls short when you consider Mr. ****'s
> > >>>>>frequent and bitchy complaints about the "abuse" he claims to
> > >>
> > >>receive.
> > >>
> > >>>>>If he loves it, why does he bitch about it?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>He loves to receive abuse, and he loves to play the pity
> > >>>>card by bitching about it. Remember, this is the nerd in
> > >>>>high school who purposefully acts obnoxiously to provoke
> > >>>>beatings, then loves to whine about them. I just figures out
> > >>>>his inhereht psychologiacl problem:
> > >>>>Arny has a Jesus complex. He feels the need to be crucified,
> > >>>>so he has to act so obnoxiously, that he brings such abuse
> > >>>>raining down on his head. He needs to be seen as Jesus.
> > >>>>The suffering, the martyrdom, the adoration. His behavior
> > >>>>is part and parcel of his sick and twisted version of
> > >>>>Christianity.
> > >>>
> > >>>Good working theory.
> > >>
> > >> So why accomodate him?
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > If we beat him up enough, maybe he will go away
> > > and take his obnoxious behavior somewhere else.
> > > At worst, it will leave him half fulfilled, suffering
> > > without the adulation.
> >
> >
> > It's official: you really are stupid. I've gotten a thousand times the
> > bull**** that Arny's gotten.
>
> Great. Duelling Messiahs.

Good one!




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Langis" > wrote in message
...
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote:
>
> >Baby Jesus publicly trolled his tragedy for sympathy and adulation.
>
> You are correct, but please do NOT refer to Arnold as "Baby Jesus"
> that is simply horrendous.

He's the one with a Jesus complex.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Langis said:
>
> > >Baby Jesus publicly trolled his tragedy for sympathy and adulation.
> >
> > You are correct, but please do NOT refer to Arnold as "Baby Jesus"
> > that is simply horrendous.
>
> How about "Crybaby Jesus"?
>
>

I like!!!




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:Z9_mb.36550$gi2.36460@fed1read01
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>
>>> So why accomodate him?
>>
>> You're all nuts. All 4 of you. Hopelessly nuts.
>
> You're as afraid as Middius to face this question.

What question might that be Scott? Why you aid and abet his attacks on me
while pretending to feign criticism of him?

[Arny Krueger]

"Gary Bishop" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Gary Bishop" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "kgs" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> whats your angle
>>>> "Lived EHT" > wrote in message
>>>> n.net...
>>>>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 12:56:02 -0500, dave weil >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ...it's like shooting ducks in a pickle (as Mr. Krueger might
>>>>>> say)
>>>>>
>>>>> Or batting coffins* through the eye of a camel.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Thine
>>>>>
>>>>> * Obligatory dead-Nate mention
>>>>
>>>
>>> What the hell are they talking about?
>>
>> Their pathological desire to capitalize on a family tragedy that
>> afflicted a RAO regular they don't like.
>>
>> Pretty sick, eh?
>>
>
> I have just been reading about you. Yes Sick!

What do you mean by that?

[trotsky]

MiNE 109 wrote:
> In article et>,
> trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>>
>>>"ScottW" > wrote in message
>>>news:2mYmb.35793$gi2.6331@fed1read01...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Sockpuppet Yustabe said:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>That's a theory, but it falls short when you consider Mr. ****'s
>>>>>>>frequent and bitchy complaints about the "abuse" he claims to
>>>>
>>>>receive.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>If he loves it, why does he bitch about it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>He loves to receive abuse, and he loves to play the pity
>>>>>>card by bitching about it. Remember, this is the nerd in
>>>>>>high school who purposefully acts obnoxiously to provoke
>>>>>>beatings, then loves to whine about them. I just figures out
>>>>>>his inhereht psychologiacl problem:
>>>>>>Arny has a Jesus complex. He feels the need to be crucified,
>>>>>>so he has to act so obnoxiously, that he brings such abuse
>>>>>>raining down on his head. He needs to be seen as Jesus.
>>>>>>The suffering, the martyrdom, the adoration. His behavior
>>>>>>is part and parcel of his sick and twisted version of
>>>>>>Christianity.
>>>>>
>>>>>Good working theory.
>>>>
>>>>So why accomodate him?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>If we beat him up enough, maybe he will go away
>>>and take his obnoxious behavior somewhere else.
>>>At worst, it will leave him half fulfilled, suffering
>>>without the adulation.
>>
>>
>>It's official: you really are stupid. I've gotten a thousand times the
>>bull**** that Arny's gotten.
>
>
> Great. Duelling Messiahs.


You're part of the problem, McElroy. We both know it.

[trotsky]

MiNE 109 wrote:
> In article et>,
> trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>>
>>>"trotsky" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"ScottW" > wrote in message
>>>>>news:65Vmb.34409$gi2.30643@fed1read01...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> He may deserve it but this is a public forum. You cannot restrict or
>>>>>>guarantee that Arny is the only one who has to deal with this. If
>>>
>>>nothin
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>else, the disrespect of a dead person you never knew is wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I have no disrespect for Nate. It is a shame that Arny has
>>>>>no respect for him, nor for his wife.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>How's that? Because he put the kid's picture on a website? I think
>>>>most normal people would've grieved privately, but that's hardly a sign
>>>>of disrespect. Can you explain your comment, please?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Baby Jesus publicly trolled his tragedy for sympathy and adulation.
>>>Its part of thehis Jesus complex.
>>
>>
>>Oh, I see. I wonder what type of trolling I'm guilty of by posting a
>>link to my website.
>>
>
>
> That would be "spamming".


Oh, right, I'm famous for that. What a bunch of bull****.

[trotsky]

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> "MiNE 109" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>In article et>,
>> trotsky > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>>>
>>>>"ScottW" > wrote in message
>>>>news:2mYmb.35793$gi2.6331@fed1read01...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Sockpuppet Yustabe said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That's a theory, but it falls short when you consider Mr. ****'s
>>>>>>>>frequent and bitchy complaints about the "abuse" he claims to
>>>>>
>>>>>receive.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If he loves it, why does he bitch about it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>He loves to receive abuse, and he loves to play the pity
>>>>>>>card by bitching about it. Remember, this is the nerd in
>>>>>>>high school who purposefully acts obnoxiously to provoke
>>>>>>>beatings, then loves to whine about them. I just figures out
>>>>>>>his inhereht psychologiacl problem:
>>>>>>>Arny has a Jesus complex. He feels the need to be crucified,
>>>>>>>so he has to act so obnoxiously, that he brings such abuse
>>>>>>>raining down on his head. He needs to be seen as Jesus.
>>>>>>>The suffering, the martyrdom, the adoration. His behavior
>>>>>>>is part and parcel of his sick and twisted version of
>>>>>>>Christianity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Good working theory.
>>>>>
>>>>>So why accomodate him?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If we beat him up enough, maybe he will go away
>>>>and take his obnoxious behavior somewhere else.
>>>>At worst, it will leave him half fulfilled, suffering
>>>>without the adulation.
>>>
>>>
>>>It's official: you really are stupid. I've gotten a thousand times the
>>>bull**** that Arny's gotten.
>>
>>Great. Duelling Messiahs.
>
>
> Good one!


Butt buddies!

[ScottW]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> news:Z9_mb.36550$gi2.36460@fed1read01
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> >
> >>> So why accomodate him?
> >>
> >> You're all nuts. All 4 of you. Hopelessly nuts.
> >
> > You're as afraid as Middius to face this question.
>
> What question might that be Scott?

Why do you do what you do?

> Why you aid and abet his attacks on me
> while pretending to feign criticism of him?

Funny, George is saying the same thing. You two are so alike.
I'd say separated at birth.

ScottW

[MiNE 109]

In article et>,
trotsky > wrote:

> MiNE 109 wrote:
> > In article et>,
> > trotsky > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> >>
> >>>"ScottW" > wrote in message
> >>>news:2mYmb.35793$gi2.6331@fed1read01...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Sockpuppet Yustabe said:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>That's a theory, but it falls short when you consider Mr. ****'s
> >>>>>>>frequent and bitchy complaints about the "abuse" he claims to
> >>>>
> >>>>receive.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>If he loves it, why does he bitch about it?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>He loves to receive abuse, and he loves to play the pity
> >>>>>>card by bitching about it. Remember, this is the nerd in
> >>>>>>high school who purposefully acts obnoxiously to provoke
> >>>>>>beatings, then loves to whine about them. I just figures out
> >>>>>>his inhereht psychologiacl problem:
> >>>>>>Arny has a Jesus complex. He feels the need to be crucified,
> >>>>>>so he has to act so obnoxiously, that he brings such abuse
> >>>>>>raining down on his head. He needs to be seen as Jesus.
> >>>>>>The suffering, the martyrdom, the adoration. His behavior
> >>>>>>is part and parcel of his sick and twisted version of
> >>>>>>Christianity.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Good working theory.
> >>>>
> >>>>So why accomodate him?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>If we beat him up enough, maybe he will go away
> >>>and take his obnoxious behavior somewhere else.
> >>>At worst, it will leave him half fulfilled, suffering
> >>>without the adulation.
> >>
> >>
> >>It's official: you really are stupid. I've gotten a thousand times the
> >>bull**** that Arny's gotten.
> >
> >
> > Great. Duelling Messiahs.
>
>
> You're part of the problem, McElroy. We both know it.
>

Your problem is other people. Lionel will know a Sartre quote to cover
the situation.

[George M. Middius]

The Idiot lied:

> > Why you aid and abet his attacks on me
> > while pretending to feign criticism of him?

> Funny, George is saying the same thing.

GOD DAMN, ARE YOU ****ING STUPID!

(Please stop being so stupid, Scottie. I'm running low on ways to show
my exasperation with your stupidity.)

[George M. Middius]

MiNE 109 said:

> > You're part of the problem, McElroy. We both know it.

> Your problem is other people. Lionel will know a Sartre quote to cover
> the situation.

Lionella should search for a de Beauvoir quote since she can only
speak on behalf of womankind.

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...

> "Gary Bishop" > wrote in message
> >>
> >
> > I have just been reading about you. Yes Sick!
>
> What do you mean by that?
>
>

the bait is laid.........the trap is set........will Gary bite?




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[ScottW]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> The Idiot lied:
>
> > > Why you aid and abet his attacks on me
> > > while pretending to feign criticism of him?
>
> > Funny, George is saying the same thing.
>
> GOD DAMN, ARE YOU ****ING STUPID!
>
> (Please stop being so stupid, Scottie. I'm running low on ways to show
> my exasperation with your stupidity.)

Funny, Trots is saying the same thing.
You aren't in very good company George.
George, Greg, and Arny. Three amigos.

If you really want to get my attention, try answering my question.

ScottW

[GeoSynch]

'lil Georgie falls off his high horse:

> Always taunting, never apportioning blame to
> yourself, no matter filthy you behaved.

As the Mid-Yut would be wont to say:

"Random degeneration of so-called "world class" language skills noted.
Ridiculously overblown idea of your intellect observed. Inability to
remember lessons from last week acknowledged. Grotesque failure as a
human being accepted. Suicide eagerly anticipated."


GeoSynch

[GeoSynch]

ScottW conjures up a disturbing image:
>
> George, Greg, and Arny. Three amigos.

Siamese triplicates joined at the head sharing the same brain?


GeoSynch

[GeoSynch]

Sackman sets the scene:

> the bait is laid.........the trap is set........will Gary bite?

Now that you've tipped him off, probably not.


GeoSynch

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"GeoSynch" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Sackman sets the scene:
>
> > the bait is laid.........the trap is set........will Gary bite?
>
> Now that you've tipped him off, probably not.
>

It's not nice to have a bucket of **** dumped
on your head, if you are not expecting it.
I invite Gary to proceed, as long as he is dressed
for the occasion, wetsuit and goggles.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Lionel]

MiNE 109 wrote:

> In article et>,
> trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>MiNE 109 wrote:
>>
>>>In article et>,
>>> trotsky > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"ScottW" > wrote in message
>>>>>news:2mYmb.35793$gi2.6331@fed1read01...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Sockpuppet Yustabe said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>That's a theory, but it falls short when you consider Mr. ****'s
>>>>>>>>>frequent and bitchy complaints about the "abuse" he claims to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>receive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>If he loves it, why does he bitch about it?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>He loves to receive abuse, and he loves to play the pity
>>>>>>>>card by bitching about it. Remember, this is the nerd in
>>>>>>>>high school who purposefully acts obnoxiously to provoke
>>>>>>>>beatings, then loves to whine about them. I just figures out
>>>>>>>>his inhereht psychologiacl problem:
>>>>>>>>Arny has a Jesus complex. He feels the need to be crucified,
>>>>>>>>so he has to act so obnoxiously, that he brings such abuse
>>>>>>>>raining down on his head. He needs to be seen as Jesus.
>>>>>>>>The suffering, the martyrdom, the adoration. His behavior
>>>>>>>>is part and parcel of his sick and twisted version of
>>>>>>>>Christianity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Good working theory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So why accomodate him?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>If we beat him up enough, maybe he will go away
>>>>>and take his obnoxious behavior somewhere else.
>>>>>At worst, it will leave him half fulfilled, suffering
>>>>>without the adulation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It's official: you really are stupid. I've gotten a thousand times the
>>>>bull**** that Arny's gotten.
>>>
>>>
>>>Great. Duelling Messiahs.
>>
>>
>>You're part of the problem, McElroy. We both know it.
>>
>
>
> Your problem is other people. Lionel will know a Sartre quote to cover
> the situation.

"L'enfer c'est les autres"

[Lionel]

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> MiNE 109 said:
>
>
>>>You're part of the problem, McElroy. We both know it.
>
>
>
>>Your problem is other people. Lionel will know a Sartre quote to cover
>>the situation.
>
>
> Lionella should search for a de Beauvoir quote since she can only
> speak on behalf of womankind.
>

I also read Roger Peyrefitte, Henri de Montherlant...

>
>
George, you use to request urgent answers to your questions...
I'm still waiting your answer concerning tennis.

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:wK1nb.38228$gi2.5216@fed1read01
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> news:Z9_mb.36550$gi2.36460@fed1read01
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>>> So why accomodate him?
>>>>
>>>> You're all nuts. All 4 of you. Hopelessly nuts.
>>>
>>> You're as afraid as Middius to face this question.
>>
>> What question might that be Scott?
>
> Why do you do what you do?

What do I do, Scott? Is it wrong for me to take exception to your personal
attacks?

>> Why you aid and abet his attacks on me
>> while pretending to feign criticism of him?

> Funny, George is saying the same thing.

Funny you're guilty of the same thing, Scott.

> You two are so alike.

Scott, I think that you and Middius are way ahead of me when it comes to
self-righteousness.

> I'd say separated at birth.

I'd say you're illiterate and totally lacking in introspection, Scott.

[trotsky]

MiNE 109 wrote:
> In article et>,
> trotsky > wrote:

>>
>>You're part of the problem, McElroy. We both know it.
>>
>
>
> Your problem is other people. Lionel will know a Sartre quote to cover
> the situation.


Not good enough. You lack the backbone to show any moral fiber on this
group. Which family members did you say you ****ed? Isn't this a
hilarious joke?

[trotsky]

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>"Gary Bishop" > wrote in message
>>
>>>I have just been reading about you. Yes Sick!
>>
>>What do you mean by that?
>>
>>
>
>
> the bait is laid.........the trap is set........will Gary bite?


Krueger does like to refer to himself as the "Master Baiter." Unless
the subject is reaping what you sow, of course.

[trotsky]

ScottW wrote:
> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>The Idiot lied:
>>
>>
>>>>Why you aid and abet his attacks on me
>>>>while pretending to feign criticism of him?
>>>
>>> Funny, George is saying the same thing.
>>
>>GOD DAMN, ARE YOU ****ING STUPID!
>>
>>(Please stop being so stupid, Scottie. I'm running low on ways to show
>>my exasperation with your stupidity.)
>
>
> Funny, Trots is saying the same thing.


George and I agree on some things. You being stupid is definitely one
of them. Hey, do those Viagras affect blood flow to the brain btw?

[dave weil]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:13:09 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>
>
>MiNE 109 wrote:
>> In article et>,
>> trotsky > wrote:
>
>>>
>>>You're part of the problem, McElroy. We both know it.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Your problem is other people. Lionel will know a Sartre quote to cover
>> the situation.
>
>
>Not good enough. You lack the backbone to show any moral fiber on this
>group. Which family members did you say you ****ed? Isn't this a
>hilarious joke?

Is this like wishing that I got cancer and died?

****ing hypocrite.

<s******>

[MiNE 109]

In article >, trotsky >
wrote:

> MiNE 109 wrote:
> > In article et>,
> > trotsky > wrote:
>
> >>
> >>You're part of the problem, McElroy. We both know it.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Your problem is other people. Lionel will know a Sartre quote to cover
> > the situation.
>
>
> Not good enough.

Very, well. "Hell is other people" from Huis Clos.

[MiNE 109]

In article >,
Lionel > wrote:

> MiNE 109 wrote:
>
> > In article et>,
> > trotsky > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>MiNE 109 wrote:

> >>>Great. Duelling Messiahs.
> >>
> >>
> >>You're part of the problem, McElroy. We both know it.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Your problem is other people. Lionel will know a Sartre quote to cover
> > the situation.
>
> "L'enfer c'est les autres"

Thank you. That's the one.

Stephen

[Joe Duffy]

In article <65Vmb.34409$gi2.30643@fed1read01>,
ScottW > wrote:
>
>"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> The underlying fact that you're ignoring is that it was Turdy who
>> *originally* set the bar for personal insults.
>
> Hey, great excuse. Let turdy set the standard for your own behavior.
>Some backbone you got there George. So Turdy knows he can drag you into the
>pit with him because you have no moral fiber of your own. I'm impressed.
>

Bingo.


