Re: Fabricated Posts?

[Robert Morein]

>
> 1) Marc Phillips' original statement: "Then I would have problems with
> child pornography."
>
> 2) As rewritten by Arny Krueger: "I have problems getting as much child
> pornography as I need."
>
> Unless the Krueger posting is a forgery, to those like Mike McKelvy, who
> feel that Arny Krueger is not to blame for the high level of flames on
> r.a.o., how is this childish behavior on AK's part excusable?
>
> Just curious.
>
It's not excusable.
Given, however, the widespread use of forgery in this forum, Arny should
have an opportunity to deny authorship. In that case, the actual headers
must be available to confirm the news server provider.

This kind of post accrues to the author the same moral damnation as those
who refer to Arny's personal tragedy.
Perhaps Arny feels that Marc is the author of some of that material, in
which case I would be slightly more understanding.

[Joe Duffy]

In article >,
John Atkinson > wrote:
>
>Again:
>
>1) Marc Phillips' original statement: "Then I would have problems with
>child pornography."
>
>2) As rewritten by Arny Krueger: "I have problems getting as much child
>pornography as I need."
>
>Unless the Krueger posting is a forgery, to those like Mike McKelvy, who
>feel that Arny Krueger is not to blame for the high level of flames on
>r.a.o., how is this childish behavior on AK's part excusable?


This is quite the sentence.
Where is that syntax midjet when he
is needed?
Time to parse:
"...those...who feel that Arny Krueger is not to blame
for the high level of flames on r.a.o,"
The illogical corollary you insinuate, is that
Arny Krueger IS (solely, implied) to blame for the
high level of flames on r.a.o.
Of course Arny is jointly to blame, with the
rest of the festering rodents, for the high level
of flames on r.a.o.
Of course, this childish behavior of AK is not
excusable.
Are you trying to clear something up here?
It is remarkable to watch someone get into a
****ing contest with a skunk, and in a cesspool
to boot. It begs the question...

>
>Just curious.
>

As well.



Joe

[tor 2 u]

Joe Duffy wrote in message >:

> In article >,
> John Atkinson > wrote:
> >
> >Again:
> >
> >1) Marc Phillips' original statement: "Then I would have problems with
> >child pornography."
> >
> >2) As rewritten by Arny Krueger: "I have problems getting as much child
> >pornography as I need."
> >
> >Unless the Krueger posting is a forgery, to those like Mike McKelvy, who
> >feel that Arny Krueger is not to blame for the high level of flames on
> >r.a.o., how is this childish behavior on AK's part excusable?
>
>
> This is quite the sentence.
> Where is that syntax midjet when he
> is needed?
> Time to parse:
> "...those...who feel that Arny Krueger is not to blame
> for the high level of flames on r.a.o,"
> The illogical corollary you insinuate, is that
> Arny Krueger IS (solely, implied) to blame for the
> high level of flames on r.a.o.
> Of course Arny is jointly to blame, with the
> rest of the festering rodents, for the high level
> of flames on r.a.o.
> Of course, this childish behavior of AK is not
> excusable.


YOU BETTER SHUT UP, DUFFY! Arny is perfect and you are a rotten apple.



Arny is My Kroo-Daddy

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message

>> 1) Marc Phillips' original statement: "Then I would have problems
>> with child pornography."
>>
>> 2) As rewritten by Arny Krueger: "I have problems getting as much
>> child pornography as I need."
>>
>> Unless the Krueger posting is a forgery,

This is of course a lie from RAO's king of lies.

here's the post in context:

>"I have problems getting as much child pornography as I need."

;-)

Note emoticon indicating humorous intent.


It was obviously a joke. Here we see that John Atkinson is either a
hopeless humorless dweeb or a incurable liar.

So which is it, Atkinson? Do you plead guilty to being a humorless dweeb or
an incurable liar?

[John Atkinson]

(Joe Duffy) wrote in message
>...
> John Atkinson wrote:
> >1) Marc Phillips' original statement: "Then I would have problems with
> >child pornography."
> >
> >2) As rewritten by Arny Krueger: "I have problems getting as much child
> >pornography as I need."
> >
> > Unless the Krueger posting is a forgery, to those like Mike McKelvy,
> > who feel that Arny Krueger is not to blame for the high level of flames
> > on r.a.o., how is this childish behavior on AK's part excusable?
>
> This is quite the sentence...Time to parse: "...those...who feel
> that Arny Krueger is not to blame for the high level of flames on
> r.a.o," The illogical corollary you insinuate, is that Arny Krueger
> IS (solely, implied) to blame for the high level of flames on r.a.o.

I don't think so, Mr. Duffy. If you took that meaning from my
admittedly clumsy sentence, then that is not what I meant. Yes, I _am_
implying that Arny Krueger is to blame for the flames, but that doesn't
mean he is _solely_ to blame. As you say...

> Of course Arny is jointly to blame, with the rest of the festering
> rodents, for the high level of flames on r.a.o.

However, I _do_ think that Mr. Krueger is primarily to blame, as you can
see from the flame-filled threads he starts on other newsgroups.

> Of course, this childish behavior of AK is not excusable.

Thank you.

> Are you trying to clear something up here?

Yes. Arny Krueger has thrown out accusations against virtually everyone
with whom he has been arguing that they alter and edit the text of his
messages. You will note, for example, that he has started a new thread
today specifically to accuse _me_ of doing so. Yet while I have never
altered the text of any of Arny Krueger's posting in any way that
misrepresents what he has written, Mr. Krieger does so repeatedly. I
thought it useful in effect to bookmark this example of him having done
so, given it was so blatant and so defamatory.

I have shared a beer with Marc Phillips at a CES, as I have with Jim
Sanders and other r.a.o. regulars. I am becoming tired of Mr. Krueger's
incessant throwing out of insults on Usenet against people like these,
whose original "crime" in his eyes was merely to offer opinions on
audio that were contrary to his own.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Anon E Mouse]

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, John Atkinson wrote:

> (Joe Duffy) wrote in message
> >...
> > John Atkinson wrote:
> > >1) Marc Phillips' original statement: "Then I would have problems with
> > >child pornography."
> > >
> > >2) As rewritten by Arny Krueger: "I have problems getting as much child
> > >pornography as I need."
> > >
> > > Unless the Krueger posting is a forgery, to those like Mike McKelvy,
> > > who feel that Arny Krueger is not to blame for the high level of flames
> > > on r.a.o., how is this childish behavior on AK's part excusable?
> >
> > This is quite the sentence...Time to parse: "...those...who feel
> > that Arny Krueger is not to blame for the high level of flames on
> > r.a.o," The illogical corollary you insinuate, is that Arny Krueger
> > IS (solely, implied) to blame for the high level of flames on r.a.o.
>
> I don't think so, Mr. Duffy. If you took that meaning from my
> admittedly clumsy sentence, then that is not what I meant. Yes, I _am_
> implying that Arny Krueger is to blame for the flames, but that doesn't
> mean he is _solely_ to blame. As you say...
>
> > Of course Arny is jointly to blame, with the rest of the festering
> > rodents, for the high level of flames on r.a.o.
>
> However, I _do_ think that Mr. Krueger is primarily to blame, as you can
> see from the flame-filled threads he starts on other newsgroups.
>
> > Of course, this childish behavior of AK is not excusable.
>
> Thank you.
>
> > Are you trying to clear something up here?
>
> Yes. Arny Krueger has thrown out accusations against virtually everyone
> with whom he has been arguing that they alter and edit the text of his
> messages. You will note, for example, that he has started a new thread
> today specifically to accuse _me_ of doing so. Yet while I have never
> altered the text of any of Arny Krueger's posting in any way that
> misrepresents what he has written, [...]

Mange un char de marde, ostie de menteur.
--
Anon E. Mouse

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
om...

> I have shared a beer with Marc Phillips at a CES, as I have with Jim
> Sanders and other r.a.o. regulars. I am becoming tired of Mr. Krueger's
> incessant throwing out of insults on Usenet against people like these,
> whose original "crime" in his eyes was merely to offer opinions on
> audio that were contrary to his own.

Wow Atkinson, on the one hand you support legal action against libel of a
sockpuppet, and on the other hand you support the actions of Phillips, who
routinely libels a real person (me).

Could you be less consistent in your ethical choices?

[Philip Franklin]

(Joe Duffy) wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> John Atkinson > wrote:
> >
> >Again:
> >
> >1) Marc Phillips' original statement: "Then I would have problems with
> >child pornography."
> >
> >2) As rewritten by Arny Krueger: "I have problems getting as much child
> >pornography as I need."
> >
> >Unless the Krueger posting is a forgery, to those like Mike McKelvy, who
> >feel that Arny Krueger is not to blame for the high level of flames on
> >r.a.o., how is this childish behavior on AK's part excusable?
>
>
> This is quite the sentence.
> Where is that syntax midjet when he
> is needed?
> Time to parse:
> "...those...who feel that Arny Krueger is not to blame
> for the high level of flames on r.a.o,"
> The illogical corollary you insinuate, is that
> Arny Krueger IS (solely, implied) to blame for the
> high level of flames on r.a.o.
> Of course Arny is jointly to blame, with the
> rest of the festering rodents, for the high level
> of flames on r.a.o.
> Of course, this childish behavior of AK is not
> excusable.
> Are you trying to clear something up here?
> It is remarkable to watch someone get into a
> ****ing contest with a skunk, and in a cesspool
> to boot. It begs the question...
>
> >
> >Just curious.
> >
>
> As well.
>
>
>
> Joe





Unbelievable.