Joe

[Joe Duffy]

In article <iOXmb.35554$gi2.15333@fed1read01>,
ScottW > wrote:
>
>"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> The fact that you're ascribing human-type motivations to that twisted
>> sack of **** tells me your own circuits are misfiring badly. Who cares
>> what that sack of **** feels or believes? Oh -- you do. 'Nuff said.
>
> Can't admit that you need Arny, eh? I know that reality is hard for you
>to stomach, but all your squealing doesn't change that sad truth.
>
>
Yowza!
Impossible to not need your siamese
twin. There has been talk among brain surgeons,
that small, incremental surgeries may be able to
remove the midjet's head from arny's colon, but
the emotional loss was deemed to great for either
to survive.



Joe

[Joe Duffy]

In article >,
MiNE 109 > wrote:
>In article et>,
> trotsky > wrote:
>
>> It's official: you really are stupid. I've gotten a thousand times the
>> bull**** that Arny's gotten.
>
>Great. Duelling Messiahs.


LOL!


Joe

[Joe Duffy]

In article <wK1nb.38228$gi2.5216@fed1read01>,
ScottW > wrote:
>
> Funny, George is saying the same thing. You two are so alike.
> I'd say separated at birth.
>

You are almost there, however
no separation has yet occurred.
rao is where the midget's head
meets arny's feces.


Joe

[trotsky]

dave weil wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:13:09 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>MiNE 109 wrote:
>>
>>>In article et>,
>>> trotsky > wrote:
>>
>>>>You're part of the problem, McElroy. We both know it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Your problem is other people. Lionel will know a Sartre quote to cover
>>>the situation.
>>
>>
>>Not good enough. You lack the backbone to show any moral fiber on this
>>group. Which family members did you say you ****ed? Isn't this a
>>hilarious joke?
>
>
> Is this like wishing that I got cancer and died?


dave, if your neurons ever manage to stop misfiring, perhaps you can
tell us what the rules of engagement are. Until then, though, I suppose
I'm destined to hear the sound of an egg frying every time you post.

[Lionel]

trotsky wrote:

>
>
> dave weil wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:13:09 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> MiNE 109 wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article et>,
>>>> trotsky > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> You're part of the problem, McElroy. We both know it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Your problem is other people. Lionel will know a Sartre quote to
>>>> cover the situation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Not good enough. You lack the backbone to show any moral fiber on
>>> this group. Which family members did you say you ****ed? Isn't this
>>> a hilarious joke?
>>
>>
>>
>> Is this like wishing that I got cancer and died?
>
>
>
> dave, if your neurons ever manage to stop misfiring, perhaps you can
> tell us what the rules of engagement are. Until then, though, I suppose
> I'm destined to hear the sound of an egg frying every time you post.
>
Be brutally honest...

[ScottW]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> What do I do, Scott? Is it wrong for me to take exception to your
personal
> attacks?
>

It is wrong for you to distort the truth and lie as you take "exception".

ScottW

[ScottW]

"trotsky" > wrote in message
...

> >>Not good enough. You lack the backbone to show any moral fiber on this
> >>group. Which family members did you say you ****ed? Isn't this a
> >>hilarious joke?
> >
> >
> > Is this like wishing that I got cancer and died?
>
>
> dave, if your neurons ever manage to stop misfiring, perhaps you can
> tell us what the rules of engagement are.

Why not let your "moral fiber" dictate your rules of engagement?
Probably not hypocritical enough for you.

ScottW

[trotsky]

ScottW wrote:
> "trotsky" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>>>Not good enough. You lack the backbone to show any moral fiber on this
>>>>group. Which family members did you say you ****ed? Isn't this a
>>>>hilarious joke?
>>>
>>>
>>>Is this like wishing that I got cancer and died?
>>
>>
>>dave, if your neurons ever manage to stop misfiring, perhaps you can
>>tell us what the rules of engagement are.
>
>
> Why not let your "moral fiber" dictate your rules of engagement?
> Probably not hypocritical enough for you.


You didn't see me making any Dead Nate "jokes", did you? You did see
Middius lie about my "taunting" Arny, though.

I know you want to be in the thick of the discussion, Scottie, but the
word "stupid" just comes up again and again.

[George M. Middius]

Gregipus lied:

> You didn't see me making any Dead Nate "jokes", did you?

I did. Everybody did. In answer to this question from Yoon-Yoon....

> > Where's your evidence that Arny Krüger sodomized Nate Krüger's body,
> > or that Nate committed suicide?

You claimed this:

> Arny's personality is all the evidence *I* need.

How vicious. What a meanie you are. Not to mention a liar, of course.

[ScottW]

"trotsky" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> ScottW wrote:
> > "trotsky" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >
> >>>>Not good enough. You lack the backbone to show any moral fiber on
this
> >>>>group. Which family members did you say you ****ed? Isn't this a
> >>>>hilarious joke?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Is this like wishing that I got cancer and died?
> >>
> >>
> >>dave, if your neurons ever manage to stop misfiring, perhaps you can
> >>tell us what the rules of engagement are.
> >
> >
> > Why not let your "moral fiber" dictate your rules of engagement?
> > Probably not hypocritical enough for you.
>
>
> You didn't see me making any Dead Nate "jokes", did you?

Is this the line for you? Your moral fiber is apparently decayed to a
single strand.

> You did see
> Middius lie about my "taunting" Arny, though.
>
> I know you want to be in the thick of the discussion, Scottie, but the
> word "stupid" just comes up again and again.

Sure. It's a typical childish denial response. Ever hear what a kid says
when he can't figure out his homework? No, I guess not.

ScottW

[MiNE 109]

In article >, trotsky >
wrote:

> dave weil wrote:
> > On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:13:09 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >>MiNE 109 wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article et>,
> >>> trotsky > wrote:
> >>
> >>>>You're part of the problem, McElroy. We both know it.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Your problem is other people. Lionel will know a Sartre quote to cover
> >>>the situation.
> >>
> >>
> >>Not good enough. You lack the backbone to show any moral fiber on this
> >>group. Which family members did you say you ****ed? Isn't this a
> >>hilarious joke?
> >
> >
> > Is this like wishing that I got cancer and died?
>
>
> dave, if your neurons ever manage to stop misfiring, perhaps you can
> tell us what the rules of engagement are.

Uh-oh, the "rules of engagement". Greg, please outline some rules to
which you'd agree. Personal attacks don't qualify as "rules", btw.

Stephen

[trotsky]

George M. Middius wrote:
>
> Gregipus lied:
>
>
>>You didn't see me making any Dead Nate "jokes", did you?
>
>
> I did. Everybody did. In answer to this question from Yoon-Yoon....


Still waitin' for those google references.


>>>Where's your evidence that Arny Krüger sodomized Nate Krüger's body,
>>>or that Nate committed suicide?
>>
>
> You claimed this:
>
>
>>Arny's personality is all the evidence *I* need.
>
>
> How vicious. What a meanie you are. Not to mention a liar, of course.


I don't even know whose quotes those are. Until you can properly
attribute them, I'll have to assume *you're* the liar.

[trotsky]

ScottW wrote:
> "trotsky" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>ScottW wrote:
>>
>>>"trotsky" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>Not good enough. You lack the backbone to show any moral fiber on
>>>>>
> this
>
>>>>>>group. Which family members did you say you ****ed? Isn't this a
>>>>>>hilarious joke?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Is this like wishing that I got cancer and died?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>dave, if your neurons ever manage to stop misfiring, perhaps you can
>>>>tell us what the rules of engagement are.
>>>
>>>
>>>Why not let your "moral fiber" dictate your rules of engagement?
>>>Probably not hypocritical enough for you.
>>
>>
>>You didn't see me making any Dead Nate "jokes", did you?
>
>
> Is this the line for you? Your moral fiber is apparently decayed to a
> single strand.


Tell us about your "multi-stranded" lines, Scottie. What the ****
language are you speaking?


>>You did see
>>Middius lie about my "taunting" Arny, though.
>>
>>I know you want to be in the thick of the discussion, Scottie, but the
>>word "stupid" just comes up again and again.
>
>
> Sure. It's a typical childish denial response. Ever hear what a kid says
> when he can't figure out his homework? No, I guess not.


Wait, even the kids say you're stupid? Kids are pretty perceptive, I
guess. Does the nickname "limpy" ever come up? (I know, poor choice of
words.)

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:Q8bnb.42336$gi2.20158@fed1read01
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> What do I do, Scott? Is it wrong for me to take exception to your
>> personal attacks?

> It is wrong for you to distort the truth and lie as you take
"exception".

I agree, and so I don't do that.

Of course Scott, you're going to assert that you don't distort the truth and
lie.

In your current state of self-righteousness, you can't make that compute,
but I can.

Scott, since you approve of the reprehensible lies and distortions of
Phillips as well as you own, you're totally hopeless in my book.

[Arny Krueger]

"Joe Duffy" > wrote in message

> In article <wK1nb.38228$gi2.5216@fed1read01>,
> ScottW > wrote:
>>
>> Funny, George is saying the same thing. You two are so alike.
>> I'd say separated at birth.
>>
>
> You are almost there, however
> no separation has yet occurred.
> rao is where the midget's head
> meets arny's feces.

The only reason why the Middiot is still there, is that he keeps jumping
back in right after I eject him.

[Arny Krueger]

"Joe Duffy" > wrote in message

> In article <65Vmb.34409$gi2.30643@fed1read01>,
> ScottW > wrote:
>>
>> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> The underlying fact that you're ignoring is that it was Turdy who
>>> *originally* set the bar for personal insults.
>>
>> Hey, great excuse. Let turdy set the standard for your own
>> behavior. Some backbone you got there George. So Turdy knows he can
>> drag you into the pit with him because you have no moral fiber of
>> your own. I'm impressed.
>>
>
> Bingo.

It's not a matter of me dragging the Middiot back down, but that the Middiot
aspires to heights that he can't sustain. Scott is very confused, and thinks
that down is up and vice-versa. Proof: he brags about supping with Phillips
and Yustabe with a short spoon.

[ScottW]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> news:Q8bnb.42336$gi2.20158@fed1read01
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> What do I do, Scott? Is it wrong for me to take exception to your
> >> personal attacks?
>
> > It is wrong for you to distort the truth and lie as you take
> "exception".
>
> I agree, and so I don't do that.

Except you did just that twice in the last day.
>
> Of course Scott, you're going to assert that you don't distort the truth
and
> lie.
>
> In your current state of self-righteousness, you can't make that compute,
> but I can.
>
> Scott, since you approve of the reprehensible lies and distortions of
> Phillips as well as you own, you're totally hopeless in my book.

And here you go again making claims you have no knowledge of.

Your problems are well documented. Better people than I have tried to show
you the errors of your ways and failed. You are incorrigible.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Joe Duffy" > wrote in message
>
> > In article <65Vmb.34409$gi2.30643@fed1read01>,
> > ScottW > wrote:
> >>
> >> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>>
> >>> The underlying fact that you're ignoring is that it was Turdy who
> >>> *originally* set the bar for personal insults.
> >>
> >> Hey, great excuse. Let turdy set the standard for your own
> >> behavior. Some backbone you got there George. So Turdy knows he can
> >> drag you into the pit with him because you have no moral fiber of
> >> your own. I'm impressed.
> >>
> >
> > Bingo.
>
> It's not a matter of me dragging the Middiot back down, but that the
Middiot
> aspires to heights that he can't sustain. Scott is very confused, and
thinks
> that down is up and vice-versa.

Nice admission that you set the standard of moral decay around here.

> Proof: he brags about supping with Phillips
> and Yustabe with a short spoon.

Yup, excellent company. Well mannered and very pleasant.
I suppose your behavior here is representative of you in person. If that
is so, I'll pass on the dinner invite.

ScottW

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:THcnb.42999$gi2.37017@fed1read01
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> news:Q8bnb.42336$gi2.20158@fed1read01
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>
>>>> What do I do, Scott? Is it wrong for me to take exception to your
>>>> personal attacks?

>>> It is wrong for you to distort the truth and lie as you take
>>> "exception".

>> I agree, and so I don't do that.

> Except you did just that twice in the last day.

Prove it, Scott.

>> Of course Scott, you're going to assert that you don't distort the
>> truth and lie.

>> In your current state of self-righteousness, you can't make that
>> compute, but I can.

>> Scott, since you approve of the reprehensible lies and distortions of
>> Phillips as well as you own, you're totally hopeless in my book.

> And here you go again making claims you have no knowledge of.

And here you avoid addressing an issue that obviously embarasses you, Scott.

> Your problems are well documented.

So are you's, Scott. That's the nature of a forum where almost all
transactions are logged.

> Better people than I have tried
> to show you the errors of your ways and failed.

Given the low-life you brag about hanging with Scott (Phillips, Yustabe are
well-documented), I just might be the best person who ever tried to show you
the error of your ways.

>You are incorrigible.

...as if you aren't, Scott.

Since you seem to have run out of everything but lame IKWYABWAI, I'm
probably not going to respond to your next whiney post.

[trotsky]

MiNE 109 wrote:
> In article >, trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>dave weil wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:13:09 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>MiNE 109 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article et>,
>>>>>trotsky > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>You're part of the problem, McElroy. We both know it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Your problem is other people. Lionel will know a Sartre quote to cover
>>>>>the situation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Not good enough. You lack the backbone to show any moral fiber on this
>>>>group. Which family members did you say you ****ed? Isn't this a
>>>>hilarious joke?
>>>
>>>
>>>Is this like wishing that I got cancer and died?
>>
>>
>>dave, if your neurons ever manage to stop misfiring, perhaps you can
>>tell us what the rules of engagement are.
>
>
> Uh-oh, the "rules of engagement". Greg, please outline some rules to
> which you'd agree. Personal attacks don't qualify as "rules", btw.


Why is it always up to me? If somebody, such as looney tunes weil,
insinuates that he knows something I don't, THE ONUS IS THEN ON HIM. A
non-response is, of course, a declaration of intellectual bankruptcy.

As for my rules, obviously I fight fire with fire. I suppose there have
been a few instances where I've made the first attack, but almost
everything I say is in retaliation. Unless you consider, "Hi, I've got
a new website" a personal attack.

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:vNcnb.43036$gi2.6225@fed1read01
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Joe Duffy" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article <65Vmb.34409$gi2.30643@fed1read01>,
>>> ScottW > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> The underlying fact that you're ignoring is that it was Turdy who
>>>>> *originally* set the bar for personal insults.
>>>>
>>>> Hey, great excuse. Let turdy set the standard for your own
>>>> behavior. Some backbone you got there George. So Turdy knows he can
>>>> drag you into the pit with him because you have no moral fiber of
>>>> your own. I'm impressed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Bingo.
>>
>> It's not a matter of me dragging the Middiot back down, but that the
>> Middiot aspires to heights that he can't sustain. Scott is very
>> confused, and thinks that down is up and vice-versa.
>
> Nice admission that you set the standard of moral decay around here.

I'm convinced you are so confused Scott, that this ISN'T a lie, merely an
untruth.

>> Proof: he brags about supping with Phillips
>> and Yustabe with a short spoon.

> Yup, excellent company.

Yup, libelers, liars and perverts. You're known by the company you keep,
Scott.

>Well mannered and very pleasant.

If you call Phillip's dozens of claims that I'm a "pedophile" good
manners...

If you call's Yustabe's reveling in pedophilia and murder "pleasant"...

....then these are the guys for you, Scott.

> I suppose your behavior here is representative of you in person. If
> that is so, I'll pass on the dinner invite.

[George M. Middius]

Gregipus Obtusicus has disconnected his barely functioning brain
cell.

> >>You didn't see me making any Dead Nate "jokes", did you?

> > I did. Everybody did. In answer to this question from Yoon-Yoon....

> Still waitin' for those google references.

Waitin' is your forte, so go with that.

> >>>Where's your evidence that Arny Krüger sodomized Nate Krüger's body,
> >>>or that Nate committed suicide?

> > You claimed this:

> >>Arny's personality is all the evidence *I* need.

> > How vicious. What a meanie you are. Not to mention a liar, of course.

> I don't even know whose quotes those are.

If you really don't, it's because you can't read very well.

> Until you can properly
> attribute them, I'll have to assume *you're* the liar.

What is unclear about "Yoon-Yoon" and "You"? Take as much time as
you need. No need for "rules of engagement" when you're trying to
out-stupid Scottie.

[MiNE 109]

In article >, trotsky >
wrote:

> MiNE 109 wrote:
> > In article >, trotsky > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>dave weil wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:13:09 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>MiNE 109 wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article et>,
> >>>>>trotsky > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>You're part of the problem, McElroy. We both know it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Your problem is other people. Lionel will know a Sartre quote to cover
> >>>>>the situation.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Not good enough. You lack the backbone to show any moral fiber on this
> >>>>group. Which family members did you say you ****ed? Isn't this a
> >>>>hilarious joke?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Is this like wishing that I got cancer and died?
> >>
> >>
> >>dave, if your neurons ever manage to stop misfiring, perhaps you can
> >>tell us what the rules of engagement are.
> >
> >
> > Uh-oh, the "rules of engagement". Greg, please outline some rules to
> > which you'd agree. Personal attacks don't qualify as "rules", btw.
>
>
> Why is it always up to me?

Well, you often ask about the "rules" but in my experience, you never
get as far as agreeing to proposals.

> If somebody, such as looney tunes weil,
> insinuates that he knows something I don't, THE ONUS IS THEN ON HIM. A
> non-response is, of course, a declaration of intellectual bankruptcy.

Lots of people know lots you don't know.

> As for my rules, obviously I fight fire with fire. I suppose there have
> been a few instances where I've made the first attack, but almost
> everything I say is in retaliation. Unless you consider, "Hi, I've got
> a new website" a personal attack.

That's not a "rule of engagement". Besides, you seem to find offense in
just about anything.

And many of us were nice enough about the website until you went toxic.

Stephen

[ScottW]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> >You are incorrigible.
>
> ..as if you aren't, Scott.
>
> Since you seem to have run out of everything but lame IKWYABWAI, I'm
> probably not going to respond to your next whiney post.
>
>

Frame it. The most obvious hypocrisy ever uttered.

ScottW

[ScottW]

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

> > I suppose your behavior here is representative of you in person. If
> > that is so, I'll pass on the dinner invite.

Ooops, no response. Could you actually be embarrassed by the facts?

ScottW

[ScottW]

"trotsky" > wrote in message
...

> As for my rules, obviously I fight fire with fire. I suppose there have
> been a few instances where I've made the first attack, but almost
> everything I say is in retaliation. Unless you consider, "Hi, I've got
> a new website" a personal attack.

Why not? You said anything I could say would be insulting to you.
Arny is the most obvious hypocrite, but you are least self aware.

ScottW

[George M. Middius]

Scottie said:

> > > I suppose your behavior here is representative of you in person. If
> > > that is so, I'll pass on the dinner invite.

> Ooops, no response. Could you actually be embarrassed by the facts?

Maybe you can get a certain person to share The Recording with you.

[trotsky]

MiNE 109 wrote:
> In article >, trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>MiNE 109 wrote:
>>

>>>Uh-oh, the "rules of engagement". Greg, please outline some rules to
>>>which you'd agree. Personal attacks don't qualify as "rules", btw.
>>
>>
>>Why is it always up to me?
>
>
> Well, you often ask about the "rules" but in my experience, you never
> get as far as agreeing to proposals.


Which "proposal" are you talking about? I'm bored with Star Trek
references, frankly.


>>If somebody, such as looney tunes weil,
>>insinuates that he knows something I don't, THE ONUS IS THEN ON HIM. A
>>non-response is, of course, a declaration of intellectual bankruptcy.
>
>
> Lots of people know lots you don't know.


That's cool, so you're agreeing that weil should've dispensed this
knowledge.


>>As for my rules, obviously I fight fire with fire. I suppose there have
>>been a few instances where I've made the first attack, but almost
>>everything I say is in retaliation. Unless you consider, "Hi, I've got
>>a new website" a personal attack.
>
>
> That's not a "rule of engagement". Besides, you seem to find offense in
> just about anything.


Apparently you live in some rose colored world where people aren't
largely pretentious. Another instance of arrested development if you
ask me.


> And many of us were nice enough about the website until you went toxic.


That's the biggest bunch of bull**** I've yet heard.

[trotsky]

ScottW wrote:
> "trotsky" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>As for my rules, obviously I fight fire with fire. I suppose there have
>>been a few instances where I've made the first attack, but almost
>>everything I say is in retaliation. Unless you consider, "Hi, I've got
>>a new website" a personal attack.
>
>
> Why not? You said anything I could say would be insulting to you.


I'm offended by stupidity, sure.


> Arny is the most obvious hypocrite, but you are least self aware.


Kewl, now do you.

[trotsky]

George M. Middius wrote:
>
> Gregipus Obtusicus has disconnected his barely functioning brain
> cell.
>
>
>>>>You didn't see me making any Dead Nate "jokes", did you?
>>>
>
>>>I did. Everybody did. In answer to this question from Yoon-Yoon....
>>
>
>
>>Still waitin' for those google references.
>
>
> Waitin' is your forte, so go with that.
>
>
>>>>>Where's your evidence that Arny Krüger sodomized Nate Krüger's body,
>>>>>or that Nate committed suicide?
>>>>
>
>>>You claimed this:
>>
>
>>>>Arny's personality is all the evidence *I* need.
>>>
>
>>>How vicious. What a meanie you are. Not to mention a liar, of course.
>>
>
>
>>I don't even know whose quotes those are.
>
>
> If you really don't, it's because you can't read very well.
>
>
>>Until you can properly
>>attribute them, I'll have to assume *you're* the liar.
>
>
> What is unclear about "Yoon-Yoon" and "You"? Take as much time as
> you need. No need for "rules of engagement" when you're trying to
> out-stupid Scottie.


I wrote "Arny's personality is all the evidence *I* need?" In what
note? In what context? If I was just doing it to drive Yoon further
insane, that's something different.

[George M. Middius]

Gregibull****pus whined:

> > And many of us were nice enough about the website until you went toxic.

> That's the biggest bunch of bull**** I've yet heard.

The Gregipus Codex is going to rival the Krooglish-to-human
translation module soon. Just a quick note: In human language,
bull**** means "something no reasonable person would accept to be
true". Now tell us what it means it your dialect.

BTW, have you updated your personal definition of "to lie" yet? Take
as long as you mother****ing need, you're done with forks to spare,
etc.

[George M. Middius]

trotsky said:

> > What is unclear about "Yoon-Yoon" and "You"? Take as much time as
> > you need. No need for "rules of engagement" when you're trying to
> > out-stupid Scottie.

> I wrote "Arny's personality is all the evidence *I* need?" In what
> note? In what context? If I was just doing it to drive Yoon further
> insane, that's something different.

If that's your story, fine. But that was the only text you posted in
that message. What's the matter -- unable to use Google to look up a
unique post? Only Krooger is that stupid, at least as far as we know.
I'll give you a hint -- you made that post before 01/01/01.

[ScottW]

"trotsky" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> ScottW wrote:
> > "trotsky" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >
> >>As for my rules, obviously I fight fire with fire. I suppose there
have
> >>been a few instances where I've made the first attack, but almost
> >>everything I say is in retaliation. Unless you consider, "Hi, I've got
> >>a new website" a personal attack.
> >
> >
> > Why not? You said anything I could say would be insulting to you.
>
>
> I'm offended by stupidity, sure.

How does it feel to be self-offending?
>
>
> > Arny is the most obvious hypocrite, but you are least self aware.
>
> Kewl, now do you.

I'm one of those people you despise because you failed at attempting to
be like me.

Don't deny it. Else, why did you go to college?

ScottW

[ScottW]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> trotsky said:
>
> > > What is unclear about "Yoon-Yoon" and "You"? Take as much time as
> > > you need. No need for "rules of engagement" when you're trying to
> > > out-stupid Scottie.
>
> > I wrote "Arny's personality is all the evidence *I* need?" In what
> > note? In what context? If I was just doing it to drive Yoon further
> > insane, that's something different.
>
> If that's your story, fine.

What is fine about it? It's another lame Trotsky rationalization for his
hypocrisy. Ranks right in there with "he never attacks first but if he did,
he had a reason".
In fact, a statement like that from somebody else would be ripped by Trots
for no backbone. Yet he is himself, an invertebrate.

ScottW

[MiNE 109]

In article >, trotsky >
wrote:

> MiNE 109 wrote:
> > In article >, trotsky > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>MiNE 109 wrote:
> >>
>
> >>>Uh-oh, the "rules of engagement". Greg, please outline some rules to
> >>>which you'd agree. Personal attacks don't qualify as "rules", btw.
> >>
> >>
> >>Why is it always up to me?
> >
> >
> > Well, you often ask about the "rules" but in my experience, you never
> > get as far as agreeing to proposals.
>
>
> Which "proposal" are you talking about?

There have been some in the past. Now it's your turn.

> I'm bored with Star Trek references, frankly.

Why bring it up, then?

> >>If somebody, such as looney tunes weil,
> >>insinuates that he knows something I don't, THE ONUS IS THEN ON HIM. A
> >>non-response is, of course, a declaration of intellectual bankruptcy.
> >
> >
> > Lots of people know lots you don't know.
>
>
> That's cool, so you're agreeing that weil should've dispensed this
> knowledge.

There's that world-class paraphrasing again.

> >>As for my rules, obviously I fight fire with fire. I suppose there have
> >>been a few instances where I've made the first attack, but almost
> >>everything I say is in retaliation. Unless you consider, "Hi, I've got
> >>a new website" a personal attack.
> >
> >
> > That's not a "rule of engagement". Besides, you seem to find offense in
> > just about anything.
>
>
> Apparently you live in some rose colored world where people aren't
> largely pretentious. Another instance of arrested development if you
> ask me.

And "pretentiousness" offends you, therefore you can do your pitbull
routine. Talk about arrested development...

> > And many of us were nice enough about the website until you went toxic.
>
>
> That's the biggest bunch of bull**** I've yet heard.

It's true.

[MiNE 109]

In article >, trotsky >
wrote:

> I'm offended by stupidity, sure.

> Kewl...

Speaking of stupid, you are aware that that spelling should be
pronounced 'kyool', aren't you? Like Kewpie dolls...

[trotsky]

George M. Middius wrote:
>
> Gregibull****pus whined:
>
>
>>>And many of us were nice enough about the website until you went toxic.
>>
>
>
>>That's the biggest bunch of bull**** I've yet heard.
>
>
> The Gregipus Codex is going to rival the Krooglish-to-human
> translation module soon. Just a quick note: In human language,
> bull**** means "something no reasonable person would accept to be
> true". Now tell us what it means it your dialect.


Here's one that I'm sure Dr. Richman will back me on: because you and
McElroy suffer from arrested development, you are only capable of
seeing things in terms of "good guys" and "bad guys", or black and
white. You simply aren't capable of ascribing blame where it belongs,
and yes, it does seem we've gone over this a hundred ****ing times already.

[trotsky]

George M. Middius wrote:
>
> trotsky said:
>
>
>>>What is unclear about "Yoon-Yoon" and "You"? Take as much time as
>>>you need. No need for "rules of engagement" when you're trying to
>>>out-stupid Scottie.
>>
>
>
>>I wrote "Arny's personality is all the evidence *I* need?" In what
>>note? In what context? If I was just doing it to drive Yoon further
>>insane, that's something different.
>
>
> If that's your story, fine. But that was the only text you posted in
> that message. What's the matter -- unable to use Google to look up a
> unique post? Only Krooger is that stupid, at least as far as we know.
> I'll give you a hint -- you made that post before 01/01/01.


Nothing like a little ancient history, that's fer sure. Maybe I had a
slight case of arrested development in those days too.

[trotsky]

ScottW wrote:
> "trotsky" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>ScottW wrote:
>>
>>>"trotsky" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>As for my rules, obviously I fight fire with fire. I suppose there
>>>
> have
>
>>>>been a few instances where I've made the first attack, but almost
>>>>everything I say is in retaliation. Unless you consider, "Hi, I've got
>>>>a new website" a personal attack.
>>>
>>>
>>>Why not? You said anything I could say would be insulting to you.
>>
>>
>>I'm offended by stupidity, sure.
>
>
> How does it feel to be self-offending?


How does it feel to reach the kindergartner's level of IKYABWAI?


>>>Arny is the most obvious hypocrite, but you are least self aware.
>>
>>Kewl, now do you.
>
>
> I'm one of those people you despise because you failed at attempting to
> be like me.


Apparently you didn't understand the query. That was a bit predictable.


> Don't deny it. Else, why did you go to college?


I seem to gotten a hell a lot more out of college than you. I'm ashamed
that U of I could turn out a guy as stupid as you.

[trotsky]

MiNE 109 wrote:
> In article >, trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>MiNE 109 wrote:
>>
>>>In article >, trotsky > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>MiNE 109 wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>Uh-oh, the "rules of engagement". Greg, please outline some rules to
>>>>>which you'd agree. Personal attacks don't qualify as "rules", btw.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Why is it always up to me?
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, you often ask about the "rules" but in my experience, you never
>>>get as far as agreeing to proposals.
>>
>>
>>Which "proposal" are you talking about?
>
>
> There have been some in the past. Now it's your turn.


My turn? Okay, I'll beat the **** out of various fellows verbally until
I feel I'm caught up. Deal?


>>I'm bored with Star Trek references, frankly.
>
>
> Why bring it up, then?


Doesn't this all boil down to your giving Mother Hen and her ilk a free
pass? Of course it does.


>>>>If somebody, such as looney tunes weil,
>>>>insinuates that he knows something I don't, THE ONUS IS THEN ON HIM. A
>>>>non-response is, of course, a declaration of intellectual bankruptcy.
>>>
>>>
>>>Lots of people know lots you don't know.
>>
>>
>>That's cool, so you're agreeing that weil should've dispensed this
>>knowledge.
>
> There's that world-class paraphrasing again.


What were you trying to say then? Something more effete, I assume?


>>>>As for my rules, obviously I fight fire with fire. I suppose there have
>>>>been a few instances where I've made the first attack, but almost
>>>>everything I say is in retaliation. Unless you consider, "Hi, I've got
>>>>a new website" a personal attack.
>>>
>>>
>>>That's not a "rule of engagement". Besides, you seem to find offense in
>>>just about anything.
>>
>>
>>Apparently you live in some rose colored world where people aren't
>>largely pretentious. Another instance of arrested development if you
>>ask me.
>
>
> And "pretentiousness" offends you, therefore you can do your pitbull
> routine. Talk about arrested development...


Do agree you yourself behave pretentiously on this newsgroup?


>>>And many of us were nice enough about the website until you went toxic.
>>
>>
>>That's the biggest bunch of bull**** I've yet heard.
>
>
> It's true.


No, it's not. There are no "good guys" and "bad guys" in the real
world, McElroy. Grow the **** up.

[trotsky]

MiNE 109 wrote:
> In article >, trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>I'm offended by stupidity, sure.
>
>
>>Kewl...
>
>
> Speaking of stupid, you are aware that that spelling should be
> pronounced 'kyool', aren't you? Like Kewpie dolls...



Yeah, I can see why that would bother you more than references to
****ing dead kids in the ass.

[MiNE 109]

In article >, trotsky > wrote:

> MiNE 109 wrote:
> > In article >, trotsky > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>MiNE 109 wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article >, trotsky > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>MiNE 109 wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>Uh-oh, the "rules of engagement". Greg, please outline some rules to
> >>>>>which you'd agree. Personal attacks don't qualify as "rules", btw.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Why is it always up to me?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Well, you often ask about the "rules" but in my experience, you never
> >>>get as far as agreeing to proposals.
> >>
> >>
> >>Which "proposal" are you talking about?
> >
> >
> > There have been some in the past. Now it's your turn.
>
>
> My turn? Okay, I'll beat the **** out of various fellows verbally until
> I feel I'm caught up. Deal?

Then don't complain about how you're treated.

> >>I'm bored with Star Trek references, frankly.
> >
> >
> > Why bring it up, then?
>
>
> Doesn't this all boil down to your giving Mother Hen and her ilk a free
> pass? Of course it does.

Is this another "rule of engagement"? Mandatory commenting on all RAO
posts?

You'll remember my rule: I post when I want to.

> >>>>If somebody, such as looney tunes weil,
> >>>>insinuates that he knows something I don't, THE ONUS IS THEN ON HIM. A
> >>>>non-response is, of course, a declaration of intellectual bankruptcy.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Lots of people know lots you don't know.
> >>
> >>
> >>That's cool, so you're agreeing that weil should've dispensed this
> >>knowledge.
> >
> > There's that world-class paraphrasing again.
>
>
> What were you trying to say then? Something more effete, I assume?

If you don't know something, then it's someone else's job to teach you?

> >>>>As for my rules, obviously I fight fire with fire. I suppose there have
> >>>>been a few instances where I've made the first attack, but almost
> >>>>everything I say is in retaliation. Unless you consider, "Hi, I've got
> >>>>a new website" a personal attack.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>That's not a "rule of engagement". Besides, you seem to find offense in
> >>>just about anything.
> >>
> >>
> >>Apparently you live in some rose colored world where people aren't
> >>largely pretentious. Another instance of arrested development if you
> >>ask me.
> >
> >
> > And "pretentiousness" offends you, therefore you can do your pitbull
> > routine. Talk about arrested development...
>
>
> Do agree you yourself behave pretentiously on this newsgroup?

Do agree I myself? Are you using a Klingon to English translation
program?

> >>>And many of us were nice enough about the website until you went toxic.
> >>
> >>
> >>That's the biggest bunch of bull**** I've yet heard.
> >
> >
> > It's true.
>
>
> No, it's not. There are no "good guys" and "bad guys" in the real
> world, McElroy. Grow the **** up.

Ah, that's how it is we're all bad guys...

[George M. Middius]

Gregipus Avoidicus shilly-shallied:

> > The Gregipus Codex is going to rival the Krooglish-to-human
> > translation module soon. Just a quick note: In human language,
> > bull**** means "something no reasonable person would accept to be
> > true". Now tell us what it means it your dialect.

> Here's

Inability to respond to request noted. Random expatiation about your
personal psychological problems noted. Immediate loss of composure and
sorry excuse for reason noted. Imminent implosion anticipated.

[George M. Middius]

Gregipus pauses for reflection.

> >>I wrote "Arny's personality is all the evidence *I* need?" In what
> >>note? In what context? If I was just doing it to drive Yoon further
> >>insane, that's something different.

> > If that's your story, fine. But that was the only text you posted in
> > that message. What's the matter -- unable to use Google to look up a
> > unique post? Only Krooger is that stupid, at least as far as we know.
> > I'll give you a hint -- you made that post before 01/01/01.

> Nothing like a little ancient history, that's fer sure. Maybe I had a
> slight case of arrested development in those days too.

Actually, you were a lot closer back then to being a recognizable
human being. Thinking about the deterioration of your life since then
-- which you, Kroogerlike, seem impelled to explain in detail -- one
wonders whether your mental deterioration was the cause or the effect
of your current raft of problems.

[ScottW]

"trotsky" > wrote in message
...

> I seem to gotten a hell a lot more out of college than you.

Sure you did Trots.
Exceptional sentence structure and unemployment checks. You win.