You're defending Krueger, and you're also putting words in somone else's mouth.

What a headcase you must be.

[Marc Phillips]

Philip Franklin said:

(Joe Duffy) wrote in message
>...
>> In article >,
>> John Atkinson > wrote:
>> >
>> >Again:
>> >
>> >1) Marc Phillips' original statement: "Then I would have problems with
>> >child pornography."
>> >
>> >2) As rewritten by Arny Krueger: "I have problems getting as much child
>> >pornography as I need."
>> >
>> >Unless the Krueger posting is a forgery, to those like Mike McKelvy, who
>> >feel that Arny Krueger is not to blame for the high level of flames on
>> >r.a.o., how is this childish behavior on AK's part excusable?
>>
>>
>> This is quite the sentence.
>> Where is that syntax midjet when he
>> is needed?
>> Time to parse:
>> "...those...who feel that Arny Krueger is not to blame
>> for the high level of flames on r.a.o,"
>> The illogical corollary you insinuate, is that
>> Arny Krueger IS (solely, implied) to blame for the
>> high level of flames on r.a.o.
>> Of course Arny is jointly to blame, with the
>> rest of the festering rodents, for the high level
>> of flames on r.a.o.
>> Of course, this childish behavior of AK is not
>> excusable.
>> Are you trying to clear something up here?
>> It is remarkable to watch someone get into a
>> ****ing contest with a skunk, and in a cesspool
>> to boot. It begs the question...
>>
>> >
>> >Just curious.
>> >
>>
>> As well.
>>
>>
>>
>> Joe
>
>
>
>
>
>Unbelievable.
>
>You're defending Krueger, and you're also putting words in somone else's
>mouth.
>
>What a headcase you must be.

And he is. Joe Duffy is a classic Usenet troll who posts on this NG only to
attack others. And yes, he supports Arny, a proven pedophile.

The disappointing thing about Joe is that once or twice he's revealed that he
has good taste in music, and he's pretty knowledgeable about it, too. Too bad
he chooses not to contribute to the group.

Boon

[tor b]

>From: "Arny Krueger"
>Date: 8/21/2003 1:36 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
om...
>
>> I have shared a beer with Marc Phillips at a CES, as I have with Jim
>> Sanders and other r.a.o. regulars. I am becoming tired of Mr. Krueger's
>> incessant throwing out of insults on Usenet against people like these,
>> whose original "crime" in his eyes was merely to offer opinions on
>> audio that were contrary to his own.
>
>Wow Atkinson, on the one hand you support legal action against libel of a
>sockpuppet, and on the other hand you support the actions of Phillips, who
>routinely libels a real person (me).
>
>Could you be less consistent in your ethical choices?
>
Or less ethical in his consistent choices?




tor b

[Joe Duffy]

In article >,
John Atkinson > wrote:
>
>I have shared a beer with Marc Phillips at a CES, as I have with Jim
>Sanders and other r.a.o. regulars. I am becoming tired of Mr. Krueger's
>incessant throwing out of insults on Usenet against people like these,
>whose original "crime" in his eyes was merely to offer opinions on
>audio that were contrary to his own.
>

Direct insults may be tiresome, but
at least they beat the Doofy threads that
the midjet and his simpletons follow
me around with, newsgroup after newsgroup,
only after I make an appearance on rao.

Ask JJ which is more tiresome, John,
anonymous psychos, or those with direct
insults that do not hide behind false names.

The battles you choose may seem small in
the actual history of usenet.


Joe

[Arny Krueger]

"tor b" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Arny Krueger"
> >Date: 8/21/2003 1:36 PM Central Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> >> I have shared a beer with Marc Phillips at a CES, as I have with Jim
> >> Sanders and other r.a.o. regulars. I am becoming tired of Mr. Krueger's
> >> incessant throwing out of insults on Usenet against people like these,
> >> whose original "crime" in his eyes was merely to offer opinions on
> >> audio that were contrary to his own.
> >
> >Wow Atkinson, on the one hand you support legal action against libel of a
> >sockpuppet, and on the other hand you support the actions of Phillips,
who
> >routinely libels a real person (me).
> >
> >Could you be less consistent in your ethical choices?
> >
> Or less ethical in his consistent choices?

Good one!

[George M. Middius]

The Doofalizer doofed:

> Direct insults may be tiresome, but
> at least they beat the Doofy threads that
> the midjet and his simpletons follow

Isn't "midjet" your pet name for me, Doof? How do you like your
life as a 200-lb dustball with a tobacco jones, anyway?


> Ask JJ which is more tiresome, John,
> anonymous psychos, or those with direct
> insults that do not hide behind false names.

Why need he ask somebody else? Isn't John, or anybody else,
allowed to feel that you are a crackpot, that you are second in
tiresomeness only to your hero the Krooborg, and that since you
don't know who these people are that you label "anonymous
psychos", there is little point in being bothered by them?

Oh, that's right -- you're with the Usenet Righteousness Police,
and you've appointed yourself defender of the indefensible.
Morality is an unknown quality in your peculiar little world,
isn't it, Doofy? The fact that there are fifty people who
castigate Kroo**** for every anonymous psycho who defends him
means that he's the victim of a mob lynching, right? Doesn't
matter that Krooger brings it on himself with his nasty,
attention-whoring behavior; what matters to you is .... what is it
again? You've never explained your motivation for running
interference for that loathsome animated turd. Please do so now.


> The battles you choose may seem small in
> the actual history of usenet.

Your mind seems small in the history of the human race.

[Jacob Kramer]

What's the truth? Did you fabricate the posts or not Arny? If so you
should apologize because it's forgery and plainly unethical.

--

Jacob Kramer

[George M. Middius]

Jacob Kramer said:

> What's the truth? Did you fabricate the posts or not Arny? If so you
> should apologize because it's forgery and plainly unethical.

He's right, Arnii. Also, lying is wrong.

[John Atkinson]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>...
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> om...
> > I have shared a beer with Marc Phillips at a CES, as I have with Jim
> > Sanders and other r.a.o. regulars. I am becoming tired of Mr. Krueger's
> > incessant throwing out of insults on Usenet against people like these,
> > whose original "crime" in his eyes was merely to offer opinions on
> > audio that were contrary to his own.
>
> Wow Atkinson, on the one hand you support legal action against libel of
> a sockpuppet...

I am not aware of saying anything pro or con this subject, Mr. Krueger.
Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else. ;-) (Note appropriate
use of emoticon.)

> and on the other hand you support the actions of Phillips, who
> routinely libels a real person (me).

I am not aware of any libel of you posted by Marc Phillips. He has argued
with you, as his right, he has asserted his opinions on this newsgroup, as
is his right, yes he has flamed you, but this appears to be in response to
initial flames from yourself, and recently he has been drawing posters'
attention to a offensive, self-pitying message that you yourself posted to
the newsgroup. As truth is an absolute defense against libel, his having
done the latter is not in libelous, even though it does cause you to lose
the respect of your peers.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
om
]
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >...

>> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
>> om...

>>> I have shared a beer with Marc Phillips at a CES, as I have with Jim
>>> Sanders and other r.a.o. regulars. I am becoming tired of Mr.
>>> Krueger's incessant throwing out of insults on Usenet against
>>> people like these, whose original "crime" in his eyes was merely to
>>> offer opinions on audio that were contrary to his own.

>> Wow Atkinson, on the one hand you support legal action against libel
>> of a sockpuppet...

> I am not aware of saying anything pro or con this subject, Mr.
> Krueger.

Cough, gag! Good think I wasn't drinking anything when I read this *gem*

Atkinson, please place your preferred hand in front of your face. Extend a
finger towards your face and move it towards one eye. How far does your
finger enter the pupil of your eye before you feel anything? This would be a
reliable test for your obvious numbness, from the neck up!

>Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else. ;-) (Note
> appropriate use of emoticon.)

It's been a long time since I confused your online persona with that of a
rational, sentient being, Atkinson.

>> and on the other hand you support the actions of Phillips, who
>> routinely libels a real person (me).

> I am not aware of any libel of you posted by Marc Phillips.

Of course not Atkinson. The same blindness to logic and reason that allows
you to blithely publish that well-known sack-o-lies called Stereophile is
also at work in your online persona.

> He has
> argued with you, as his right, he has asserted his opinions on this
> newsgroup, as is his right, yes he has flamed you, but this appears
> to be in response to initial flames from yourself, and recently he
> has been drawing posters' attention to a offensive, self-pitying
> message that you yourself posted to the newsgroup.