ScottW

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Joe Duffy" > wrote in message
...
> In article <wK1nb.38228$gi2.5216@fed1read01>,
> ScottW > wrote:
> >
> > Funny, George is saying the same thing. You two are so alike.
> > I'd say separated at birth.
> >
>
> You are almost there, however
> no separation has yet occurred.
> rao is where the midget's head
> meets arny's feces.
>
>
> Joe
>

RAO is where we 'all' meet Arny's feces.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[trotsky]

MiNE 109 wrote:
> In article >, trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>MiNE 109 wrote:
>>
>>>In article >, trotsky > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>MiNE 109 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article >, trotsky > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>MiNE 109 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Uh-oh, the "rules of engagement". Greg, please outline some rules to
>>>>>>>which you'd agree. Personal attacks don't qualify as "rules", btw.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why is it always up to me?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, you often ask about the "rules" but in my experience, you never
>>>>>get as far as agreeing to proposals.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Which "proposal" are you talking about?
>>>
>>>
>>>There have been some in the past. Now it's your turn.
>>
>>
>>My turn? Okay, I'll beat the **** out of various fellows verbally until
>>I feel I'm caught up. Deal?
>
>
> Then don't complain about how you're treated.


You're confused. I complain about the low level to which participants
on the group sink, not how I'm treated. Somebody has to help guys like
you with a moral compass, because you're doin' too good on your own.


>>>>I'm bored with Star Trek references, frankly.
>>>
>>>
>>>Why bring it up, then?
>>
>>
>>Doesn't this all boil down to your giving Mother Hen and her ilk a free
>>pass? Of course it does.
>
>
> Is this another "rule of engagement"? Mandatory commenting on all RAO
> posts?
>
> You'll remember my rule: I post when I want to.


Oh sure, we all do. Hell, you probably even claim your moral compass
works just fine. Doesn't make it true, though.


>>>>>>If somebody, such as looney tunes weil,
>>>>>>insinuates that he knows something I don't, THE ONUS IS THEN ON HIM. A
>>>>>>non-response is, of course, a declaration of intellectual bankruptcy.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Lots of people know lots you don't know.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That's cool, so you're agreeing that weil should've dispensed this
>>>>knowledge.
>>>
>>> There's that world-class paraphrasing again.
>>
>>
>>What were you trying to say then? Something more effete, I assume?
>
>
> If you don't know something, then it's someone else's job to teach you?


Shouldn't it be a learning experience?


>>>>>>As for my rules, obviously I fight fire with fire. I suppose there have
>>>>>>been a few instances where I've made the first attack, but almost
>>>>>>everything I say is in retaliation. Unless you consider, "Hi, I've got
>>>>>>a new website" a personal attack.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>That's not a "rule of engagement". Besides, you seem to find offense in
>>>>>just about anything.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Apparently you live in some rose colored world where people aren't
>>>>largely pretentious. Another instance of arrested development if you
>>>>ask me.
>>>
>>>
>>>And "pretentiousness" offends you, therefore you can do your pitbull
>>>routine. Talk about arrested development...
>>
>>
>>Do agree you yourself behave pretentiously on this newsgroup?
>
>
> Do agree I myself? Are you using a Klingon to English translation
> program?


Oh, my bad--I gave you some wiggle room so you could wriggle away from
the question like a ****ing weasel: do you agree that you yourself
behave pretentiously on this newsgroup?


>>>>>And many of us were nice enough about the website until you went toxic.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That's the biggest bunch of bull**** I've yet heard.
>>>
>>>
>>>It's true.
>>
>>
>>No, it's not. There are no "good guys" and "bad guys" in the real
>>world, McElroy. Grow the **** up.
>
>
> Ah, that's how it is we're all bad guys...


If you need to oversimplify it then go right ahead.

[trotsky]

George M. Middius wrote:
>
> Gregipus Avoidicus shilly-shallied:
>
>
>>>The Gregipus Codex is going to rival the Krooglish-to-human
>>>translation module soon. Just a quick note: In human language,
>>>bull**** means "something no reasonable person would accept to be
>>>true". Now tell us what it means it your dialect.
>>
>
>
>>Here's
>
>
> In



Zzzzz.

[trotsky]

George M. Middius wrote:
>
> Gregipus pauses for reflection.
>
>
>>>>I wrote "Arny's personality is all the evidence *I* need?" In what
>>>>note? In what context? If I was just doing it to drive Yoon further
>>>>insane, that's something different.
>>>
>
>>>If that's your story, fine. But that was the only text you posted in
>>>that message. What's the matter -- unable to use Google to look up a
>>>unique post? Only Krooger is that stupid, at least as far as we know.
>>>I'll give you a hint -- you made that post before 01/01/01.
>>
>
>
>>Nothing like a little ancient history, that's fer sure. Maybe I had a
>>slight case of arrested development in those days too.
>
>
> A


False.

[trotsky]

ScottW wrote:
> "trotsky" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>I seem to gotten a hell a lot more out of college than you.
>
>
> Sure you did Trots.
> Exceptional sentence structure and unemployment checks. You win.


Good thing I didn't study proofreading.

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> If you call's Yustabe's reveling in pedophilia and murder "pleasant"...
>


I though that George's descriptions of your pedophilic fantasies
were more than pleasant. They were downright funny.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[MiNE 109]

In article >, trotsky >
wrote:

> MiNE 109 wrote:
> > In article >, trotsky > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>MiNE 109 wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article >, trotsky >
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>MiNE 109 wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article >, trotsky >
> >>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>MiNE 109 wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>Uh-oh, the "rules of engagement". Greg, please outline some rules to
> >>>>>>>which you'd agree. Personal attacks don't qualify as "rules", btw.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Why is it always up to me?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Well, you often ask about the "rules" but in my experience, you never
> >>>>>get as far as agreeing to proposals.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Which "proposal" are you talking about?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>There have been some in the past. Now it's your turn.
> >>
> >>
> >>My turn? Okay, I'll beat the **** out of various fellows verbally until
> >>I feel I'm caught up. Deal?
> >
> >
> > Then don't complain about how you're treated.
>
>
> You're confused. I complain about the low level to which participants
> on the group sink, not how I'm treated. Somebody has to help guys like
> you with a moral compass, because you're doin' too good on your own.

So you don't mind the abuse? And what's "too good" about me? You keep
going on about it.

> >>>>I'm bored with Star Trek references, frankly.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Why bring it up, then?
> >>
> >>
> >>Doesn't this all boil down to your giving Mother Hen and her ilk a free
> >>pass? Of course it does.
> >
> >
> > Is this another "rule of engagement"? Mandatory commenting on all RAO
> > posts?
> >
> > You'll remember my rule: I post when I want to.
>
>
> Oh sure, we all do. Hell, you probably even claim your moral compass
> works just fine. Doesn't make it true, though.

Finely tuned, thank you! Yours is evidently miscalibrated, since you
think you're entitled to insult everyone you choose to be offended by.

> >>>>>>If somebody, such as looney tunes weil,
> >>>>>>insinuates that he knows something I don't, THE ONUS IS THEN ON HIM. A
> >>>>>>non-response is, of course, a declaration of intellectual bankruptcy.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Lots of people know lots you don't know.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>That's cool, so you're agreeing that weil should've dispensed this
> >>>>knowledge.
> >>>
> >>> There's that world-class paraphrasing again.
> >>
> >>
> >>What were you trying to say then? Something more effete, I assume?
> >
> >
> > If you don't know something, then it's someone else's job to teach you?
>
>
> Shouldn't it be a learning experience?

How'd you do with the guitar harmonics?

> >>>>>>As for my rules, obviously I fight fire with fire. I suppose there
> >>>>>>have
> >>>>>>been a few instances where I've made the first attack, but almost
> >>>>>>everything I say is in retaliation. Unless you consider, "Hi, I've got
> >>>>>>a new website" a personal attack.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>That's not a "rule of engagement". Besides, you seem to find offense in
> >>>>>just about anything.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Apparently you live in some rose colored world where people aren't
> >>>>largely pretentious. Another instance of arrested development if you
> >>>>ask me.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>And "pretentiousness" offends you, therefore you can do your pitbull
> >>>routine. Talk about arrested development...
> >>
> >>
> >>Do agree you yourself behave pretentiously on this newsgroup?
> >
> >
> > Do agree I myself? Are you using a Klingon to English translation
> > program?
>
>
> Oh, my bad--I gave you some wiggle room so you could wriggle away from
> the question like a ****ing weasel: do you agree that you yourself
> behave pretentiously on this newsgroup?

I, myself? I won't even do the 'moi' joke. No, I'm not pretentious. What
would I be pretentious about? I actually know a lot about music, and
some about literature, art, etc.

> >>>>>And many of us were nice enough about the website until you went toxic.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>That's the biggest bunch of bull**** I've yet heard.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>It's true.
> >>
> >>
> >>No, it's not. There are no "good guys" and "bad guys" in the real
> >>world, McElroy. Grow the **** up.
> >
> >
> > Ah, that's how it is we're all bad guys...
>
>
> If you need to oversimplify it then go right ahead.

There's you, there's the rest of the world...

[trotsky]

MiNE 109 wrote:
> In article >, trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>MiNE 109 wrote:
>>
>>>In article >, trotsky > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>MiNE 109 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article >, trotsky > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>MiNE 109 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article >, trotsky > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>MiNE 109 wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Uh-oh, the "rules of engagement". Greg, please outline some rules to
>>>>>>>>>which you'd agree. Personal attacks don't qualify as "rules", btw.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Why is it always up to me?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Well, you often ask about the "rules" but in my experience, you never
>>>>>>>get as far as agreeing to proposals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Which "proposal" are you talking about?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>There have been some in the past. Now it's your turn.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>My turn? Okay, I'll beat the **** out of various fellows verbally until
>>>>I feel I'm caught up. Deal?
>>>
>>>
>>>Then don't complain about how you're treated.
>>
>>
>>You're confused. I complain about the low level to which participants
>>on the group sink, not how I'm treated. Somebody has to help guys like
>>you with a moral compass, because you're doin' too good on your own.
>
>
> So you don't mind the abuse? And what's "too good" about me? You keep
> going on about it.


Sorry, that should've read "not doin' too good", which was pretty
obvious from the context. And for you to term the treatment I get
"abuse" constitutes a value judgement, but since you're moral compass is
off you apparently don't act on that judgement. Any explanation for
your inaction?


>>>>>>I'm bored with Star Trek references, frankly.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Why bring it up, then?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Doesn't this all boil down to your giving Mother Hen and her ilk a free
>>>>pass? Of course it does.
>>>
>>>
>>>Is this another "rule of engagement"? Mandatory commenting on all RAO
>>>posts?
>>>
>>>You'll remember my rule: I post when I want to.
>>
>>
>>Oh sure, we all do. Hell, you probably even claim your moral compass
>>works just fine. Doesn't make it true, though.
>
>
> Finely tuned, thank you! Yours is evidently miscalibrated, since you
> think you're entitled to insult everyone you choose to be offended by.


This is very monotonous. Because you have no balls, you are unable to
talk about yourself, and hence try and talk about me every single time.


>>>>>>>>If somebody, such as looney tunes weil,
>>>>>>>>insinuates that he knows something I don't, THE ONUS IS THEN ON HIM. A
>>>>>>>>non-response is, of course, a declaration of intellectual bankruptcy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Lots of people know lots you don't know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's cool, so you're agreeing that weil should've dispensed this
>>>>>>knowledge.
>>>>>
>>>>>There's that world-class paraphrasing again.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What were you trying to say then? Something more effete, I assume?
>>>
>>>
>>>If you don't know something, then it's someone else's job to teach you?
>>
>>
>>Shouldn't it be a learning experience?
>
>
> How'd you do with the guitar harmonics?


How did *I* do? That was another train wreck. If musicians choose to
tread on the realm of physics with an ad hoc term that's there
prerogative, but it doesn't make their use of the word any less wrong.
It's analogous to somebody saying "borrow me a buck". You and others
were wallowing in ignorance like ignorant swine.

So, really, the question is how did *you* do, the answer being, "Like ****."


>>>>>>>>As for my rules, obviously I fight fire with fire. I suppose there
>>>>>>>>have
>>>>>>>>been a few instances where I've made the first attack, but almost
>>>>>>>>everything I say is in retaliation. Unless you consider, "Hi, I've got
>>>>>>>>a new website" a personal attack.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That's not a "rule of engagement". Besides, you seem to find offense in
>>>>>>>just about anything.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Apparently you live in some rose colored world where people aren't
>>>>>>largely pretentious. Another instance of arrested development if you
>>>>>>ask me.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>And "pretentiousness" offends you, therefore you can do your pitbull
>>>>>routine. Talk about arrested development...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Do agree you yourself behave pretentiously on this newsgroup?
>>>
>>>
>>>Do agree I myself? Are you using a Klingon to English translation
>>>program?
>>
>>
>>Oh, my bad--I gave you some wiggle room so you could wriggle away from
>>the question like a ****ing weasel: do you agree that you yourself
>>behave pretentiously on this newsgroup?
>
>
> I, myself? I won't even do the 'moi' joke. No, I'm not pretentious. What
> would I be pretentious about? I actually know a lot about music, and
> some about literature, art, etc.


You don't find yourself pretentious? At all? I find that hard to
believe. You seem to be too bright not to realize what your obvious
shortcomings as a person are. Here's an example: if you were to tell
somebody off the group that you saw some guys on rao making "jokes"
about a guy ****ing his dead kid in the ass wouldn't you feel like an
idiot on multiple levels, the biggest of which being your sitting on
your hands instead of saying something about it? Hell, that behavior is
so vile I doubt anyone of us could even bring ourselves to talk about it
off the group--myself included. I'm different, though, because I'm
afraid to stand toe to toe with these guys on the group and tell them
their behavior is the real joke. You, in contrast, sit on your
hands--you don't think that's pretentious?

[Arny Krueger]

"trotsky" > wrote in message


> MiNE 109 wrote:
>> I, myself? I won't even do the 'moi' joke. No, I'm not pretentious.
>> What would I be pretentious about? I actually know a lot about
>> music, and some about literature, art, etc.

> You don't find yourself pretentious? At all? I find that hard to
> believe. You seem to be too bright not to realize what your obvious
> shortcomings as a person are. Here's an example: if you were to tell
> somebody off the group that you saw some guys on rao making "jokes"
> about a guy ****ing his dead kid in the ass wouldn't you feel like an
> idiot on multiple levels, the biggest of which being your sitting on
> your hands instead of saying something about it?

Point well taken.

> Hell, that behavior
> is so vile I doubt anyone of us could even bring ourselves to talk
> about it off the group--myself included.

Depends who you call "us" It's clear that Scotty likes to associate with
people like Yustabe and Phillips that revel in this sort of stuff. I suspect
that the hidden pretext of the last resurrection of this issue was that they
wanted to see how much crap I'd take from him, if he actually spoke out once
on this very issue.

> I'm different, though,
> because I'm afraid to stand toe to toe with these guys on the group
> and tell them their behavior is the real joke.

Except it's no joke at all. I don't think they have the emotional capacity
to appreciate what they've been doing for the past 5 years. However, this
topic has really gotten old. I'd like to see it drop. Graham, Middius,
Phillips and Yustabe know that and so they resurrect it at intervals that
suit their fancy.

> You, in contrast, sit on your hands--you don't think that's pretentious?

There's an unwritten rule on RAO, being that if you don't go up against
Middius and his clique-of-the-moment, they won't try to chop you down. It
does take guts to speak out against Middius, Yustabe, Phillips, Graham and
the rest of those thugs. Very few have shown that they have what it takes.
Stephen has said quite a bit about himself by saying as little as possible.

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "trotsky" > wrote in message
>
>
> > MiNE 109 wrote:
> >> I, myself? I won't even do the 'moi' joke. No, I'm not pretentious.
> >> What would I be pretentious about? I actually know a lot about
> >> music, and some about literature, art, etc.
>
> > You don't find yourself pretentious? At all? I find that hard to
> > believe. You seem to be too bright not to realize what your obvious
> > shortcomings as a person are. Here's an example: if you were to tell
> > somebody off the group that you saw some guys on rao making "jokes"
> > about a guy ****ing his dead kid in the ass wouldn't you feel like an
> > idiot on multiple levels, the biggest of which being your sitting on
> > your hands instead of saying something about it?
>
> Point well taken.
>
> > Hell, that behavior
> > is so vile I doubt anyone of us could even bring ourselves to talk
> > about it off the group--myself included.
>
> Depends who you call "us" It's clear that Scotty likes to associate with
> people like Yustabe and Phillips that revel in this sort of stuff. I
suspect
> that the hidden pretext of the last resurrection of this issue was that
they
> wanted to see how much crap I'd take from him, if he actually spoke out
once
> on this very issue.
>
> > I'm different, though,
> > because I'm afraid to stand toe to toe with these guys on the group
> > and tell them their behavior is the real joke.
>
> Except it's no joke at all. I don't think they have the emotional capacity
> to appreciate what they've been doing for the past 5 years. However, this
> topic has really gotten old. I'd like to see it drop. Graham, Middius,
> Phillips and Yustabe know that and so they resurrect it at intervals that
> suit their fancy.
>
> > You, in contrast, sit on your hands--you don't think that's
pretentious?
>
> There's an unwritten rule on RAO, being that if you don't go up against
> Middius and his clique-of-the-moment, they won't try to chop you down. It
> does take guts to speak out against Middius, Yustabe, Phillips, Graham and
> the rest of those thugs. Very few have shown that they have what it takes.
> Stephen has said quite a bit about himself by saying as little as
possible.
>
>

Looks like Arny's found a soul mate.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[George M. Middius]

Sockpuppet Yustabe said:

> > There's an unwritten rule on RAO, being that if you don't go up against
> > Middius and his clique-of-the-moment, they won't try to chop you down.

> Looks like Arny's found a soul mate.

It's amazing how much I terrify Krooger. I hope Gregipus doesn't end
up as paranoid as Mr. ****.

[trotsky]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "trotsky" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>>MiNE 109 wrote:
>>
>>>I, myself? I won't even do the 'moi' joke. No, I'm not pretentious.
>>>What would I be pretentious about? I actually know a lot about
>>>music, and some about literature, art, etc.
>>
>
>>You don't find yourself pretentious? At all? I find that hard to
>>believe. You seem to be too bright not to realize what your obvious
>>shortcomings as a person are. Here's an example: if you were to tell
>>somebody off the group that you saw some guys on rao making "jokes"
>>about a guy ****ing his dead kid in the ass wouldn't you feel like an
>>idiot on multiple levels, the biggest of which being your sitting on
>>your hands instead of saying something about it?
>
>
> Point well taken.
>
>
>>Hell, that behavior
>>is so vile I doubt anyone of us could even bring ourselves to talk
>>about it off the group--myself included.
>
>
> Depends who you call "us" It's clear that Scotty likes to associate with
> people like Yustabe and Phillips that revel in this sort of stuff. I suspect
> that the hidden pretext of the last resurrection of this issue was that they
> wanted to see how much crap I'd take from him, if he actually spoke out once
> on this very issue.
>
>
>>I'm different, though,
>>because I'm afraid to stand toe to toe with these guys on the group
>>and tell them their behavior is the real joke.
>
>
> Except it's no joke at all. I don't think they have the emotional capacity
> to appreciate what they've been doing for the past 5 years. However, this
> topic has really gotten old. I'd like to see it drop. Graham, Middius,
> Phillips and Yustabe know that and so they resurrect it at intervals that
> suit their fancy.
>
>
>>You, in contrast, sit on your hands--you don't think that's pretentious?
>
>
> There's an unwritten rule on RAO, being that if you don't go up against
> Middius and his clique-of-the-moment, they won't try to chop you down. It
> does take guts to speak out against Middius, Yustabe, Phillips, Graham and
> the rest of those thugs. Very few have shown that they have what it takes.
> Stephen has said quite a bit about himself by saying as little as possible.


Geez, Arny, every once in awhile you make a post that is quite astute.

[MiNE 109]

In article >, trotsky >
wrote:

> MiNE 109 wrote:
> > In article >, trotsky > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>MiNE 109 wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article >, trotsky > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>MiNE 109 wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article >, trotsky >
> >>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>MiNE 109 wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>In article >, trotsky >
> >>>>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>MiNE 109 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Uh-oh, the "rules of engagement". Greg, please outline some rules to
> >>>>>>>>>which you'd agree. Personal attacks don't qualify as "rules", btw.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Why is it always up to me?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Well, you often ask about the "rules" but in my experience, you never
> >>>>>>>get as far as agreeing to proposals.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Which "proposal" are you talking about?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>There have been some in the past. Now it's your turn.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>My turn? Okay, I'll beat the **** out of various fellows verbally until
> >>>>I feel I'm caught up. Deal?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Then don't complain about how you're treated.
> >>
> >>
> >>You're confused. I complain about the low level to which participants
> >>on the group sink, not how I'm treated. Somebody has to help guys like
> >>you with a moral compass, because you're doin' too good on your own.
> >
> >
> > So you don't mind the abuse? And what's "too good" about me? You keep
> > going on about it.
>
>
> Sorry, that should've read "not doin' too good", which was pretty
> obvious from the context.

No, it wasn't, as one could make a case that you are trying to tear down
anyone doing better than you, which is just about everyone.

> And for you to term the treatment I get
> "abuse" constitutes a value judgement, but since you're moral compass is
> off you apparently don't act on that judgement. Any explanation for
> your inaction?

"I've gotten a thousand times the bull**** that Arny's gotten."

Am I misreading you? You actually do want a white knight to come save
you from all the meanies? Why don't you just say so instead of hinting
around?

> >>>>>>I'm bored with Star Trek references, frankly.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Why bring it up, then?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Doesn't this all boil down to your giving Mother Hen and her ilk a free
> >>>>pass? Of course it does.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Is this another "rule of engagement"? Mandatory commenting on all RAO
> >>>posts?
> >>>
> >>>You'll remember my rule: I post when I want to.
> >>
> >>
> >>Oh sure, we all do. Hell, you probably even claim your moral compass
> >>works just fine. Doesn't make it true, though.
> >
> >
> > Finely tuned, thank you! Yours is evidently miscalibrated, since you
> > think you're entitled to insult everyone you choose to be offended by.
>
>
> This is very monotonous. Because you have no balls, you are unable to
> talk about yourself, and hence try and talk about me every single time.

Lack of content noted. Empty repetition of old insults noted.

Wouldn't talking about myself be, you know, pretentious?

> >>>>>>>>If somebody, such as looney tunes weil,
> >>>>>>>>insinuates that he knows something I don't, THE ONUS IS THEN ON HIM.
> >>>>>>>>A
> >>>>>>>>non-response is, of course, a declaration of intellectual bankruptcy.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Lots of people know lots you don't know.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>That's cool, so you're agreeing that weil should've dispensed this
> >>>>>>knowledge.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>There's that world-class paraphrasing again.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>What were you trying to say then? Something more effete, I assume?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>If you don't know something, then it's someone else's job to teach you?
> >>
> >>
> >>Shouldn't it be a learning experience?
> >
> >
> > How'd you do with the guitar harmonics?
>
>
> How did *I* do? That was another train wreck. If musicians choose to
> tread on the realm of physics with an ad hoc term that's there
> prerogative, but it doesn't make their use of the word any less wrong.

There's your problem: it isn't wrong. You chose an incorrectly narrow
definition. Go look up Pythagoras and you'll find yourself millenia out
of date on this subject.

> It's analogous to somebody saying "borrow me a buck". You and others
> were wallowing in ignorance like ignorant swine.

No, it isn't. A Google search of "guitar harmonics" yields "about
2,740". Your lack of initiative in educating yourself on this subject is
willful ignorance.

> So, really, the question is how did *you* do, the answer being, "Like ****."

I provided multiple sources for you to study, fulfilling the "rule of
engagement" you demanded of dw.

> >>>>>>>>As for my rules, obviously I fight fire with fire. I suppose there
> >>>>>>>>have
> >>>>>>>>been a few instances where I've made the first attack, but almost
> >>>>>>>>everything I say is in retaliation. Unless you consider, "Hi, I've
> >>>>>>>>got
> >>>>>>>>a new website" a personal attack.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>That's not a "rule of engagement". Besides, you seem to find offense
> >>>>>>>in
> >>>>>>>just about anything.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Apparently you live in some rose colored world where people aren't
> >>>>>>largely pretentious. Another instance of arrested development if you
> >>>>>>ask me.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>And "pretentiousness" offends you, therefore you can do your pitbull
> >>>>>routine. Talk about arrested development...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Do agree you yourself behave pretentiously on this newsgroup?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Do agree I myself? Are you using a Klingon to English translation
> >>>program?
> >>
> >>
> >>Oh, my bad--I gave you some wiggle room so you could wriggle away from
> >>the question like a ****ing weasel: do you agree that you yourself
> >>behave pretentiously on this newsgroup?
> >
> >
> > I, myself? I won't even do the 'moi' joke. No, I'm not pretentious. What
> > would I be pretentious about? I actually know a lot about music, and
> > some about literature, art, etc.
>
>
> You don't find yourself pretentious? At all? I find that hard to
> believe.

No. Not a bit. Stretch your mind around the concept.

> You seem to be too bright not to realize what your obvious
> shortcomings as a person are. Here's an example: if you were to tell
> somebody off the group that you saw some guys on rao making "jokes"
> about a guy ****ing his dead kid in the ass wouldn't you feel like an
> idiot on multiple levels, the biggest of which being your sitting on
> your hands instead of saying something about it?

"If you were..." That's not going to happen. Is this a new "rule of
engagement", a retroactive demand that everyone defend Arny?

> Hell, that behavior is
> so vile I doubt anyone of us could even bring ourselves to talk about it
> off the group--myself included. I'm different, though, because I'm
> afraid to stand toe to toe with these guys on the group and tell them
> their behavior is the real joke.

At the moment, you appear to be picking on me for stuff other people do.
Don't you think that's misplaced?

> You, in contrast, sit on your hands--you don't think that's pretentious?

Not at all. We'll just have to add "pretentious" to the list of words
you don't know.

[MiNE 109]

In article >, trotsky >
wrote:

> Geez, Arny, every once in awhile you make a post that is quite astute.

Greg has a term for exchanges like this.

[George M. Middius]

MiNE 109 said:

> > Geez, Arny, every once in awhile you make a post that is quite astute.

> Greg has a term for exchanges like this.

Greg has been outed. Is Krooger next?

[dave weil]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:22:12 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>
>
>dave weil wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:13:09 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>MiNE 109 wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article et>,
>>>> trotsky > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>You're part of the problem, McElroy. We both know it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Your problem is other people. Lionel will know a Sartre quote to cover
>>>>the situation.
>>>
>>>
>>>Not good enough. You lack the backbone to show any moral fiber on this
>>>group. Which family members did you say you ****ed? Isn't this a
>>>hilarious joke?
>>
>>
>> Is this like wishing that I got cancer and died?
>
>
>dave, if your neurons ever manage to stop misfiring, perhaps you can
>tell us what the rules of engagement are. Until then, though, I suppose
>I'm destined to hear the sound of an egg frying every time you post.

Yeah, bet it's making you hungry, you fat fatuous ****.

BTW, good luck on making a hundred bucks for those 10 speaker sets
you're going to sell in the next year. Meanwhile, I trust that those
welfare dollars will keep you in good stead for 30 weeks or so.

[dave weil]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:12:24 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

> Unless you consider, "Hi, I've got a new website" a personal attack.

No - it's called promoting a product on a non-commercial newsgroup,
something that you used to claim you didn't do...

[dave weil]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:26:36 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>
>
>Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "trotsky" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>>MiNE 109 wrote:
>>>
>>>>I, myself? I won't even do the 'moi' joke. No, I'm not pretentious.
>>>>What would I be pretentious about? I actually know a lot about
>>>>music, and some about literature, art, etc.
>>>
>>
>>>You don't find yourself pretentious? At all? I find that hard to
>>>believe. You seem to be too bright not to realize what your obvious
>>>shortcomings as a person are. Here's an example: if you were to tell
>>>somebody off the group that you saw some guys on rao making "jokes"
>>>about a guy ****ing his dead kid in the ass wouldn't you feel like an
>>>idiot on multiple levels, the biggest of which being your sitting on
>>>your hands instead of saying something about it?
>>
>>
>> Point well taken.
>>
>>
>>>Hell, that behavior
>>>is so vile I doubt anyone of us could even bring ourselves to talk
>>>about it off the group--myself included.
>>
>>
>> Depends who you call "us" It's clear that Scotty likes to associate with
>> people like Yustabe and Phillips that revel in this sort of stuff. I suspect
>> that the hidden pretext of the last resurrection of this issue was that they
>> wanted to see how much crap I'd take from him, if he actually spoke out once
>> on this very issue.
>>
>>
>>>I'm different, though,
>>>because I'm afraid to stand toe to toe with these guys on the group
>>>and tell them their behavior is the real joke.
>>
>>
>> Except it's no joke at all. I don't think they have the emotional capacity
>> to appreciate what they've been doing for the past 5 years. However, this
>> topic has really gotten old. I'd like to see it drop. Graham, Middius,
>> Phillips and Yustabe know that and so they resurrect it at intervals that
>> suit their fancy.
>>
>>
>>>You, in contrast, sit on your hands--you don't think that's pretentious?
>>
>>
>> There's an unwritten rule on RAO, being that if you don't go up against
>> Middius and his clique-of-the-moment, they won't try to chop you down. It
>> does take guts to speak out against Middius, Yustabe, Phillips, Graham and
>> the rest of those thugs. Very few have shown that they have what it takes.
>> Stephen has said quite a bit about himself by saying as little as possible.
>
>
>Geez, Arny, every once in awhile you make a post that is quite astute.

You guys should get a room.

[Torresists]

>From: dave weil
>Date: 10/28/2003 1:26 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:26:36 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> "trotsky" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>MiNE 109 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I, myself? I won't even do the 'moi' joke. No, I'm not pretentious.
>>>>>What would I be pretentious about? I actually know a lot about
>>>>>music, and some about literature, art, etc.
>>>>
>>>
>>>>You don't find yourself pretentious? At all? I find that hard to
>>>>believe. You seem to be too bright not to realize what your obvious
>>>>shortcomings as a person are. Here's an example: if you were to tell
>>>>somebody off the group that you saw some guys on rao making "jokes"
>>>>about a guy ****ing his dead kid in the ass wouldn't you feel like an
>>>>idiot on multiple levels, the biggest of which being your sitting on
>>>>your hands instead of saying something about it?
>>>
>>>
>>> Point well taken.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hell, that behavior
>>>>is so vile I doubt anyone of us could even bring ourselves to talk
>>>>about it off the group--myself included.
>>>
>>>
>>> Depends who you call "us" It's clear that Scotty likes to associate with
>>> people like Yustabe and Phillips that revel in this sort of stuff. I
>suspect
>>> that the hidden pretext of the last resurrection of this issue was that
>they
>>> wanted to see how much crap I'd take from him, if he actually spoke out
>once
>>> on this very issue.
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'm different, though,
>>>>because I'm afraid to stand toe to toe with these guys on the group
>>>>and tell them their behavior is the real joke.
>>>
>>>
>>> Except it's no joke at all. I don't think they have the emotional capacity
>>> to appreciate what they've been doing for the past 5 years. However, this
>>> topic has really gotten old. I'd like to see it drop. Graham, Middius,
>>> Phillips and Yustabe know that and so they resurrect it at intervals that
>>> suit their fancy.
>>>
>>>
>>>>You, in contrast, sit on your hands--you don't think that's pretentious?
>>>
>>>
>>> There's an unwritten rule on RAO, being that if you don't go up against
>>> Middius and his clique-of-the-moment, they won't try to chop you down. It
>>> does take guts to speak out against Middius, Yustabe, Phillips, Graham and
>>> the rest of those thugs. Very few have shown that they have what it takes.
>>> Stephen has said quite a bit about himself by saying as little as
>possible.
>>
>>
>>Geez, Arny, every once in awhile you make a post that is quite astute.
>
>You guys should get a room.
>
Maybe you and George can loan them the one you use. (Remember to change the
sheets first.)

[dave weil]

On 28 Oct 2003 19:29:15 GMT, (Torresists) wrote:

>>From: dave weil
>>Date: 10/28/2003 1:26 PM Central Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:26:36 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>> "trotsky" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>MiNE 109 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>I, myself? I won't even do the 'moi' joke. No, I'm not pretentious.
>>>>>>What would I be pretentious about? I actually know a lot about
>>>>>>music, and some about literature, art, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>You don't find yourself pretentious? At all? I find that hard to
>>>>>believe. You seem to be too bright not to realize what your obvious
>>>>>shortcomings as a person are. Here's an example: if you were to tell
>>>>>somebody off the group that you saw some guys on rao making "jokes"
>>>>>about a guy ****ing his dead kid in the ass wouldn't you feel like an
>>>>>idiot on multiple levels, the biggest of which being your sitting on
>>>>>your hands instead of saying something about it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Point well taken.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hell, that behavior
>>>>>is so vile I doubt anyone of us could even bring ourselves to talk
>>>>>about it off the group--myself included.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Depends who you call "us" It's clear that Scotty likes to associate with
>>>> people like Yustabe and Phillips that revel in this sort of stuff. I
>>suspect
>>>> that the hidden pretext of the last resurrection of this issue was that
>>they
>>>> wanted to see how much crap I'd take from him, if he actually spoke out
>>once
>>>> on this very issue.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I'm different, though,
>>>>>because I'm afraid to stand toe to toe with these guys on the group
>>>>>and tell them their behavior is the real joke.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Except it's no joke at all. I don't think they have the emotional capacity
>>>> to appreciate what they've been doing for the past 5 years. However, this
>>>> topic has really gotten old. I'd like to see it drop. Graham, Middius,
>>>> Phillips and Yustabe know that and so they resurrect it at intervals that
>>>> suit their fancy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>You, in contrast, sit on your hands--you don't think that's pretentious?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There's an unwritten rule on RAO, being that if you don't go up against
>>>> Middius and his clique-of-the-moment, they won't try to chop you down. It
>>>> does take guts to speak out against Middius, Yustabe, Phillips, Graham and
>>>> the rest of those thugs. Very few have shown that they have what it takes.
>>>> Stephen has said quite a bit about himself by saying as little as
>>possible.
>>>
>>>
>>>Geez, Arny, every once in awhile you make a post that is quite astute.
>>
>>You guys should get a room.
>>
>Maybe you and George can loan them the one you use. (Remember to change the
>sheets first.)

Are you just annoyed that Arnold is cheating on you?

[trotsky]

MiNE 109 wrote:
> In article >, trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>MiNE 109 wrote:
>>
>>>In article >, trotsky > wrote:
>>>

>>>>You're confused. I complain about the low level to which participants
>>>>on the group sink, not how I'm treated. Somebody has to help guys like
>>>>you with a moral compass, because you're doin' too good on your own.
>>>
>>>
>>>So you don't mind the abuse? And what's "too good" about me? You keep
>>>going on about it.
>>
>>
>>Sorry, that should've read "not doin' too good", which was pretty
>>obvious from the context.
>
>
> No, it wasn't, as one could make a case that you are trying to tear down
> anyone doing better than you, which is just about everyone.