Yeah Atkinson, it's all my fault that people like you seem compelled to try
to exploit a personal tragedy in order to get *debating trade* points. You
know its coming up on 4 years and this childish game has been very old for a
very long time. But thanks for demonstrating your lack of character by
trying to pile on to Marc Phillips current perverse behavior.

> As truth is an
> absolute defense against libel, his having done the latter is not in
> libelous, even though it does cause you to lose the respect of your
> peers.

Speaking of respect of peers Atkinson, do you or do you not notice all the
laughter behind your back when you visit AES meetings? Or, are you as blind
to it as you are to Marc Phillips reprehensible behavior? Or, have people
dropped all pretense and just started laughing in your face?

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
om
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >...
>> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
>> om
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> >...
>>>> Wow Atkinson, on the one hand you support legal action against
>>>> libel of a sockpuppet...
>>
>>> I am not aware of saying anything pro or con this subject, Mr.
>>> Krueger.
>>
>> Cough, gag! Good think I wasn't drinking anything when I read this
>> *gem*
>
> Okay Mr. Krueger. If you seem to think I am incorrect, post a Google
> message ID for the posting or postings in I which have said I
> "support legal action against libel of a sockpuppet..." As you can't
> do so, this yet another example of your frugality with the truth when
> it comes to criticisms of me and of the magazine I edit.

I just dealt with this little deceit of yours Atkinson in another post.

> <Snip of more schoolyard insults>

Yawn. I love it when stuffed shirts get extra crispy.

>>> [Marc Phillips] has argued with you, as his right, he has asserted
>>> his opinions on this newsgroup, as is his right, yes he has flamed
>>> you, but this appears to be in response to initial flames from
>>> yourself, and recently he has been drawing posters' attention to a
>>> offensive, self-pitying message that you yourself posted to the
>>> newsgroup.

>> Yeah Atkinson, it's all my fault that people like you seem compelled
>> to try to exploit a personal tragedy in order to get *debating
>> trade* points.

> I haven't tried to "exploit" your personal tragedy, Mr. Krueger.

I just dealt with this little deceit of yours Atkinson in another post.

> Everything I have said, both publicly and privately, is to offer you
> my deepest sympathies and condolences for your loss.

What loss might that be, Atkinson?

> As a parent
> myself, I can imagine nothing worst than to outlive your own
> children.

I seriously doubt that you have any children, Atkinson. Perhaps by means of
artificial insemination.

>I have also publicly condemned the nasty behavior of those
> who have attempted to use this tragedy against you.

Was that once or twice in four years of continual harassment by your
friends, Mr Atkinson?

> I don't know what else I can do in this matter.

I just dealt with this little deceit of yours Atkinson in another post.

> But it saddens me more than I can say
> to see _you_ exploiting your personal tragedy, presumably to generate
> pity.

Not at all Atkinson. You're a disgusting deceptive excuse for a biological
human. I think I should complain about your innuendoes and deceits whenever
you misbehave this way. OTOH, you've had a life of positive reinforcement
for many of your deceptions, so go figure.

> <Snip of the usual schoolyard nastiness from someone who is more to be
> pitied than anything else.>

Atkinson, if this really reflected your true state of mind, and not yet
another one of your fiendish schemes, I would pity you even more.

[John Atkinson]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>...
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
om
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> >...
>>> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
>>> om
>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>> >...
>>>>> Wow Atkinson, on the one hand you support legal action against
>>>>> libel of a sockpuppet...
>>>>
>>>> I am not aware of saying anything pro or con this subject, Mr.
>>>> Krueger.
>>>
>>> Cough, gag! Good think I wasn't drinking anything when I read this
>>> *gem*
>>
>> Okay Mr. Krueger. If you seem to think I am incorrect, post a Google
>> message ID for the posting or postings in I which have said I
>> "support legal action against libel of a sockpuppet..." As you can't
>> do so, this yet another example of your frugality with the truth
>> when it comes to criticisms of me and of the magazine I edit.
>
> I just dealt with this little deceit of yours Atkinson in another post.

Not in any posting retrievable by groups.google.com, Mr. Krueger. Your
connection with reality seems increasingly tenuous: You accuse others of
ridiculous conspiracies against you; you accuse search engines of "lying"
to you; you accuse me of "fiendish schemes" against you: and now you refer
to r.a.o. messages that were never actually posted to the newsgroups.

Now you have _two_ messages to retrieve before anyone will believe these
accusations you throw out, Mr. Krueger: 1) the message of mine in which
I am supposed to have supported "legal action against libel of a
sockpuppet," and 2) the message of yours in which you were supposed to
have given this message ID, which is what I assume you mean by "dealt
with.".
[i]
>>> Yeah Atkinson, it's all my fault that people like you seem compelled
>>> to try to exploit a personal tragedy in order to get *debating
>>> trade* points.
>>
>> I haven't tried to "exploit" your personal tragedy, Mr. Krueger.
>
> I just dealt with this little deceit of yours Atkinson in another post.

Again this is not in any posting retrievable by groups.google.com, Mr.
Krueger. So now you have _3_ message ID's to quote. Remember: it was you
yourself who has repeatedly said that those who refer to past messages
are obliged to post the appropriate message IDs.

>> Everything I have said, both publicly and privately, is to offer you
>> my deepest sympathies and condolences for your loss.
>
> What loss might that be, Atkinson?

I believe this was answered in my very next sentence, Mr. Krueger, when
I wrote:

>> As a parent myself, I can imagine nothing worst than to outlive your
>> own children.

I was clearly referring, of course to the tragic passing of your teenage
son Nate. I have written directly about this on the newsgroups just
_twice_ in the years since then. Here is the _complete_ text of the most
recent of those postings:

Begin quoted text:
-------------------------------------
> In message > on 1999/06/19
> wrote:
>> I have expressed my public sympathy on r.a.o. with your personal
>> tragedy. As a parent, I believe that the death of one's child is
>> possibly the greatest pain anyone can be called upon to bear.
-------------------------------------

Please also note that I also e-mailed you at the time of your son's
passing with my condolences and sympathy, something that you have never
acknowledged either privately or publicly.

Please also note that I have _never_ said or written _anything_ that is
in any way negative about your loss, that I have _never_ used this loss
_in any way whatsoever_ against you. All that I have done other than to
offer you my condolences is to state my opinion that you sadly use your
personal tragedy to generate pity for yourself and to attack those
with whom you disagree about audio, as in the offensive posting of
_yours_ to which Marc Phillips was referring.

>> I have also publicly condemned the nasty behavior of those
>> who have attempted to use this tragedy against you.
>
> Was that once or twice in four years of continual harassment by
> your friends, Mr Atkinson?

I don't keep count, Mr. Krueger, nor do I feel it my responsibility to
wade into the r.a.o. waters to defend you on every possible occasion.
But "friends"? "Continual harassment?" How am I responsible for what
others do? How can the actions of people who in the main appear to be
responding to a barrage of flames from you be defined as "harassment"?
Are you going to suggest that I, too, am "harassing" you, Mr. Krueger,
because I dare to correct your public misstatements about me and my
activities as the editor of Stereophile?

< Snip of more of the usual schoolyard nastiness from someone who, as I
have said, is more to be pitied than anything else. >

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
om


> How am I responsible for what others do?

You brag about literally feeding them lunch, Atkinson. It's clear that you
feed them metaphorically by publicly approving of their egregious acts. You
white-wash their reprehensible and irresponsible behavior. However, you do
the same for your own fraudulent public deeds, so this sort of behavior
should surprise no-one.

[Marc Phillips]

Arny, you did it again. What does "solied" mean? Why can't you express
yourself clearly?

Don't you understand that the excessive typos and poor grasp of the language
make you look even crazier and dumber to the rest of the group? Why do you
bother?

Boon

[Arny Krueger]

"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message


> Arny, you did it again. What does "solied" mean?

What do you think Phillips? Hint: since it relates to you, it must relate to
filth.


> Why can't you express yourself clearly?

I seem to express myself clearly enough to keep you ****ed off, Phillips.

> Don't you understand that the excessive typos and poor grasp of the
> language make you look even crazier and dumber to the rest of the
> group?

Phillips, why don't you tell that to your buddy Weil? How about Atkinson, I
keep having to correct his typos, too. His grasp of the English language
doesn't seem to be the best. It's obvious that good copy editors have been
covering for him for decades.

> Why do you bother?

Phillips, why don't you tell that to your good buddy with the pocket
protector, Phil? Trying to read his posts is often like studying some new
foreign language.

[dave weil]

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 14:31:01 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message

>
>> Arny, you did it again. What does "solied" mean?
>
>What do you think Phillips? Hint: since it relates to you, it must relate to
>filth.
>
>
>> Why can't you express yourself clearly?
>
>I seem to express myself clearly enough to keep you ****ed off, Phillips.
>
>> Don't you understand that the excessive typos and poor grasp of the
>> language make you look even crazier and dumber to the rest of the
>> group?
>
>Phillips, why don't you tell that to your buddy Weil? How about Atkinson, I
>keep having to correct his typos, too. His grasp of the English language
>doesn't seem to be the best. It's obvious that good copy editors have been
>covering for him for decades.