Again, we go over this constantly: people making "jokes" about guys
****ing their dead kids are not better than me. You are LYING when you
say this. For some reason, lily livered guys like yourself let their
agendas become more important than the truth. That's hardly my fault.


>> And for you to term the treatment I get
>>"abuse" constitutes a value judgement, but since you're moral compass is
>>off you apparently don't act on that judgement. Any explanation for
>>your inaction?
>
>
> "I've gotten a thousand times the bull**** that Arny's gotten."
>
> Am I misreading you? You actually do want a white knight to come save
> you from all the meanies? Why don't you just say so instead of hinting
> around?


No, all I want is for someone to acknowledge the truth for a change.
The bull****'s getting stale.


>>>>>You'll remember my rule: I post when I want to.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Oh sure, we all do. Hell, you probably even claim your moral compass
>>>>works just fine. Doesn't make it true, though.
>>>
>>>
>>>Finely tuned, thank you! Yours is evidently miscalibrated, since you
>>>think you're entitled to insult everyone you choose to be offended by.
>>
>>
>>This is very monotonous. Because you have no balls, you are unable to
>>talk about yourself, and hence try and talk about me every single time.
>
>
> Lack of content noted. Empty repetition of old insults noted.
>
> Wouldn't talking about myself be, you know, pretentious?


No, I think you understand what self awareness is. I only assume you're
lying again.


>>>>>>>>That's cool, so you're agreeing that weil should've dispensed this
>>>>>>>>knowledge.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>There's that world-class paraphrasing again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What were you trying to say then? Something more effete, I assume?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>If you don't know something, then it's someone else's job to teach you?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Shouldn't it be a learning experience?
>>>
>>>
>>>How'd you do with the guitar harmonics?
>>
>>
>>How did *I* do? That was another train wreck. If musicians choose to
>>tread on the realm of physics with an ad hoc term that's there
>>prerogative, but it doesn't make their use of the word any less wrong.
>
>
> There's your problem: it isn't wrong. You chose an incorrectly narrow
> definition. Go look up Pythagoras and you'll find yourself millenia out
> of date on this subject.
>
>
>>It's analogous to somebody saying "borrow me a buck". You and others
>>were wallowing in ignorance like ignorant swine.
>
>
> No, it isn't. A Google search of "guitar harmonics" yields "about
> 2,740". Your lack of initiative in educating yourself on this subject is
> willful ignorance.


What are you talking about? You decide if a situation is analogous by
doing a google search? Well, you can cling all you want to your
untenable position if that's what you need to do.


>>So, really, the question is how did *you* do, the answer being, "Like ****."
>
>
> I provided multiple sources for you to study, fulfilling the "rule of
> engagement" you demanded of dw.


Not good enough, Stephen. Unless you can get it clear in the fog that
is your own agenda that one definition is formally correct, and the
other is an ad hoc one put in place by musicians, there is nothing to do
discuss.



>>>>>>>And "pretentiousness" offends you, therefore you can do your pitbull
>>>>>>>routine. Talk about arrested development...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Do agree you yourself behave pretentiously on this newsgroup?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Do agree I myself? Are you using a Klingon to English translation
>>>>>program?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Oh, my bad--I gave you some wiggle room so you could wriggle away from
>>>>the question like a ****ing weasel: do you agree that you yourself
>>>>behave pretentiously on this newsgroup?
>>>
>>>
>>>I, myself? I won't even do the 'moi' joke. No, I'm not pretentious. What
>>>would I be pretentious about? I actually know a lot about music, and
>>>some about literature, art, etc.
>>
>>
>>You don't find yourself pretentious? At all? I find that hard to
>>believe.
>
>
> No. Not a bit. Stretch your mind around the concept.
>
>
>>You seem to be too bright not to realize what your obvious
>>shortcomings as a person are. Here's an example: if you were to tell
>>somebody off the group that you saw some guys on rao making "jokes"
>>about a guy ****ing his dead kid in the ass wouldn't you feel like an
>>idiot on multiple levels, the biggest of which being your sitting on
>>your hands instead of saying something about it?
>
>
> "If you were..." That's not going to happen. Is this a new "rule of
> engagement", a retroactive demand that everyone defend Arny?


Who's talking about Arny? I'm just asking why you PRETEND that your
moral compass says something different than it does. Do you even have
the ****ing balls to make any kind of statement about the online persona
of "George Middius", for example?


>>Hell, that behavior is
>>so vile I doubt anyone of us could even bring ourselves to talk about it
>>off the group--myself included. I'm different, though, because I'm
>>afraid to stand toe to toe with these guys on the group and tell them
>>their behavior is the real joke.
>
>
> At the moment, you appear to be picking on me for stuff other people do.
> Don't you think that's misplaced?


No. If you don't want to proffer opinions why are you on this group?


>>You, in contrast, sit on your hands--you don't think that's pretentious?
>
>
> Not at all. We'll just have to add "pretentious" to the list of words
> you don't know.


Zzzz.

[trotsky]

dave weil wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:22:12 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>dave weil wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:13:09 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>MiNE 109 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article et>,
>>>>>trotsky > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>You're part of the problem, McElroy. We both know it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Your problem is other people. Lionel will know a Sartre quote to cover
>>>>>the situation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Not good enough. You lack the backbone to show any moral fiber on this
>>>>group. Which family members did you say you ****ed? Isn't this a
>>>>hilarious joke?
>>>
>>>
>>>Is this like wishing that I got cancer and died?
>>
>>
>>dave, if your neurons ever manage to stop misfiring, perhaps you can
>>tell us what the rules of engagement are. Until then, though, I suppose
>>I'm destined to hear the sound of an egg frying every time you post.
>
>
> Yeah, bet it's making you hungry, you fat fatuous ****.
>
> BTW, good luck on making a hundred bucks for those 10 speaker sets
> you're going to sell in the next year. Meanwhile, I trust that those
> welfare dollars will keep you in good stead for 30 weeks or so.


Thanks for the good cheer. Good job selling out and being as
establishment as possible. "More White Zinf, please."

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

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

> >
> > There's an unwritten rule on RAO, being that if you don't go up against
> > Middius and his clique-of-the-moment, they won't try to chop you down.
It
> > does take guts to speak out against Middius, Yustabe, Phillips, Graham
and
> > the rest of those thugs. Very few have shown that they have what it
takes.
> > Stephen has said quite a bit about himself by saying as little as
possible.
>
>
> Geez, Arny, every once in awhile you make a post that is quite astute.
>
>

A fine example of embedded reporting.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[The Stainless Steel Boob Orchestra]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 22:11:14 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>Again, we go over this constantly: people making "jokes" about guys
>****ing their dead kids are not better than me. You are LYING when you
>say this. For some reason, lily livered guys like yourself let their
>agendas become more important than the truth. That's hardly my fault.

Hell, Gerg, I write those remarks off as the product of some momentary
arrested development, just as you did with your own remarks.

--
td

[dave weil]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 22:16:14 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>>>dave, if your neurons ever manage to stop misfiring, perhaps you can
>>>tell us what the rules of engagement are. Until then, though, I suppose
>>>I'm destined to hear the sound of an egg frying every time you post.
>>
>>
>> Yeah, bet it's making you hungry, you fat fatuous ****.
>>
>> BTW, good luck on making a hundred bucks for those 10 speaker sets
>> you're going to sell in the next year. Meanwhile, I trust that those
>> welfare dollars will keep you in good stead for 30 weeks or so.
>
>
>Thanks for the good cheer.

You're welcome.

> Good job selling out and being as establishment as possible. "More White Zinf, please."

As I've already instructed you, your abbreviation is full of ****.
Only in *you* tortured mind is this an abbreviation of white
zinfandel.

But as I've already told you, I rarely sell the stuff. Probably even
less than you sell speakers of any stripe.

PS, who are you going to complain about when you pull the Jupiter
Audio line for non-movement of product? You won't be able to blame
this on Reynaud.

Just curious.

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"MiNE 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, trotsky >
> wrote:
>
> > Geez, Arny, every once in awhile you make a post that is quite astute.
>
> Greg has a term for exchanges like this.

Would it be "butt buddies"?




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[MiNE 109]

In article >, trotsky >
wrote:

> MiNE 109 wrote:
> > In article >, trotsky > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>MiNE 109 wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article >, trotsky > wrote:
> >>>
>
> >>>>You're confused. I complain about the low level to which participants
> >>>>on the group sink, not how I'm treated. Somebody has to help guys like
> >>>>you with a moral compass, because you're doin' too good on your own.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>So you don't mind the abuse? And what's "too good" about me? You keep
> >>>going on about it.
> >>
> >>
> >>Sorry, that should've read "not doin' too good", which was pretty
> >>obvious from the context.
> >
> >
> > No, it wasn't, as one could make a case that you are trying to tear down
> > anyone doing better than you, which is just about everyone.
>
>
> Again, we go over this constantly: people making "jokes" about guys
> ****ing their dead kids are not better than me. You are LYING when you
> say this.

You are LYING when you say I've said this.

> For some reason, lily livered guys like yourself let their
> agendas become more important than the truth. That's hardly my fault.

http://tinyurl.com/ss64

> >> And for you to term the treatment I get
> >>"abuse" constitutes a value judgement, but since you're moral compass is
> >>off you apparently don't act on that judgement. Any explanation for
> >>your inaction?
> >
> >
> > "I've gotten a thousand times the bull**** that Arny's gotten."
> >
> > Am I misreading you? You actually do want a white knight to come save
> > you from all the meanies? Why don't you just say so instead of hinting
> > around?
>
>
> No, all I want is for someone to acknowledge the truth for a change.
> The bull****'s getting stale.

The truth as you see it?

> >>>>>You'll remember my rule: I post when I want to.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Oh sure, we all do. Hell, you probably even claim your moral compass
> >>>>works just fine. Doesn't make it true, though.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Finely tuned, thank you! Yours is evidently miscalibrated, since you
> >>>think you're entitled to insult everyone you choose to be offended by.
> >>
> >>
> >>This is very monotonous. Because you have no balls, you are unable to
> >>talk about yourself, and hence try and talk about me every single time.
> >
> >
> > Lack of content noted. Empty repetition of old insults noted.
> >
> > Wouldn't talking about myself be, you know, pretentious?
>
>
> No, I think you understand what self awareness is. I only assume you're
> lying again.

Is it pretentious or not? How is it lying to ask? Do you even know what
"lying" and "pretentious" mean?

> >>>>>>>>That's cool, so you're agreeing that weil should've dispensed this
> >>>>>>>>knowledge.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>There's that world-class paraphrasing again.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>What were you trying to say then? Something more effete, I assume?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>If you don't know something, then it's someone else's job to teach you?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Shouldn't it be a learning experience?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>How'd you do with the guitar harmonics?
> >>
> >>
> >>How did *I* do? That was another train wreck. If musicians choose to
> >>tread on the realm of physics with an ad hoc term that's there
> >>prerogative, but it doesn't make their use of the word any less wrong.
> >
> >
> > There's your problem: it isn't wrong. You chose an incorrectly narrow
> > definition. Go look up Pythagoras and you'll find yourself millenia out
> > of date on this subject.
> >
> >
> >>It's analogous to somebody saying "borrow me a buck". You and others
> >>were wallowing in ignorance like ignorant swine.
> >
> >
> > No, it isn't. A Google search of "guitar harmonics" yields "about
> > 2,740". Your lack of initiative in educating yourself on this subject is
> > willful ignorance.
>
>
> What are you talking about? You decide if a situation is analogous by
> doing a google search?

The Google search was for your education. You've supplied no evidence
that your "definition" of harmonics is correct.

As for analogies, correct usage of a technical term is not the same as a
grammatical error.

> Well, you can cling all you want to your
> untenable position if that's what you need to do.

Try looking at one or two of those Google hits. You're simply *wrong*
about musicians and harmonics.

> >>So, really, the question is how did *you* do, the answer being, "Like ****."
> >
> >
> > I provided multiple sources for you to study, fulfilling the "rule of
> > engagement" you demanded of dw.
>
>
> Not good enough, Stephen. Unless you can get it clear in the fog that
> is your own agenda that one definition is formally correct, and the
> other is an ad hoc one put in place by musicians, there is nothing to do
> discuss.

The musical definition isn't ad hoc. As for formally correct, is 2-to-1
the only possible ratio?

Do you know what a monochord is?

> >>>>>>>And "pretentiousness" offends you, therefore you can do your pitbull
> >>>>>>>routine. Talk about arrested development...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Do agree you yourself behave pretentiously on this newsgroup?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Do agree I myself? Are you using a Klingon to English translation
> >>>>>program?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Oh, my bad--I gave you some wiggle room so you could wriggle away from
> >>>>the question like a ****ing weasel: do you agree that you yourself
> >>>>behave pretentiously on this newsgroup?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I, myself? I won't even do the 'moi' joke. No, I'm not pretentious. What
> >>>would I be pretentious about? I actually know a lot about music, and
> >>>some about literature, art, etc.
> >>
> >>
> >>You don't find yourself pretentious? At all? I find that hard to
> >>believe.
> >
> >
> > No. Not a bit. Stretch your mind around the concept.
> >
> >
> >>You seem to be too bright not to realize what your obvious
> >>shortcomings as a person are. Here's an example: if you were to tell
> >>somebody off the group that you saw some guys on rao making "jokes"
> >>about a guy ****ing his dead kid in the ass wouldn't you feel like an
> >>idiot on multiple levels, the biggest of which being your sitting on
> >>your hands instead of saying something about it?
> >
> >
> > "If you were..." That's not going to happen. Is this a new "rule of
> > engagement", a retroactive demand that everyone defend Arny?
>
>
> Who's talking about Arny?

You have a dead kid? I'm sorry to hear that.

> I'm just asking why you PRETEND that your
> moral compass says something different than it does.

You're in no position to say whether or not I'm pretending.

> Do you even have
> the ****ing balls to make any kind of statement about the online persona
> of "George Middius", for example?

Middius mode on: "Mommy, make him stop!"

So George has really gotten to you. Maybe he's hurting inside because
you called him gay or something.

> >>Hell, that behavior is
> >>so vile I doubt anyone of us could even bring ourselves to talk about it
> >>off the group--myself included. I'm different, though, because I'm
> >>afraid to stand toe to toe with these guys on the group and tell them
> >>their behavior is the real joke.
> >
> >
> > At the moment, you appear to be picking on me for stuff other people do.
> > Don't you think that's misplaced?
>
>
> No. If you don't want to proffer opinions why are you on this group?

Who says I don't want to proffer opinions?

> >>You, in contrast, sit on your hands--you don't think that's pretentious?
> >
> >
> > Not at all. We'll just have to add "pretentious" to the list of words
> > you don't know.
>
>
> Zzzz.

Pretending to sleep?

[MiNE 109]

In article >,
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote:

> "MiNE 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, trotsky >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Geez, Arny, every once in awhile you make a post that is quite astute.
> >
> > Greg has a term for exchanges like this.
>
> Would it be "butt buddies"?

Fry and Laurie had a good list of synonyms Greg could consult for
variety.

[trotsky]

MiNE 109 wrote:
> In article >, trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>MiNE 109 wrote:
>>
>>>In article >, trotsky > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>MiNE 109 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article >, trotsky > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>You're confused. I complain about the low level to which participants
>>>>>>on the group sink, not how I'm treated. Somebody has to help guys like
>>>>>>you with a moral compass, because you're doin' too good on your own.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>So you don't mind the abuse? And what's "too good" about me? You keep
>>>>>going on about it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Sorry, that should've read "not doin' too good", which was pretty
>>>>obvious from the context.
>>>
>>>
>>>No, it wasn't, as one could make a case that you are trying to tear down
>>>anyone doing better than you, which is just about everyone.
>>
>>
>>Again, we go over this constantly: people making "jokes" about guys
>>****ing their dead kids are not better than me. You are LYING when you
>>say this.
>
>
> You are LYING when you say I've said this.


That's the point, McElroy you don't say ANYTHING, because you have no
balls. I gave you a shot at saying something consequential about
Middius, and you probably **** your pants in the process.

[George M. Middius]

Gregipus claws impotently at the wispy pink dragonflies.

> I gave you a shot at saying something consequential about
> Middius, and you probably **** your pants in the process.

I don't think Stephen has a higher opinion of you than I do,
Mommy****er.

[MiNE 109]

In article >, trotsky >
wrote:

> MiNE 109 wrote:
> > In article >, trotsky > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>MiNE 109 wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article >, trotsky >
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>MiNE 109 wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article >, trotsky >
> >>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>You're confused. I complain about the low level to which participants
> >>>>>>on the group sink, not how I'm treated. Somebody has to help guys like
> >>>>>>you with a moral compass, because you're doin' too good on your own.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>So you don't mind the abuse? And what's "too good" about me? You keep
> >>>>>going on about it.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Sorry, that should've read "not doin' too good", which was pretty
> >>>>obvious from the context.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>No, it wasn't, as one could make a case that you are trying to tear down
> >>>anyone doing better than you, which is just about everyone.
> >>
> >>
> >>Again, we go over this constantly: people making "jokes" about guys
> >>****ing their dead kids are not better than me. You are LYING when you
> >>say this.
> >
> >
> > You are LYING when you say I've said this.
>
>
> That's the point, McElroy you don't say ANYTHING, because you have no
> balls. I gave you a shot at saying something consequential about
> Middius, and you probably **** your pants in the process.

Sorry to disappoint you. Where do you get your man-nappies?

[The Stainless Steel Boob Orchestra]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 02:02:27 GMT, MiNE 109 >
wrote:

>Sorry to disappoint you. Where do you get your man-nappies?

That's turbans, dave.*

--
td

* For politically correct Americans.