He probably doesn't feel the need due to the lack of "excessive" typos
on my part.

>> Why do you bother?
>
>Phillips, why don't you tell that to your good buddy with the pocket
>protector, Phil? Trying to read his posts is often like studying some new
>foreign language.

I think that *all* languages are foreign to you.

[George M. Middius]

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

> >Phillips, why don't you tell that to your good buddy with the pocket
> >protector, Phil? Trying to read his posts is often like studying some new
> >foreign language.
>
> I think that *all* languages are foreign to you.

Somebody should remind Mr. **** that, as he himself has preached,
insulting people because of their disabilities in un-christian.
Before Turdy turned on Phoebe Johnston, he was quick to defend her
occasional gibbering on account of a diagnosis of learning
disability. In the case of Phil, however -- a person who
regularly boxes Mr. **** into corners, pins his ears back, smacks
his nose after finding it "stuck out" -- all bets are off.

In the world of the Krooborg, morality is so malleable that it's
indistinguishable from you-know-what.

[Jacob Kramer]

On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 07:46:08 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message

>
>> What's the truth?
>
>Do you have eyes and a brain, Kramer?
>
>Whoops! Bad question...

By this you appear to mean that it should be obvious you didn't
distort the posting with an intention to deceive. It's not obvious,
it wasn't clear that you changed it, and you are plainly in the wrong.

--

Jacob Kramer

[George M. Middius]

Jacob Kramer said to The Big ****:

> By this you appear to mean that it should be obvious you didn't
> distort the posting with an intention to deceive. It's not obvious,
> it wasn't clear that you changed it, and you are plainly in the wrong.

Yes, but according to Kroologic, he still wins the "debate".

[Arny Krueger]

"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message


> "Thank you for killing me. You ****ed me so hard Jesus was very happy
> with my arrival. I bet the other daddies didn't let their children
> suck there dick's like you sucked mine, daddy. I'm glad I'm dead now."

> "You made me come hard, daddy. I'm in heaven now, but you can suck my
> dick in your dreams and your prayers."

> "what did it feel like to grope me in my coffin, daddy?"

You had a very tough childhood, didn't you Phillips.

It must explains why you are such a pervert now. God help your children.

[Marc Phillips]

Arny said:

>"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message

>
>> "Thank you for killing me. You ****ed me so hard Jesus was very happy
>> with my arrival. I bet the other daddies didn't let their children
>> suck there dick's like you sucked mine, daddy. I'm glad I'm dead now."
>
>> "You made me come hard, daddy. I'm in heaven now, but you can suck my
>> dick in your dreams and your prayers."
>
>> "what did it feel like to grope me in my coffin, daddy?"
>
>You had a very tough childhood, didn't you Phillips.
>
>It must explains why you are such a pervert now. God help your children.

Do you really think that taking your own disgusting words and then editing
posts to make it look like others are saying them paints you in anything other
than the worst possible light? Do you really think that anyone believes that
someone else other than you said the above?

Every day you grow more desperately clownish. I hope this means that you're
very close to suicide.

Boon

[Arny Krueger]

"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
...

> Arny said:

> >"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
>

> >> "Thank you for killing me. You ****ed me so hard Jesus was very happy
> >> with my arrival. I bet the other daddies didn't let their children
> >> suck there dick's like you sucked mine, daddy. I'm glad I'm dead now."

> >> "You made me come hard, daddy. I'm in heaven now, but you can suck my
> >> dick in your dreams and your prayers."

> >> "what did it feel like to grope me in my coffin, daddy?"

> >You had a very tough childhood, didn't you Phillips.
>
> >It must explains why you are such a pervert now. God help your children
(if they exist).

> Do you really think that taking your own disgusting words and then editing
> posts to make it look like others are saying them paints you in anything
other
> than the worst possible light?

They aren't my words, Phillips and since you seem to be proud of them, they
must be yours.

> Do you really think that anyone believes that
> someone else other than you said the above?

Sure, because it's the truth. I am not the author of those words. It's
highly improbable that a father would write such a thing about his son. This
is one reason why I think you are lying when you say you are a parent.

Furthermore Phillips, your repeated use of these words suggests that you are
either obsessed with them and/or their author.

> Every day you grow more desperately clownish.

Why, because I tell the truth?

> I hope this means that you're very close to suicide.

Comments like these Phillips indicate your true state of mind, which is far
from normal. You sound like your mind is in a very chaotic and unstable
state. Perhaps the gory stories your wife tells you has affected your mind.
Please get professional help as soon as possible.

[Marc Phillips]

Arny said:

>"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
...
>
>> Arny said:
>
>> >"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
>>
>
>> >> "Thank you for killing me. You ****ed me so hard Jesus was very happy
>> >> with my arrival. I bet the other daddies didn't let their children
>> >> suck there dick's like you sucked mine, daddy. I'm glad I'm dead now."
>
>> >> "You made me come hard, daddy. I'm in heaven now, but you can suck my
>> >> dick in your dreams and your prayers."
>
>> >> "what did it feel like to grope me in my coffin, daddy?"
>
>> >You had a very tough childhood, didn't you Phillips.
>>
>> >It must explains why you are such a pervert now. God help your children
>(if they exist).
>
>> Do you really think that taking your own disgusting words and then editing
>> posts to make it look like others are saying them paints you in anything
>other
>> than the worst possible light?
>
>They aren't my words, Phillips and since you seem to be proud of them, they
>must be yours.

No, they musn't. It was proven conclusively that they are your words. You're
merely denying it, because it's the only defense you can think of. Leon
offered you $10,000 to refute his proof that you wrote these things, and you
ran away.


>
>> Do you really think that anyone believes that
>> someone else other than you said the above?
>
>Sure, because it's the truth.

So says the pathological liar.

I am not the author of those words.

So says the pathological liar.

It's
>highly improbable that a father would write such a thing about his son.

Unless he was mentally ill, as you are.

This
>is one reason why I think you are lying when you say you are a parent.

Why would I possible care if you, Arny Krueger, pathological liar and pervert,
think that I'm lying about being a parent? What have you said on this
newsgroup about this specific issue that relates to reality?

There are people on this NG who have met my children. Do you think you're
convincing them of anything right now, other than the fact that you're mentally
ill?

>
>Furthermore Phillips, your repeated use of these words suggests that you are
>either obsessed with them and/or their author.

It "suggests" that I'm deeply offended by your use of them. Period. Your
attempt to twist this around is the weakest and most repulsive IKYABWAI you've
concocted.

>
>> Every day you grow more desperately clownish.
>
>Why, because I tell the truth?

You're a documented pathological liar.

>
>> I hope this means that you're very close to suicide.
>
>Comments like these Phillips indicate your true state of mind, which is far
>from normal.

What is normal, to someone who is mentally ill like yourself? I would be
alarmed if you considered me normal.

You sound like your mind is in a very chaotic and unstable
>state.

Again, from someone like yourself who exhibits so many symptoms of mental
illness, this is a meaningless observation.

Perhaps the gory stories your wife tells you has affected your mind.

What gory stories are you talking about? Every time you try to mention
something about my personal life, you get it wrong. Tell me again about how
I'm a part-time general construction laborer who lives in Orange County. It's
amazing how immune you are to actual facts.

>Please get professional help as soon as possible.

Are you telling me to hire a professional hit man to put you out of your
misery? That's the only way to interpret that statement that makes sense.

Boon

[Marc Phillips]

By the way, Arny, you only fixed one of the two typos in the subject header.

What a tool you are.

Boon

[Arny Krueger]

"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
...
> Arny said:
>
> >"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >> Arny said:
> >
> >> >"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
> >>
> >
> >> >> "Thank you for killing me. You ****ed me so hard Jesus was very
happy
> >> >> with my arrival. I bet the other daddies didn't let their children
> >> >> suck there dick's like you sucked mine, daddy. I'm glad I'm dead
now."
> >
> >> >> "You made me come hard, daddy. I'm in heaven now, but you can suck
my
> >> >> dick in your dreams and your prayers."
> >
> >> >> "what did it feel like to grope me in my coffin, daddy?"
> >
> >> >You had a very tough childhood, didn't you Phillips.
> >>
> >> >It must explains why you are such a pervert now. God help your
children
> >(if they exist).
> >
> >> Do you really think that taking your own disgusting words and then
editing
> >> posts to make it look like others are saying them paints you in
anything
> >other
> >> than the worst possible light?
> >
> >They aren't my words, Phillips and since you seem to be proud of them,
they
> >must be yours.
>
> No, they musn't. It was proven conclusively that they are your words.

Except that never happened. What happened is that your little imaginary
friend "Leon" made up a fairy tale and it was shown to be a lie.

>You're merely denying it, because it's the only defense you can think of.
Leon
> offered you $10,000 to refute his proof that you wrote these things, and
you
> ran away.

Not at all. I asked Leon to show that his offer of $10,000 was credible by
normal business means and he ran away.

> >> Do you really think that anyone believes that
> >> someone else other than you said the above?

> >Sure, because it's the truth.

> So says the pathological liar.

You don't understand what that phrase means, do you Phillips?

You know Phillips, that is how your imaginary friend "Richman" discredits
himself. The word "pathological" has a very specific meaning and he doesn't
act like he knows what it is. I admit it, it took me a while to learn what
it mean, and to find that John Atkinson is not a pathological liar. He is a
highly productive, happy successful liar. There's a difference.

> I am not the author of those words.

> So says the pathological liar.

You don't understand what the phrase "pathological liar" means, do you
Phillips?

> It's highly improbable that a father would write such a thing about his
son.

> Unless he was mentally ill, as you are.

And Phillips your credentials for making that claim are any better than
those of your imaginary friend "Richman"?

> This is one reason why I think you are lying when you say you are a
parent.

> Why would I possible care if you, Arny Krueger, pathological liar and
pervert,
> think that I'm lying about being a parent?

Here you Phillips, you obviously care about what I said.

>What have you said on this
> newsgroup about this specific issue that relates to reality?'

If you don't know by now Phillips, telling you won't help.

> There are people on this NG who have met my children.

There are people on this NG who swore that they heard Tor Bergsen's stereo.

> Do you think you're
> convincing them of anything right now, other than the fact that you're
mentally
> ill?

I'm not omniscient, but you lie a lot, Phillips.

> >Furthermore Phillips, your repeated use of these words suggests that you
are
> >either obsessed with them and/or their author.

> It "suggests" that I'm deeply offended by your use of them.

They are very offensive Phillips, so why do you keep repeating them? It
would appear that the most frequent poster of them is in fact one Marc
Phillips. I am not the person who authored them. Given your affinity for
them Phillips, it would seem likely that you are their author.

> Period.

Exclamation point!

> Your attempt to twist this around is the weakest and most repulsive
IKYABWAI you've
> concocted.

Let's talk about how repulsive your continual repetition, posting and
re-posting, linking and re-linking of them is, Phillips. It's like they are
the focus of your life. They seem to be the words that you write that you
want the world to judge you by.

> >> Every day you grow more desperately clownish.

> >Why, because I tell the truth?

> You're a documented pathological liar.

You don't understand what that phrase means, do you Phillips?

> >> I hope this means that you're very close to suicide.

> >Comments like these Phillips indicate your true state of mind, which is
far
> >from normal.

> What is normal, to someone who is mentally ill like yourself?

Phillips, your death wish for me is not exactly what most people would call
happy, normal behavior.

> I would be alarmed if you considered me normal.

I really don't know what to make of you, Phillips. You are obviously quite
unhappy.

OTOH, I sit here listening to some old Eagles tracks, musing over the mental
state of an abstract creature known to me as Marc Phillips. I will shortly
leave the twisted little world of RAO and that will be that.

>> You sound like your mind is in a very chaotic and unstable state.

> Again, from someone like yourself who exhibits so many symptoms of mental
> illness, this is a meaningless observation.

And Phillips your medical credentials are...???? Are they any better than
those of your imaginary playmate "Richman"?

> Perhaps the gory stories your wife tells you has affected your mind.

> What gory stories are you talking about?

The ones you've mentioned Phillips, that you say disturb you. I quoted an
example of this just lately. Are you in denial about that, too?

>Every time you try to mention
> something about my personal life, you get it wrong. Tell me again about
how
> I'm a part-time general construction laborer who lives in Orange County.
It's
> amazing how immune you are to actual facts.

Why don't you tell us the actual facts as you perceive them, Phillips?
Perhaps talking about your life will give you more peace with it.

> >Please get professional help as soon as possible.

> Are you telling me to hire a professional hit man to put you out of your
> misery?

That's a rather odd way to twist what I said, Phillips. Are you
contemplating doing this?

>That's the only way to interpret that statement that makes sense.

Wow, you are really confused, aren't you Phillips. I pray for you because
you are obviously very troubled. Do find help for your condition before you
hurt someone more.

[John Atkinson]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>...
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> om
> > How am I responsible for what others do?
>
> You brag about literally feeding them lunch, Atkinson.

In another thread, Mr. Krueger, you have not managed to provide one
groups.google.com meesage reference in support of your falsehoods.
So if I "brag about literally feeding them lunch," in what posting
was I supposed to have done this? When was it? What did I say?

> It's clear that you feed them metaphorically by publicly approving of
> their egregious acts.

Not in any r.a.o. posting retrievable by Google, Mr. Krueger. What
"egregious acts"? Please provide a message reference.

> You white-wash their reprehensible and irresponsible behavior.

Not in any r.a.o. posting retrievable by Google, Mr. Krueger. What
"reprehensible and irresponsible behavior"? Please provide a message
reference.

> However, you do the same for your own fraudulent public deeds...

_What_ "fraudulent public deeds," Mr. Krueger? You appear to be very
brave sitting behind your computer, which makes it all the more
sad that you are unable to repeat such accusations face-to-face. :-)
(Note appropriate use of emoticon.)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Marc Phillips]

Arny said:

>> >> >> "Thank you for killing me. You ****ed me so hard Jesus was very
>happy
>> >> >> with my arrival. I bet the other daddies didn't let their children
>> >> >> suck there dick's like you sucked mine, daddy. I'm glad I'm dead
>now."
>> >
>> >> >> "You made me come hard, daddy. I'm in heaven now, but you can suck
>my
>> >> >> dick in your dreams and your prayers."
>> >
>> >> >> "what did it feel like to grope me in my coffin, daddy?"
>> >
>> >> >You had a very tough childhood, didn't you Phillips.
>> >>
>> >> >It must explains why you are such a pervert now. God help your
>children
>> >(if they exist).
>> >
>> >> Do you really think that taking your own disgusting words and then
>editing
>> >> posts to make it look like others are saying them paints you in
>anything
>> >other
>> >> than the worst possible light?
>> >
>> >They aren't my words, Phillips and since you seem to be proud of them,
>they
>> >must be yours.
>>
>> No, they musn't. It was proven conclusively that they are your words.
>
>Except that never happened. What happened is that your little imaginary
>friend "Leon" made up a fairy tale and it was shown to be a lie.

Prove it!

>
>>You're merely denying it, because it's the only defense you can think of.
>Leon
>> offered you $10,000 to refute his proof that you wrote these things, and
>you
>> ran away.
>
>Not at all. I asked Leon to show that his offer of $10,000 was credible by
>normal business means and he ran away.

No, he didn't.

>
>> >> Do you really think that anyone believes that
>> >> someone else other than you said the above?
>
>> >Sure, because it's the truth.
>
>> So says the pathological liar.
>
>You don't understand what that phrase means, do you Phillips?

Yes, I do.

>
>You know Phillips, that is how your imaginary friend "Richman" discredits
>himself. The word "pathological" has a very specific meaning and he doesn't
>act like he knows what it is. I admit it, it took me a while to learn what
>it mean, and to find that John Atkinson is not a pathological liar. He is a
>highly productive, happy successful liar. There's a difference.

What crap.

>
>> I am not the author of those words.
>
>> So says the pathological liar.
>
>You don't understand what the phrase "pathological liar" means, do you
>Phillips?

Yes, I do.

>
>> It's highly improbable that a father would write such a thing about his
>son.
>
>> Unless he was mentally ill, as you are.
>
>And Phillips your credentials for making that claim are any better than
>those of your imaginary friend "Richman"?

I have no idea what you're talking about.
>
>> This is one reason why I think you are lying when you say you are a
>parent.
>
>> Why would I possible care if you, Arny Krueger, pathological liar and
>pervert,
>> think that I'm lying about being a parent?
>
>Here you Phillips, you obviously care about what I said.

Krooglish!

>
>>What have you said on this
>> newsgroup about this specific issue that relates to reality?'
>
>If you don't know by now Phillips, telling you won't help.

Run away!

>
>> There are people on this NG who have met my children.
>
>There are people on this NG who swore that they heard Tor Bergsen's stereo.

That's not even close to being relevant to what I said.

>
>> Do you think you're
>> convincing them of anything right now, other than the fact that you're
>mentally
>> ill?
>
>I'm not omniscient, but you lie a lot, Phillips.

No, I don't. People who tell the truth obviously perplex you.

>
>> >Furthermore Phillips, your repeated use of these words suggests that you
>are
>> >either obsessed with them and/or their author.
>
>> It "suggests" that I'm deeply offended by your use of them.
>
>They are very offensive Phillips, so why do you keep repeating them?

Because you refuse to be accountable for what you said.

It
>would appear that the most frequent poster of them is in fact one Marc
>Phillips. I am not the person who authored them.

Yes, you are.

Given your affinity for
>them Phillips, it would seem likely that you are their author.

There's no affinity involved. Your sense of logic is therefore ****.

>
>> Period.
>
>Exclamation point!
>
>> Your attempt to twist this around is the weakest and most repulsive
>IKYABWAI you've
>> concocted.
>
>Let's talk about how repulsive your continual repetition, posting and
>re-posting, linking and re-linking of them is, Phillips.

Well, I'm not trying to be cute. I just want every Kroopologist out there to
know what kind of a sick, perverted **** they support.
Notice how Bill Watkins hasn't been back since he realized with whom he's been
consorting. So it's worked with at least one person.