[trotsky]

The Stainless Steel Boob Orchestra wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 02:02:27 GMT, MiNE 109 >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Sorry to disappoint you. Where do you get your man-nappies?
>
>
> That's turbans, dave.*
>
> --
> td
>
> * For politically correct Americans.



Yeah, "dave". McElroy, have you been sockpuppeting again?

[Marc Phillips]

Mr. Middius said:

>Scottie said:
>
>> > > I suppose your behavior here is representative of you in person. If
>> > > that is so, I'll pass on the dinner invite.
>
>> Ooops, no response. Could you actually be embarrassed by the facts?
>
>Maybe you can get a certain person to share The Recording with you.

I don't have it anymore. Baby, I had to crash that Honda. But if a certain
person wants to resend it...

Boon

[ScottW]

"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
...
> Mr. Middius said:
>
> >Scottie said:
> >
> >> > > I suppose your behavior here is representative of you in person.
If
> >> > > that is so, I'll pass on the dinner invite.
> >
> >> Ooops, no response. Could you actually be embarrassed by the facts?
> >
> >Maybe you can get a certain person to share The Recording with you.
>
> I don't have it anymore. Baby, I had to crash that Honda. But if a
certain
> person wants to resend it...

No need, I heard about it. Arny won't be coming to dinner anytime soon.

ScottW

[Marc Phillips]

ScottW said:

>No need, I heard about it. Arny won't be coming to dinner anytime soon.

Is that due to your policy of having to wear pants at the dinner table?

Boon

[Arny Krueger]

"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message

> ScottW said:
>
>> No need, I heard about it. Arny won't be coming to dinner anytime
>> soon.
>
> Is that due to your policy of having to wear pants at the dinner
> table?

Phillips, it's interesting you lost all perspective on time of day.

[ScottW]

"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
...
> ScottW said:
>
> >No need, I heard about it. Arny won't be coming to dinner anytime soon.
>
> Is that due to your policy of having to wear pants at the dinner table?

Oh, yucch. The vision you just seared into my brain. I am scarred for
life.
And worse, I have lost my appetite.

We got some rain today, smoke is cleared out. Sparks are starting to fly
on some of the royal f'ups the CDF pulled in this fire. Couple of
incredible
reports which remain to be confirmed investigation so TIFWIW.

1) The cedar fire was started by a lost hunter making a signal fire.
He was located by a sheriffs helicopter, picked up and cited for
starting an illegal fire. Apparently on takeoff, the rotor wash is
what blew the fire out of control. The Sheriffs did not report the
fire to the CDF.

2) Homeowners in the area began calling to report the fire.
After seeing no action at least 2 began calling in repeatedly.
Both were told the CDF was monitoring the fire and don't call back.
One of these caller lost his home Sat. night. (one of the first structures
lost)

3) Sunday morning (or late Sat.) the SDFD was called to a backyard fire in
Scripps Ranch.
They had not received any report from CDF. They sent a couple trucks out
expecting
to find a small out control barbecue or something. Instead they ran into a
firewall
racing down a hill toward scripps. The CDF never reported the fire to
local fire fighters.

3) On Sunday, 3 fire fighting equipped
helicopters from one of the local military branches (navy or marines) were
dispatched by the base commander to Ramona Airport (where the CDF usually
operates
out of in the event of fires). The CDF Commander refused them permission to
begin operations
even though the CDF had no air resources available in SD County at that
time.
They returned to base. Base sent them back to Romana. CDF again refused
air support.
They returned to base and began operations out of Miramar in support of SD
City firefighters
against the fire which had by now crossed I-15 and was burning Miramar NAS.

4) Now the Governor is saying, well this was the largest fire in state
history so it wasn't
their fault. No ****, they get that way because the dumbasses in CDF
wouldn't fight it
until it threatened structures. By then it was way too late.

Like I said, none of this is confirmed but if it is true...

ScottW

[Marc Phillips]

Arny said:

>"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message

>> ScottW said:
>>
>>> No need, I heard about it. Arny won't be coming to dinner anytime
>>> soon.
>>
>> Is that due to your policy of having to wear pants at the dinner
>> table?
>
>Phillips, it's interesting you lost all perspective on time of day.

Yes, you're right, Arny, that it's the FIRST four hours of your day that you
spend at the kitchen table in your ****-stained skivvies, not dinnertime.
Thanks for clearing that up.

Boon

[Arny Krueger]

"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message

> Arny said:
>
>> "Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
>>

>>> ScottW said:
>
>>>> No need, I heard about it. Arny won't be coming to dinner anytime
>>>> soon.

>>> Is that due to your policy of having to wear pants at the dinner
>>> table?

>> Phillips, it's interesting you lost all perspective on time of day.

> Yes, you're right, Arny, that it's the FIRST four hours of your day
> that you spend at the kitchen table in your ****-stained skivvies,
> not dinnertime. Thanks for clearing that up.

Wrong again!

[Marc Phillips]

Arny said:

>>> "Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
>>>
>
>>>> ScottW said:
>>
>>>>> No need, I heard about it. Arny won't be coming to dinner anytime
>>>>> soon.
>
>>>> Is that due to your policy of having to wear pants at the dinner
>>>> table?
>
>>> Phillips, it's interesting you lost all perspective on time of day.
>
>> Yes, you're right, Arny, that it's the FIRST four hours of your day
>> that you spend at the kitchen table in your ****-stained skivvies,
>> not dinnertime. Thanks for clearing that up.
>
>Wrong again!

Then I could care less about whatever lie you're trying to pass off today.

Boon

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:wBkob.47129$gi2.26643@fed1read01...
>
> "Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
> ...
> > ScottW said:
> >
> > >No need, I heard about it. Arny won't be coming to dinner anytime
soon.
> >
> > Is that due to your policy of having to wear pants at the dinner table?
>
> Oh, yucch. The vision you just seared into my brain. I am scarred for
> life.
> And worse, I have lost my appetite.
>
> We got some rain today, smoke is cleared out. Sparks are starting to
fly
> on some of the royal f'ups the CDF pulled in this fire. Couple of
> incredible
> reports which remain to be confirmed investigation so TIFWIW.
>
> 1) The cedar fire was started by a lost hunter making a signal fire.
> He was located by a sheriffs helicopter, picked up and cited for
> starting an illegal fire. Apparently on takeoff, the rotor wash is
> what blew the fire out of control. The Sheriffs did not report the
> fire to the CDF.
>
> 2) Homeowners in the area began calling to report the fire.
> After seeing no action at least 2 began calling in repeatedly.
> Both were told the CDF was monitoring the fire and don't call back.
> One of these caller lost his home Sat. night. (one of the first structures
> lost)
>
> 3) Sunday morning (or late Sat.) the SDFD was called to a backyard fire in
> Scripps Ranch.
> They had not received any report from CDF. They sent a couple trucks out
> expecting
> to find a small out control barbecue or something. Instead they ran into a
> firewall
> racing down a hill toward scripps. The CDF never reported the fire to
> local fire fighters.
>
> 3) On Sunday, 3 fire fighting equipped
> helicopters from one of the local military branches (navy or marines) were
> dispatched by the base commander to Ramona Airport (where the CDF usually
> operates
> out of in the event of fires). The CDF Commander refused them permission
to
> begin operations
> even though the CDF had no air resources available in SD County at that
> time.
> They returned to base. Base sent them back to Romana. CDF again refused
> air support.
> They returned to base and began operations out of Miramar in support of SD
> City firefighters
> against the fire which had by now crossed I-15 and was burning Miramar
NAS.
>
> 4) Now the Governor is saying, well this was the largest fire in state
> history so it wasn't
> their fault. No ****, they get that way because the dumbasses in CDF
> wouldn't fight it
> until it threatened structures. By then it was way too late.
>
> Like I said, none of this is confirmed but if it is true...
>
> ScottW
>
>

Excuse me Scott, what does CDF stand for?
Is it a state agency?




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Arny Krueger]

"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message

> Arny said:
>
>>>> "Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>
>>>>> ScottW said:
>>>
>>>>>> No need, I heard about it. Arny won't be coming to dinner
>>>>>> anytime soon.
>>
>>>>> Is that due to your policy of having to wear pants at the dinner
>>>>> table?
>>
>>>> Phillips, it's interesting you lost all perspective on time of day.
>>
>>> Yes, you're right, Arny, that it's the FIRST four hours of your day
>>> that you spend at the kitchen table in your ****-stained skivvies,
>>> not dinnertime. Thanks for clearing that up.

>> Wrong again!

> Then I could care less about whatever lie you're trying to pass off
> today.

If you care so little why did you interject yourself into it in the first
place, Phillips?

[Marc Phillips]

Arny said:

>"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message

>> Arny said:
>>
>>>>> "Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> ScottW said:
>>>>
>>>>>>> No need, I heard about it. Arny won't be coming to dinner
>>>>>>> anytime soon.
>>>
>>>>>> Is that due to your policy of having to wear pants at the dinner
>>>>>> table?
>>>
>>>>> Phillips, it's interesting you lost all perspective on time of day.
>>>
>>>> Yes, you're right, Arny, that it's the FIRST four hours of your day
>>>> that you spend at the kitchen table in your ****-stained skivvies,
>>>> not dinnertime. Thanks for clearing that up.
>
>>> Wrong again!
>
>> Then I could care less about whatever lie you're trying to pass off
>> today.
>
>If you care so little why did you interject yourself into it in the first
>place, Phillips?

ScottW and I were having a conversation, and you interjected, ****head.

Boon

[Torresists]

>From: (Marc Phillips)
>Date: 10/31/2003 10:12 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >

<snipped>

Just remember, everyone:

>
>
is the same asshole once known as:
>
>

and, for the 'bots;




;-)

[ScottW]

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> Excuse me Scott, what does CDF stand for?

California Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection

> Is it a state agency?

Yes.

http://www.fire.ca.gov/php/index.php

[dave weil]

On 01 Nov 2003 04:24:20 GMT, (Torresists) wrote:

>>From: (Marc Phillips)
>>Date: 10/31/2003 10:12 PM Central Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>
><snipped>
>
>Just remember, everyone:
>
>
>>
>is the same asshole once known as:
>>
>
>
>and, for the 'bots;
>


>
>;-)

What an asshole.

A cowardly one at that.

[Arny Krueger]

"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message

> Arny said:
>
>> "Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
>>
>>> Arny said:
>>>
>>>>>> "Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> ScottW said:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No need, I heard about it. Arny won't be coming to dinner
>>>>>>>> anytime soon.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Is that due to your policy of having to wear pants at the dinner
>>>>>>> table?
>>>>
>>>>>> Phillips, it's interesting you lost all perspective on time of
>>>>>> day.
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, you're right, Arny, that it's the FIRST four hours of your
>>>>> day that you spend at the kitchen table in your ****-stained
>>>>> skivvies, not dinnertime. Thanks for clearing that up.
>>
>>>> Wrong again!
>>
>>> Then I could care less about whatever lie you're trying to pass off
>>> today.
>>
>> If you care so little why did you interject yourself into it in the
>> first place, Phillips?
>
> ScottW and I were having a conversation, and you interjected,
> ****head.

Something about the gratuitous lie that one of you told about me.

If you don't want me in your face Phillps, keep my name out of your childish
discussions.

[Marc Phillips]

Arny said:

>"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message

>> Arny said:
>>
>>> "Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> Arny said:
>>>>
>>>>>>> "Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ScottW said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No need, I heard about it. Arny won't be coming to dinner
>>>>>>>>> anytime soon.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is that due to your policy of having to wear pants at the dinner
>>>>>>>> table?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Phillips, it's interesting you lost all perspective on time of
>>>>>>> day.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, you're right, Arny, that it's the FIRST four hours of your
>>>>>> day that you spend at the kitchen table in your ****-stained
>>>>>> skivvies, not dinnertime. Thanks for clearing that up.
>>>
>>>>> Wrong again!
>>>
>>>> Then I could care less about whatever lie you're trying to pass off
>>>> today.
>>>
>>> If you care so little why did you interject yourself into it in the
>>> first place, Phillips?
>>
>> ScottW and I were having a conversation, and you interjected,
>> ****head.
>
>Something about the gratuitous lie that one of you told about me.
>
>If you don't want me in your face Phillps, keep my name out of your childish
>discussions.

I'm not the one complaining, ****head.

LOL!

Boon

[ScottW]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> If you don't want me in your face Phillps, keep my name out of your
childish
> discussions.
>

Arny, STFU if you don't want people coming by Gross Point to teach
you what "in your face" really is. It just can't be done via usenet.

ScottW

[Arny Krueger]

"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message

> Arny said:
>
>> "Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
>>
>>> Arny said:
>>>
>>>> "Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> Arny said:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ScottW said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No need, I heard about it. Arny won't be coming to dinner
>>>>>>>>>> anytime soon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is that due to your policy of having to wear pants at the
>>>>>>>>> dinner table?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Phillips, it's interesting you lost all perspective on time of
>>>>>>>> day.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, you're right, Arny, that it's the FIRST four hours of your
>>>>>>> day that you spend at the kitchen table in your ****-stained
>>>>>>> skivvies, not dinnertime. Thanks for clearing that up.
>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong again!
>>>>
>>>>> Then I could care less about whatever lie you're trying to pass
>>>>> off today.
>>>>
>>>> If you care so little why did you interject yourself into it in the
>>>> first place, Phillips?
>>>
>>> ScottW and I were having a conversation, and you interjected,
>>> ****head.

>> Something about the gratuitous lie that one of you told about me.

>> If you don't want me in your face Phillps, keep my name out of your
>> childish discussions.

> I'm not the one complaining, ****head.

Sure you are, Phillips. The record of your complaint about me interjecting
into your conversation is quite clear. Trying to lie your way out of messes
is one of your well-known childish tricks.

[Marc Phillips]

Arny said:

>"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message

>> Arny said:
>>
>>> "Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> Arny said:
>>>>
>>>>> "Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>> Arny said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ScottW said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No need, I heard about it. Arny won't be coming to dinner
>>>>>>>>>>> anytime soon.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is that due to your policy of having to wear pants at the
>>>>>>>>>> dinner table?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Phillips, it's interesting you lost all perspective on time of
>>>>>>>>> day.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, you're right, Arny, that it's the FIRST four hours of your
>>>>>>>> day that you spend at the kitchen table in your ****-stained
>>>>>>>> skivvies, not dinnertime. Thanks for clearing that up.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wrong again!
>>>>>
>>>>>> Then I could care less about whatever lie you're trying to pass
>>>>>> off today.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you care so little why did you interject yourself into it in the
>>>>> first place, Phillips?
>>>>
>>>> ScottW and I were having a conversation, and you interjected,
>>>> ****head.
>
>>> Something about the gratuitous lie that one of you told about me.
>
>>> If you don't want me in your face Phillps, keep my name out of your
>>> childish discussions.
>
>> I'm not the one complaining, ****head.
>
>Sure you are, Phillips. The record of your complaint about me interjecting
>into your conversation is quite clear. Trying to lie your way out of messes
>is one of your well-known childish tricks.

Whatever you say, Internet geek. You're always right.

Boon

[Marc Phillips]

ScottW said:

>"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> If you don't want me in your face Phillps, keep my name out of your
>childish
>> discussions.
>>
>
> Arny, STFU if you don't want people coming by Gross Point to teach
>you what "in your face" really is. It just can't be done via usenet.

You're absolutely right, Scott. I never think of Arny as being in my face.
It's more like being stuck to the bottom of my shoes.

Boon

[ScottW]

"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
...
> ScottW said:
>
> >"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> If you don't want me in your face Phillps, keep my name out of your
> >childish
> >> discussions.
> >>
> >
> > Arny, STFU if you don't want people coming by Gross Point to teach
> >you what "in your face" really is. It just can't be done via usenet.
>
> You're absolutely right, Scott. I never think of Arny as being in my
face.
> It's more like being stuck to the bottom of my shoes.

And the smell. It's almost indescribable.
A cross between a beer barf and a litter box that has been neglected.

ScottW

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:hQTob.50248$gi2.49546@fed1read01
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> If you don't want me in your face Phillips, keep my name out of your
>> childish discussions.

> Arny, STFU if you don't want people coming by Gross Point to teach
> you what "in your face" really is.

Oh, threats of personal violence?

What do you have in mind?

> It just can't be done via usenet.

So Scotty, are you the pervert who did the Jamie Benchimol schtick?

[ScottW]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> news:hQTob.50248$gi2.49546@fed1read01
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> If you don't want me in your face Phillips, keep my name out of your
> >> childish discussions.
>
> > Arny, STFU if you don't want people coming by Gross Point to teach
> > you what "in your face" really is.
>
> Oh, threats of personal violence?

If you consider barfing in your face from the stench of your
poor hygiene personal violence, then yes.

>
> What do you have in mind?

Turning your nuts into titties.

>
> > It just can't be done via usenet.
>
> So Scotty, are you the pervert who did the Jamie Benchimol schtick?

No, were you the dumb **** calling my house asking if Jamie was here?

ScottW

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message .
>
> So Scotty, are you the pervert who did the Jamie Benchimol schtick?
>

I like Scott, and, as you know, he is my friend, but I don't think he has
the
imagination necessary to pull it off. But I admire your paranoia.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:hVipb.53446$gi2.10797@fed1read01
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> news:hQTob.50248$gi2.49546@fed1read01
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> If you don't want me in your face Phillips, keep my name out of
>>>> your childish discussions.
>>
>>> Arny, STFU if you don't want people coming by Gross Point to teach
>>> you what "in your face" really is.

>> Oh, threats of personal violence?

> If you consider barfing in your face from the stench of your
> poor hygiene personal violence, then yes.

You're obviously been deceived, Scotty. There's no stench, no personal
hygiene problems here.

>> What do you have in mind?

> Turning your nuts into titties.

Sorry Scotty, but your dreams of sucking on my nuts will go unfulfilled as
long as I can do anything about it. What's unclear about me saying
repeatedly that I'm heterosexual, monogamous, and happily married?