It's like they are
>the focus of your life. They seem to be the words that you write that you
>want the world to judge you by.

No, idiot, they are the words I want the world to judge YOU by, since you wrote
them.

>
>> >> Every day you grow more desperately clownish.
>
>> >Why, because I tell the truth?
>
>> You're a documented pathological liar.
>
>You don't understand what that phrase means, do you Phillips?

Yes, I do.

>
>> >> I hope this means that you're very close to suicide.
>
>> >Comments like these Phillips indicate your true state of mind, which is
>far
>> >from normal.
>
>> What is normal, to someone who is mentally ill like yourself?
>
>Phillips, your death wish for me is not exactly what most people would call
>happy, normal behavior.

That's because it's not a death wish. It's a simple question.

>
>> I would be alarmed if you considered me normal.
>
>I really don't know what to make of you, Phillips. You are obviously quite
>unhappy.

Not at all. Are YOUR credentials any better than those of Dr. Richman?

>
>OTOH, I sit here listening to some old Eagles tracks, musing over the mental
>state of an abstract creature known to me as Marc Phillips. I will shortly
>leave the twisted little world of RAO and that will be that.

We want you to leave. That's the whole point. You are a rancid, greasy spot
on Usenet, and we've been trying to wipe it clean for over six years.

And the Eagles suck ass.

>
>>> You sound like your mind is in a very chaotic and unstable state.
>
>> Again, from someone like yourself who exhibits so many symptoms of mental
>> illness, this is a meaningless observation.
>
>And Phillips your medical credentials are...???? Are they any better than
>those of your imaginary playmate "Richman"?

Are yours?

>
>> Perhaps the gory stories your wife tells you has affected your mind.
>
>> What gory stories are you talking about?
>
>The ones you've mentioned Phillips, that you say disturb you. I quoted an
>example of this just lately. Are you in denial about that, too?

Just give me a proper URL, and I'll comment.

>
>>Every time you try to mention
>> something about my personal life, you get it wrong. Tell me again about
>how
>> I'm a part-time general construction laborer who lives in Orange County.
>It's
>> amazing how immune you are to actual facts.
>
>Why don't you tell us the actual facts as you perceive them, Phillips?
>Perhaps talking about your life will give you more peace with it.
>

I've been very consistent in giving details about my personal life. You and
Malesweski have been very consistent in getting those details wrong.

>> >Please get professional help as soon as possible.
>
>> Are you telling me to hire a professional hit man to put you out of your
>> misery?
>
>That's a rather odd way to twist what I said, Phillips. Are you
>contemplating doing this?

Am I contemplating the killing of a stranger on Internet? Don't be an idiot.

>
>>That's the only way to interpret that statement that makes sense.
>
>Wow, you are really confused, aren't you Phillips. I pray for you because
>you are obviously very troubled. Do find help for your condition before you
>hurt someone more.

Don't pray for me, thank you. Christians have done more to **** up the world
than any other social group in history.

Boon

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

>
> Don't pray for me, thank you. Christians have done more to **** up the
world
> than any other social group in history.
>

Only because there is a lot of them and they have been around for a long
time.
Such inhumanity is a human trait. You must admit that god didn't make
them do those things.




----== 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 =---

[Bruce J. Richman]

Arny Krueger, compulsive liar, wrote:


>"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
...
>> Arny said:
>>
>> >"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> >> Arny said:
>> >
>> >> >"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
>> >>
>> >
>> >> >> "Thank you for killing me. You ****ed me so hard Jesus was very
>happy
>> >> >> with my arrival. I bet the other daddies didn't let their children
>> >> >> suck there dick's like you sucked mine, daddy. I'm glad I'm dead
>now."
>> >
>> >> >> "You made me come hard, daddy. I'm in heaven now, but you can suck
>my
>> >> >> dick in your dreams and your prayers."
>> >
>> >> >> "what did it feel like to grope me in my coffin, daddy?"
>> >
>> >> >You had a very tough childhood, didn't you Phillips.
>> >>
>> >> >It must explains why you are such a pervert now. God help your
>children
>> >(if they exist).
>> >
>> >> Do you really think that taking your own disgusting words and then
>editing
>> >> posts to make it look like others are saying them paints you in
>anything
>> >other
>> >> than the worst possible light?
>> >
>> >They aren't my words, Phillips and since you seem to be proud of them,
>they
>> >must be yours.
>>
>> No, they musn't. It was proven conclusively that they are your words.
>
>Except that never happened. What happened is that your little imaginary
>friend "Leon" made up a fairy tale and it was shown to be a lie.
>

Just another fabrication from compulsive liar, Krueger. As usual, he provides
no evidence to support his propaganda. Krueger has a documented history on RAO
of making false statements about a wide range of subjects and people. Nobody
other than a very small clique of anti-prefernce zealots takes anything he says
seriously. His latest rantings and ravings about other peoples' "imaginary
friends" are nothing but the products of his delusional thoughts.


>>You're merely denying it, because it's the only defense you can think of.
>Leon
>> offered you $10,000 to refute his proof that you wrote these things, and
>you
>> ran away.
>
>Not at all. I asked Leon to show that his offer of $10,000 was credible by
>normal business means and he ran away.
>

LOL! Prove it! The lies from Krueger just keep flowing like water.

>> >> Do you really think that anyone believes that
>> >> someone else other than you said the above?
>
>> >Sure, because it's the truth.
>
>> So says the pathological liar.
>
>You don't understand what that phrase means, do you Phillips?
>
>You know Phillips, that is how your imaginary friend "Richman" discredits
>himself. The word "pathological" has a very specific meaning and he doesn't
>act like he knows what it is. I admit it, it took me a while to learn what
>it mean, and to find that John Atkinson is not a pathological liar. He is a
>highly productive, happy successful liar. There's a difference.
>

Nothing could be further from the truth. Krueger's pathetic attempts to play
semantic word games and distort the use of descriptions applied to him by
others are as nonconvincing as his anti-preferemce ravings. It has been shown
many times that Krueger exhibits many symptoms of psychopathology. More
specifically, his pathological behavior on RAO meets many of the criteria for
several formal diagnoses, such as Paranoid Personality Disorder. That
condition is described as follows:

http://www.mentalhealth.com/dis1/p21-pe01.ht

"Diagnostic Criteria:
A. A pervasive distrust and suspiciousness of others such that
their motives are interpreted as malevolent, beginning by early
adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by four (or
more) of the following:

1. suspects, without sufficient basis, that others are exploiting,
harming, or deceiving him or her

2. is preoccupied with unjustified doubts about the loyalty or
trustworthiness of friends or associates

3. is reluctant to confide in others because of unwarranted fear
that the information will be used maliciously against him or her

4. reads hidden demeaning or threatening meanings into benign
remarks or events

5. persistently bears grudges, i.e., is unforgiving of insults,
injuries, or slights

6. perceives attacks on his or her character or reputation that are
not apparent to others and is quick to react angrily or to
counterattack

7.has recurrent suspicions, without justification, regarding fidelity
of spouse or sexual partner

B. Does not occur exclusively during the course of Schizophrenia, a
Mood Disorder With Psychotic Features, or another Psychotic Disorder and
is not due to the direct physiological effects of a general medical
condition.

Even the most casual observer of Krueger's libelous, delusional and generally
false statements about others on RAO cannot help but be struck by how closely
his posts here meet many of the criteria listed above. His "conspiracy
theories" about "cliques" of posters, his 7+ year history of vendettas against
all his "enemies", etc. One could go on & on, but the Google record documents
his psychopathology quite clearly.


>> I am not the author of those words.
>
>> So says the pathological liar.
>
>You don't understand what the phrase "pathological liar" means, do you
>Phillips?
>

You don't, that's for sure. But then again, your lies on RAO are a matter of
public record.



>> It's highly improbable that a father would write such a thing about his
>son.
>
>> Unless he was mentally ill, as you are.
>
>And Phillips your credentials for making that claim are any better than
>those of your imaginary friend "Richman"?
>

I appreciate the compulsive liar, Krueger, making this libelous statement.
Many of us have been libeled over the years by Krueger. My credentials are a
matter of public record. And compulsive lar Krueger has just provided Mr.
Wheeler, and other possible contributors to his libel suit against Krueger,
with yet more evidence of how this despicable proven liar has libeled people on
RAO. The list of people that Krueger has libeled will be very easy to produce
in any legal proceedings that may ensue.

My professional credentials have been described on RAO in the past, so there is
no need to repeat them here. Even compulsive liar Krueger's most loyal
defender, McKelvey, when directly challenged by me to put his libelous claims
in writing in an American print publication, declined to do so, because he knew
I would sue him if he did.

It's so easy to get Krueger to implicate himself and provide the legal sytem
with proof of his documented and lengthy history of libeling others ! I
wasn't even a part of this thread, but thanks to Krueger's predictable
psychopathology and transparent agenda to libel and defame others, have now
been delighted to expose this compulsive liar once again.



>> This is one reason why I think you are lying when you say you are a
>parent.
>


>> Why would I possible care if you, Arny Krueger, pathological liar and
>pervert,
>> think that I'm lying about being a parent?
>
>Here you Phillips, you obviously care about what I said.
>
>>What have you said on this
>> newsgroup about this specific issue that relates to reality?'
>
>If you don't know by now Phillips, telling you won't help.
>
>> There are people on this NG who have met my children.
>
>There are people on this NG who swore that they heard Tor Bergsen's stereo.
>

Again, refer to the criteria for Paranoid Personality Disorder above,
especially # 1. For one as seriously disturbed as Krueger, there are only 2
kinds of people in his delusional world: (1) those that embrace his
anti-preference, anti-subjective opinion views and are therefore, truthful, and
(2) those that don't agree with his agenda and are therefore, lying. One has
only to refer to the classic thread entitled "Have You Had A Bad Krueger
Experience" to find a rather lengthy list of people (that, of course, has grown
since it was written) that Krueger has accused of being liars, disturbed, etc.



>> Do you think you're
>> convincing them of anything right now, other than the fact that you're
>mentally
>> ill?
>
>I'm not omniscient, but you lie a lot, Phillips.
>

Irelevqant response to Mr. PHillips' question. Compare Krueger's typical RAO
behavior with the criteria listed above. There is your answer.



>> >Furthermore Phillips, your repeated use of these words suggests that you
>are
>> >either obsessed with them and/or their author.
>
>> It "suggests" that I'm deeply offended by your use of them.
>
>They are very offensive Phillips, so why do you keep repeating them? It
>would appear that the most frequent poster of them is in fact one Marc
>Phillips. I am not the person who authored them. Given your affinity for
>them Phillips, it would seem likely that you are their author.
>
>> Period.
>
>Exclamation point!
>
>> Your attempt to twist this around is the weakest and most repulsive
>IKYABWAI you've
>> concocted.
>
>Let's talk about how repulsive your continual repetition, posting and
>re-posting, linking and re-linking of them is, Phillips. It's like they are
>the focus of your life. They seem to be the words that you write that you
>want the world to judge you by.
>
>> >> Every day you grow more desperately clownish.
>
>> >Why, because I tell the truth?
>
>> You're a documented pathological liar.
>
>You don't understand what that phrase means, do you Phillips?
>
>> >> I hope this means that you're very close to suicide.
>
>> >Comments like these Phillips indicate your true state of mind, which is
>far
>> >from normal.
>
>> What is normal, to someone who is mentally ill like yourself?
>

That's a reasonable question. Given Krueger's repetition of his libelous false
claims concerning both my identity and credentials, to cite just one example,
he is clearly qutie detached from reality. Apparently, he has now deluded
himself into thinking that I am "imaginary" and that my credentials are also.
Unfortunately for him, the public record demonstrates that he is once again
either (a) deliberately lying, or (b) so reality-impared that he can no longer
discover simple facts about the people that he routinely libels.

In a recent conversation with my attorney about Scott's libel case, I asked him
whether a defendant's mental illness might serve as a viable defense against a
suit for libel. Although I didn't think so, I have personally served on a
panel of Psychologists & Psychiatrists in Broward County, Florida that has
evaluated many accused individuals awaiting trial on a variety of criminal
charges. It is fairly commoin for Public Defenders and private atornies to ask
for "competency evaluations" for their clients with the hope that qualified
professionals might find them either incompetent or "insane" at the time of
their alleged offense. My attorney informed me that insanity defenses don't
apply to civil suits such as the one Mr. Wheeler is initiating.



>Phillips, your death wish for me is not exactly what most people would call
>happy, normal behavior.
>
>> I would be alarmed if you considered me normal.
>

I wouldn't be alarmed too much by any of Krueger's "considerations". They are
clearly the product of a seriously disturbed person whose credibility is almost
zero.



>I really don't know what to make of you, Phillips. You are obviously quite
>unhappy.
>

Prove it! LOL! Just another unsubstantiated claim from RAO's most widely
despised and hated poster. The lies just keep on flowing from this compulisve
liar.


>OTOH, I sit here listening to some old Eagles tracks, musing over the mental
>state of an abstract creature known to me as Marc Phillips. I will shortly
>leave the twisted little world of RAO and that will be that.
>

Unfortunately, Krueger is apparently unable to leave his own twisted world of
conspiracy theories, imaginary people, sockpuppets, etc. Perhaps if he left
RAO permanently, his own twisted world would be less troublesome for him.



>>> You sound like your mind is in a very chaotic and unstable state.
>
>> Again, from someone like yourself who exhibits so many symptoms of mental
>> illness, this is a meaningless observation.
>
>And Phillips your medical credentials are...???? Are they any better than
>those of your imaginary playmate "Richman"?
>

Compulsive liar Kruger here fully justified my use of the term "compulsive
iar". As all regular participants in RAO know, I have never claimed to have
any "medical credentials". So once again, Krueger is just lying. I'm a
licensed psychologist in the state of Florida, not a physician. The lies
about medical credentials are purely the product of Krueger's delusioinal mind.
Krueger, like his former colleague, Ferstler, has tried to make libelous
statements for many years about my credentials. In a detailed response to
Clarabelle Ferstler, I descrbied both my educational and clinical
qualifications, not that I was under any obligation to do so. All the details
provided are a matter of public record.

So Krueger is once again lying and making mroe libelous statements.

>> Perhaps the gory stories your wife tells you has affected your mind.
>
>> What gory stories are you talking about?
>
>The ones you've mentioned Phillips, that you say disturb you. I quoted an
>example of this just lately. Are you in denial about that, too?
>
>>Every time you try to mention
>> something about my personal life, you get it wrong. Tell me again about
>how
>> I'm a part-time general construction laborer who lives in Orange County.
>It's
>> amazing how immune you are to actual facts.
>
>Why don't you tell us the actual facts as you perceive them, Phillips?
>Perhaps talking about your life will give you more peace with it.
>

In other words, Krueger can't dispute Marc's description of Krueger's lies
about his occupation. Krueger's pathetic attempts to change the subject by
venturing into an area he knows nothing about - human feelings and how they are
generated - simply exposes his failure to defend his false claims about Mr.
Phillips' occupation.


>> >Please get professional help as soon as possible.
>
>> Are you telling me to hire a professional hit man to put you out of your
>> misery?
>
>That's a rather odd way to twist what I said, Phillips. Are you
>contemplating doing this?
>
>>That's the only way to interpret that statement that makes sense.
>
>Wow, you are really confused, aren't you Phillips. I pray for you because
>you are obviously very troubled. Do find help for your condition before you
>hurt someone more.
>
>
>


Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist

(I don' t usually sign my name on RAO this way, but given Krueger's attempts to
libel me once again as he has for 7+ years, will now start doing so).

[George M. Middius]

Marc Phillips said:

> >Such inhumanity is a human trait. You must admit that god didn't make
> >them do those things.
>
> I do. What I said has nothing to do with God, but with organized religion.

I thought Christians believe that God is part of themselves and
everything that happens is part of God's plan.

[Arny Krueger]

"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message


> Yustabe said:

>>> Don't pray for me, thank you.

The deed is done.

>>> Christians have done more to **** up
>>> the world than any other social group in history.

Phillips, your ignorance of world history is noted.

>> Only because there is a lot of them and they have been around for a
>> long time.

Christians aren't the majority at this point. For example Islam and Hinduism
sum to more adherents, and neither group has exactly clean hands in terms of
screwing up the world.

Furthermore, Islam is thought by many to be growing faster than
Christianity. Again, does Islam have a better track record in terms of human
pain and suffering than Christianity?

>> Such inhumanity is a human trait. You must admit that god didn't make
>> them do those things.

Furthermore, the word "Christian" means a lot of different things. One can
argue that "Christian" Serbs were responsible for a lot of pain and
suffering in Bosnia, but how is that relevant to a Baptist in Arkansas?

> I do. What I said has nothing to do with God, but with organized
> religion.

More self-contradiction since Phillips' flame was triggered by a purely
spiritual, act that was not peculiar or framed in the context of any
particular religion. Phillips obviously wants to burden *every* member of
*every* religion with *every* unfortunate act that was ever done by a person
who claimed to be an adherent of that particular belief. Just another
example of how totally confused his thinking actually is.

[dave weil]

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 17:40:26 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>Furthermore, the word "Christian" means a lot of different things. One can
>argue that "Christian" Serbs were responsible for a lot of pain and
>suffering in Bosnia, but how is that relevant to a Baptist in Arkansas?

How would *you* know what's relevant to a Baptist in Arkansas?

[Marc Phillips]

Arny said:

>"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message

>
>> Yustabe said:
>
>>>> Don't pray for me, thank you.
>
>The deed is done.

I'm sure your prayer was more along the lines of "Please, Jesus, make them
leave me alone! Smite my enemies!"

BTW, I just prayed to God to ignore all your prayers.

>
>>>> Christians have done more to **** up
>>>> the world than any other social group in history.
>
>Phillips, your ignorance of world history is noted.

Name another social group that has killed more people than Christians.