>>> It just can't be done via Usenet.
>>
>> So Scotty, are you the pervert who did the Jamie Benchimol schtick?

> No, were you the dumb **** calling my house asking if Jamie was here?

You've got me confused with someone who takes RAO as seriously as you do,
Scotty.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message


> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message .

>> So Scotty, are you the pervert who did the Jamie Benchimol shtick?

> I like Scott, and, as you know, he is my friend, but I don't think he has
the
> imagination necessary to pull it off. But I admire your paranoia.

You obviously don't know what the word "paranoia" means, sockpuppet Yustabe.

I note that Scottie avoided answering the question.

The Benchimol schtick took zero imagination. It does however have "Marc
Phillips" written all over it.

[dave weil]

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 08:05:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message

>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message .
>
>>> So Scotty, are you the pervert who did the Jamie Benchimol shtick?
>
>> I like Scott, and, as you know, he is my friend, but I don't think he has
>the
>> imagination necessary to pull it off. But I admire your paranoia.
>
>You obviously don't know what the word "paranoia" means, sockpuppet Yustabe.
>
>I note that Scottie avoided answering the question.

Can't you read, Arnold? He directly answered the question.

You need to correct the record.

>The Benchimol schtick took zero imagination. It does however have "Marc
>Phillips" written all over it.
>

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 08:05:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message .
>>
>>>> So Scotty, are you the pervert who did the Jamie Benchimol shtick?
>>
>>> I like Scott, and, as you know, he is my friend, but I don't think
>>> he has the imagination necessary to pull it off. But I admire your
>>> paranoia.

>> You obviously don't know what the word "paranoia" means, sockpuppet
>> Yustabe.

>> I note that Scottie avoided answering the question.

> Can't you read, Arnold? He directly answered the question.

I guess you're THAT delusional, Weil.

> You need to correct the record.

Let's hear your detailed argument to support your claim, Weil. I haven't
seen any of your pretzel logic for at least a day...

LOL!

>> The Benchimol schtick took zero imagination. It does however have
>> "Marc Phillips" written all over it.

[dave weil]

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 09:02:21 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>> On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 08:05:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message .
>>>
>>>>> So Scotty, are you the pervert who did the Jamie Benchimol shtick?
>>>
>>>> I like Scott, and, as you know, he is my friend, but I don't think
>>>> he has the imagination necessary to pull it off. But I admire your
>>>> paranoia.
>
>>> You obviously don't know what the word "paranoia" means, sockpuppet
>>> Yustabe.
>
>>> I note that Scottie avoided answering the question.
>
>> Can't you read, Arnold? He directly answered the question.
>
>I guess you're THAT delusional, Weil.
>
>> You need to correct the record.
>
>Let's hear your detailed argument to support your claim, Weil. I haven't
>seen any of your pretzel logic for at least a day...
>
>LOL!

OK, you asked:

So Scotty, are you the pervert who did the Jamie Benchimol shtick?

He answered:

No.

I don't know how much more cut and dried or direct one can be.

This is one of the things that makes you frowned upon around here.
Even when you're totally wrong, you can't admit it, unless you're
dragged kicking and screaming to it.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 09:02:21 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>
>>> On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 08:05:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message .
>>>>
>>>>>> So Scotty, are you the pervert who did the Jamie Benchimol
>>>>>> shtick?
>>>>
>>>>> I like Scott, and, as you know, he is my friend, but I don't think
>>>>> he has the imagination necessary to pull it off. But I admire your
>>>>> paranoia.
>>
>>>> You obviously don't know what the word "paranoia" means, sockpuppet
>>>> Yustabe.
>>
>>>> I note that Scottie avoided answering the question.
>>
>>> Can't you read, Arnold? He directly answered the question.
>>
>> I guess you're THAT delusional, Weil.
>>
>>> You need to correct the record.
>>
>> Let's hear your detailed argument to support your claim, Weil. I
>> haven't seen any of your pretzel logic for at least a day...
>>
>> LOL!
>
> OK, you asked:
>
> So Scotty, are you the pervert who did the Jamie Benchimol shtick?
>
> He answered:
>
> No.

You're lying Weil. Let's see you admit that you intentially edited Scott's
post to deceive the readership of RAO.

[dave weil]

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 10:12:13 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>> On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 09:02:21 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 08:05:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message .
>>>>>
>>>>>>> So Scotty, are you the pervert who did the Jamie Benchimol
>>>>>>> shtick?
>>>>>
>>>>>> I like Scott, and, as you know, he is my friend, but I don't think
>>>>>> he has the imagination necessary to pull it off. But I admire your
>>>>>> paranoia.
>>>
>>>>> You obviously don't know what the word "paranoia" means, sockpuppet
>>>>> Yustabe.
>>>
>>>>> I note that Scottie avoided answering the question.
>>>
>>>> Can't you read, Arnold? He directly answered the question.
>>>
>>> I guess you're THAT delusional, Weil.
>>>
>>>> You need to correct the record.
>>>
>>> Let's hear your detailed argument to support your claim, Weil. I
>>> haven't seen any of your pretzel logic for at least a day...
>>>
>>> LOL!
>>
>> OK, you asked:
>>
>> So Scotty, are you the pervert who did the Jamie Benchimol shtick?
>>
>> He answered:
>>
>> No.
>
>You're lying Weil.

No I'm not. That was his answer to your question.

> Let's see you admit that you intentially edited Scott's
>post to deceive the readership of RAO.

I didn't edit his second comment out to deceive anyone. It was
irrelevant to the fact that he answered your question with a simple
"no". The fact that he asked you a somewhat tangetial question, which
you didn't really directly answer, is irrelevant to your claim that he
didn't answer your question. He actually answered it as directly as
anyone *could* answer it.

The next time you claim that you admit your mistakes, RAO might want
to come back to this post as a good example of your not wishing to
admit that you're wrong when certain people call you on it. Your
oddly-formed ego simply won't let you.

I think it's hilarious, but, there ya go...

Still, I'll give you one more chance to show that you have half the
balls as I do.

[MiNE 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>
> > On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 09:02:21 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "dave weil" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 08:05:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message .
> >>>>
> >>>>>> So Scotty, are you the pervert who did the Jamie Benchimol
> >>>>>> shtick?
> >>>>
> >>>>> I like Scott, and, as you know, he is my friend, but I don't think
> >>>>> he has the imagination necessary to pull it off. But I admire your
> >>>>> paranoia.
> >>
> >>>> You obviously don't know what the word "paranoia" means, sockpuppet
> >>>> Yustabe.
> >>
> >>>> I note that Scottie avoided answering the question.
> >>
> >>> Can't you read, Arnold? He directly answered the question.
> >>
> >> I guess you're THAT delusional, Weil.
> >>
> >>> You need to correct the record.
> >>
> >> Let's hear your detailed argument to support your claim, Weil. I
> >> haven't seen any of your pretzel logic for at least a day...
> >>
> >> LOL!
> >
> > OK, you asked:
> >
> > So Scotty, are you the pervert who did the Jamie Benchimol shtick?
> >
> > He answered:
> >
> > No.
>
> You're lying Weil. Let's see you admit that you intentially edited Scott's
> post to deceive the readership of RAO.

<hVipb.53446$gi2.10797@fed1read01>

Okay, he answered:

No,...

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 10:12:13 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>
>>> On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 09:02:21 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 08:05:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message .
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So Scotty, are you the pervert who did the Jamie Benchimol
>>>>>>>> shtick?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I like Scott, and, as you know, he is my friend, but I don't
>>>>>>> think he has the imagination necessary to pull it off. But I
>>>>>>> admire your paranoia.
>>>>
>>>>>> You obviously don't know what the word "paranoia" means,
>>>>>> sockpuppet Yustabe.
>>>>
>>>>>> I note that Scottie avoided answering the question.
>>>>
>>>>> Can't you read, Arnold? He directly answered the question.
>>>>
>>>> I guess you're THAT delusional, Weil.
>>>>
>>>>> You need to correct the record.
>>>>
>>>> Let's hear your detailed argument to support your claim, Weil. I
>>>> haven't seen any of your pretzel logic for at least a day...
>>>>
>>>> LOL!
>>>
>>> OK, you asked:
>>>
>>> So Scotty, are you the pervert who did the Jamie Benchimol shtick?
>>>
>>> He answered:
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>> You're lying Weil.
>
> No I'm not. That was his answer to your question.
>
>> Let's see you admit that you intentially edited Scott's
>> post to deceive the readership of RAO.
>
> I didn't edit his second comment out to deceive anyone.

No, you just editted it to remove most of the context.

>It was
> irrelevant to the fact that he answered your question with a simple
> "no".

There was no simple "no". There was a sentence, that clearly modified the
meaning of the no to the point where in my judgement, there was no longer a
clear answer to the question at hand.

> The fact that he asked you a somewhat tangetial question, which
> you didn't really directly answer, is irrelevant to your claim that he
> didn't answer your question. He actually answered it as directly as
> anyone *could* answer it.

Not at all, Weil. He could have answered it as you deceptively edited it to
appear.

You edited it for a reason Weil, which is really quite clear. The orgional
form of the answer was not suitable to your purposes, plain and simple. If
the answer would have been suitable to your purposes, you would have
reproduced it in context.

> The next time you claim that you admit your mistakes, RAO might want
> to come back to this post as a good example of your not wishing to
> admit that you're wrong when certain people call you on it.

RAO might want to come back to this and many other posts that you and others
have edited to change until they suited your purposes, Weil.

> Your oddly-formed ego simply won't let you.

My oddly-formed ego rebels against people who deceptively edit posts to
support their agenda.



> I think it's hilarious, but, there ya go...
>
> Still, I'll give you one more chance to show that you have half the
> balls as I do.

[George M. Middius]

MiNE 109 said:

> > > So Scotty, are you the pervert who did the Jamie Benchimol shtick?

> > > He answered:
> > > No.

> > You're lying Weil. Let's see you admit that you intentially edited Scott's
> > post to deceive the readership of RAO.

> <hVipb.53446$gi2.10797@fed1read01>
> Okay, he answered:

> No,...

Maybe Arnii should teach Scottie the difference among using a comma,
using a period, and using nothing at all. Oh, wait .... never mind
that one. Good to see Krooger has identified one-tenth his daily
quota of liars, though.

[MiNE 109]

In article >,
dave weil > wrote:

> > Let's see you admit that you intentially edited Scott's
> >post to deceive the readership of RAO.
>
> I didn't edit his second comment out to deceive anyone.

Arny's playing the "deceptive editing" card lately. Too bad he doesn't
back it up by showing what difference the editing makes.

Stephen

[dave weil]

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 12:08:09 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

> >It was
>> irrelevant to the fact that he answered your question with a simple
>> "no".
>
>There was no simple "no". There was a sentence, that clearly modified the
>meaning of the no to the point where in my judgement, there was no longer a
>clear answer to the question at hand.

How do you figure? The two things are independent of each other. He
said that he didn't and then he asked you a separate question, which
*you* didn't bother to answer directly. It didn't modify the "no" one
iota.

You'll do *anything* to avoid admitting to me that you were just
wrong, won't you, Arnold?

[dave weil]

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 12:08:09 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>You edited it for a reason Weil, which is really quite clear. The orgional
>form of the answer was not suitable to your purposes, plain and simple. If
>the answer would have been suitable to your purposes, you would have
>reproduced it in context.

No, I edited it to make clear that he said "no". As expected, you
tried to spin the rest of it into a negation of the word no, but your
ability to interpret the English language is inversely proportional to
the amount of damage that said language does to you.

Simply put, you get real dumb when you're shown to be wrong.

[dave weil]

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 12:08:09 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>My oddly-formed ego rebels against people who deceptively edit posts to
>support their agenda.

You mean like *you* routinely do?

Just curious.

Take a look in the mirror (or maybe on your RAO neighbor's lawn).

[dave weil]

On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 17:21:54 GMT, MiNE 109 >
wrote:

>In article >,
> dave weil > wrote:
>
>> > Let's see you admit that you intentially edited Scott's
>> >post to deceive the readership of RAO.
>>
>> I didn't edit his second comment out to deceive anyone.
>
>Arny's playing the "deceptive editing" card lately. Too bad he doesn't
>back it up by showing what difference the editing makes.

I think it's hilarious actually. I could tell him that the sky was
blue and he'd post at 3am just to prove me wrong.

I love it when he dances to my tune. The funny thing is, if he could
just bring himself to say the words, "Yes Weil I was wrong", he
wouldn't get all of the ****. But the words choke him up, don't they?

[ScottW]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message >...
> "dave weil" > wrote in message
> >> Let's hear your detailed argument to support your claim, Weil. I
> >> haven't seen any of your pretzel logic for at least a day...
> >>
> >> LOL!
> >
> > OK, you asked:
> >
> > So Scotty, are you the pervert who did the Jamie Benchimol shtick?
> >
> > He answered:
> >
> > No.
>
> You're lying Weil. Let's see you admit that you intentially edited Scott's
> post to deceive the readership of RAO.

If anyone needs anymore proof of Arnolds insanity, I don't know what it could be.

ScottW

[MiNE 109]

In article >,
dave weil > wrote:

> On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 17:21:54 GMT, MiNE 109 >
> wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > dave weil > wrote:
> >
> >> > Let's see you admit that you intentially edited Scott's
> >> >post to deceive the readership of RAO.
> >>
> >> I didn't edit his second comment out to deceive anyone.
> >
> >Arny's playing the "deceptive editing" card lately. Too bad he doesn't
> >back it up by showing what difference the editing makes.
>
> I think it's hilarious actually. I could tell him that the sky was
> blue and he'd post at 3am just to prove me wrong.
>
> I love it when he dances to my tune. The funny thing is, if he could
> just bring himself to say the words, "Yes Weil I was wrong", he
> wouldn't get all of the ****. But the words choke him up, don't they?

Evidently.

I think my recent "deceptive editing" actually improved his
communication by eliminating a tangent.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNE 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> dave weil > wrote:
>
>>> Let's see you admit that you intentionally edited Scott's
>>> post to deceive the readership of RAO.
>>
>> I didn't edit his second comment out to deceive anyone.
>
> Arny's playing the "deceptive editing" card lately. Too bad he doesn't
> back it up by showing what difference the editing makes.
>

Stephen, when you Dormer, Middius, and Weil do it, it's so sloppy and
obvious that it's self-evident.

[ScottW]

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message >...
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message .
> >
> > So Scotty, are you the pervert who did the Jamie Benchimol schtick?
> >
>
> I like Scott, and, as you know, he is my friend, but I don't think he has
> the
> imagination necessary to pull it off.

Nor the stamina. I've nowhere near sufficient time to compose those
multi-page rants. I couldn't even find time to read 'em.


>But I admire your paranoia.

There is no purpose in attempting to communicate with Arnold. The guy
has sunk to the point of being unable to comprehend "no" as a response
to a question, he must be one step from the Alzheimers care center.

ScottW

[dave weil]

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 13:43:54 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"MiNE 109" > wrote in message

>> In article >,
>> dave weil > wrote:
>>
>>>> Let's see you admit that you intentionally edited Scott's
>>>> post to deceive the readership of RAO.
>>>
>>> I didn't edit his second comment out to deceive anyone.
>>
>> Arny's playing the "deceptive editing" card lately. Too bad he doesn't
>> back it up by showing what difference the editing makes.
>>
>
>Stephen, when you Dormer, Middius, and Weil do it, it's so sloppy and
>obvious that it's self-evident.

Only to you - not the rest of the known universe.

Keep spinning Arnold - you're just providing proof of your profound
shiftlessness.

[MiNE 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MiNE 109" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > dave weil > wrote:
> >
> >>> Let's see you admit that you intentionally edited Scott's
> >>> post to deceive the readership of RAO.
> >>
> >> I didn't edit his second comment out to deceive anyone.
> >
> > Arny's playing the "deceptive editing" card lately. Too bad he doesn't
> > back it up by showing what difference the editing makes.
> >
>
> Stephen, when you Dormer, Middius, and Weil do it, it's so sloppy and
> obvious that it's self-evident.

Nope.

[ScottW]

dave weil > wrote in message >...
> On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 12:08:09 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
> > >It was
> >> irrelevant to the fact that he answered your question with a simple
> >> "no".
> >
> >There was no simple "no". There was a sentence, that clearly modified the
> >meaning of the no to the point where in my judgement, there was no longer a
> >clear answer to the question at hand.
>
> How do you figure? The two things are independent of each other. He
> said that he didn't and then he asked you a separate question, which
> *you* didn't bother to answer directly. It didn't modify the "no" one
> iota.

Since I authored the sentence in question, I am the ultimate
authority on its meaning and the authors intent.

Dave is right, Arny is wrong. End of story.

>
> You'll do *anything* to avoid admitting to me that you were just
> wrong, won't you, Arnold?

Including going stark raving mad just so he has the "insanity plea"
available if he really needs it.

ScottW

[Phil]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "MiNE 109" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > dave weil > wrote:
> >
> >>> Let's see you admit that you intentionally edited Scott's
> >>> post to deceive the readership of RAO.
> >>
> >> I didn't edit his second comment out to deceive anyone.
> >
> > Arny's playing the "deceptive editing" card lately. Too bad he doesn't
> > back it up by showing what difference the editing makes.
> >
>
> Stephen, when you Dormer, Middius, and Weil do it, it's so sloppy and
> obvious that it's self-evident.
>

Well, let see if there was "deceptive editing". Here's the actual post:

Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...

> So Scotty, are you the pervert who did the Jamie Benchimol schtick?

No, were you the dumb **** calling my house asking if Jamie was here?

ScottW


I'll leave it to others to decide whose characterization of the editing is
correct.

Phil