>
>>> Only because there is a lot of them and they have been around for a
>>> long time.
>
>Christians aren't the majority at this point. For example Islam and Hinduism
>sum to more adherents, and neither group has exactly clean hands in terms of
>screwing up the world.

That has nothing to do with what we just said, dumbass.

>
>Furthermore, Islam is thought by many to be growing faster than
>Christianity. Again, does Islam have a better track record in terms of human
>pain and suffering than Christianity?

Yes, it does.

>
>>> Such inhumanity is a human trait. You must admit that god didn't make
>>> them do those things.
>
>Furthermore, the word "Christian" means a lot of different things. One can
>argue that "Christian" Serbs were responsible for a lot of pain and
>suffering in Bosnia, but how is that relevant to a Baptist in Arkansas?

Because if you're a Christian, you're supposed be charitable.

>
>> I do. What I said has nothing to do with God, but with organized
>> religion.
>
>More self-contradiction since Phillips' flame was triggered by a purely
>spiritual, act that was not peculiar or framed in the context of any
>particular religion.

Krooglish!

Phillips obviously wants to burden *every* member of
>*every* religion with *every* unfortunate act that was ever done by a person
>who claimed to be an adherent of that particular belief.

Actually, I very specifically referred to a group dynamic, not the actions of
individuals. Learn to read, ****head.

Just another
>example of how totally confused his thinking actually is.

No, just another example of what a stupid **** you really are.

Boon

[Arny Krueger]

"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message

> Arny said:

>> "Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
>>

>>> Yustabe said:

>>>>> Don't pray for me, thank you.

>> The deed is done.

> I'm sure your prayer was more along the lines of "Please, Jesus, make
> them leave me alone! Smite my enemies!"

When my enemies are as fouled-up and as incompetent as you are Phillips,
there's no need for any additional Godly smiting. You smite yourself quite
nicely, thank you.

> BTW, I just prayed to God to ignore all your prayers.

Your ignorance of theology is noted, Phillips. In addition to incorrectly
attributing omniscience to yourself, you prove that you really don't
understand what the word means.

>>>>> Christians have done more to **** up
>>>>> the world than any other social group in history.

>> Phillips, your ignorance of world history is noted.

> Name another social group that has killed more people than Christians.

Irrelevant, since the total number of members and policies of the various
religious groups varies. Let's say that there is a religion that has a
thousand members, their religion is based on hating and murdering as many
people as possible (say, the Moslem group known as the original Assassins),
and they have murdered say 10,000 people. Then we have the Christians with
billions of members over the year, who also do a lot of good in this world,
but due to wars etc., have incidentally killed a lot more than 100,000
people, including most of the Assassins in self-defense. Please compare and
contrast the ethical and moral situation of these two groups.

>>>> Only because there is a lot of them and they have been around for a
>>>> long time.

>> Christians aren't the majority at this point. For example Islam and
>> Hinduism sum to more adherents, and neither group has exactly clean
>> hands in terms of screwing up the world.

> That has nothing to do with what we just said, dumbass.

It's not my fault Phillips that you are so stupid that you can't see the
connection.

>> Furthermore, Islam is thought by many to be growing faster than
>> Christianity. Again, does Islam have a better track record in terms
>> of human pain and suffering than Christianity?

> Yes, it does.

Prove it. A lifetime membership in Al Quida may wait for you, Phillips.

>>>> Such inhumanity is a human trait. You must admit that god didn't
>>>> make them do those things.

>> Furthermore, the word "Christian" means a lot of different things.
>> One can argue that "Christian" Serbs were responsible for a lot of
>> pain and suffering in Bosnia, but how is that relevant to a Baptist
>> in Arkansas?

> Because if you're a Christian, you're supposed be charitable.

Phillips, prove that there are no Christians that are charitable. Prove that
Christians haven't done more charitable work than any other for all time.

>>> I do. What I said has nothing to do with God, but with organized
>>> religion.

>> More self-contradiction since Phillips' flame was triggered by a
>> purely spiritual, act that was not peculiar or framed in the context
>> of any particular religion.

> Krooglish!

Dismissal of a critical point to avoid dealing with it.

> Phillips obviously wants to burden *every* member of
>> *every* religion with *every* unfortunate act that was ever done by
>> a person who claimed to be an adherent of that particular belief.

> Actually, I very specifically referred to a group dynamic, not the
> actions of individuals.

Dismissal of a critical point to avoid dealing with it.

> Learn to read, ****head.

Dismissal of a critical point to avoid dealing with it.

> Just another
>> example of how totally confused his thinking actually is.

> No, just another example of what a stupid **** you really are.

Dismissal of a critical point to avoid dealing with it.

[dave weil]

On 25 Aug 2003 12:43:52 GMT, (Marc Phillips) wrote:

>Arny said:
>
>>Your ignorance of theology is noted, Phillips.
>
>Hold on a minute. First of all, I'm not going to argue theology with a known
>liar, hypocrite and pedophile. Second, if Christians all over the world knew
>that you, a known liar, hypocrite and pedophile, was speaking for them about
>their religion, they'd trade in their rosary beads for a hangman's noose.
>
>ROTFLMAO!
>
>Boon
>
And I'm quite sure that I know far more about Arkansas Baptists than
Arnold will *ever* know.

<chuckle>

[Arny Krueger]

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

> >Your ignorance of theology is noted, Phillips.

> Hold on a minute. First of all, I'm not going to argue theology with a
known
> liar, hypocrite and pedophile.

Prove that I'm a pedophile, crazy man.

> Second, if Christians all over the world knew
> that you, a known liar, hypocrite and pedophile, was speaking for them
about
> their religion, they'd trade in their rosary beads for a hangman's noose.

Your ignorance of Christianity is noted Phillips. Very few forms of
Christianity have any use for rosary beads.

> ROTFLMAO!

This would be like the sound of a laughing hyena?

[George M. Middius]

Marc Phillips said to Rev. Turdborg:

> Hold on a minute. First of all, I'm not going to argue theology with a known
> liar, hypocrite and pedophile. Second, if Christians all over the world knew
> that you, a known liar, hypocrite and pedophile, was speaking for them about
> their religion, they'd trade in their rosary beads for a hangman's noose.

I'd suggest gluing up the beads into throwing-size clumps so that
when the order finally comes to stone Mr. **** to death, they'll be
ready and properly armed.

[Powell]

"Arny Krueger" wrote

> Your ignorance of Christianity is noted Phillips.
> Very few forms of Christianity have any use for
> rosary beads.
>
You'd be wrong, again (rosary beads).

Catholic 1,050,000,000 ("rosary beads").
Orthodox/Eastern Christian 240,000,000
African indigenous sects (AICs) 110,000,000
Pentecostal 105,000,000
Reformed/Presbyterian/Congregational/United 75,000,000
Anglican 73,000,000
Baptist 70,000,000
Methodist 70,000,000
Lutheran 64,000,000
Jehovah's Witnesses 14,800,000

[MiNE 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Powell" > wrote in message
>
> > "Arny Krueger" wrote
> >
> >> Your ignorance of Christianity is noted Phillips.
> >> Very few forms of Christianity have any use for
> >> rosary beads.
>
> > You'd be wrong, again (rosary beads).
>
> > Catholic 1,050,000,000 ("rosary beads").
> > Orthodox/Eastern Christian 240,000,000
> > African indigenous sects (AICs) 110,000,000
> > Pentecostal 105,000,000
> > Reformed/Presbyterian/Congregational/United 75,000,000
> > Anglican 73,000,000
> > Baptist 70,000,000
> > Methodist 70,000,000
> > Lutheran 64,000,000
> > Jehovah's Witnesses 14,800,000
>
> Powell, your list is mostly composed of groups that would not be caught
> dead using rosary beads. Please post again when you have some clue about the
> religious practices of most of these groups.
>
>

He's got you there, Powell. They may include 1.123 billion people, but
Catholic and Anglican are only two forms. If you count Orthodox "prayer
beads" it's up to 1.363 billion and only three forms. Oops, there's a
"Lutheran Rosary" too. You do the math, but that's still only four
forms, whereas this site

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/baptist/otherconvlinks.html

lists twelve Baptist conventions. Twelve is more than four any day.

Stephen

[Marc Phillips]

Arny said:

>"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
...
>> Arny said:
>
>> >Your ignorance of theology is noted, Phillips.
>
>> Hold on a minute. First of all, I'm not going to argue theology with a
>known
>> liar, hypocrite and pedophile.
>
>Prove that I'm a pedophile, crazy man.

"what did it feel like to grope me in my coffin, daddy?"

>
>> Second, if Christians all over the world knew
>> that you, a known liar, hypocrite and pedophile, was speaking for them
>about
>> their religion, they'd trade in their rosary beads for a hangman's noose.
>
>Your ignorance of Christianity is noted Phillips. Very few forms of
>Christianity have any use for rosary beads.

Yeah, just those pesky Catholics, you dumb ****. Or are you going to try and
tell me that Catholics aren't Christians? Or that there aren't that many
Catholics in the world? Or that they're only one branch out of many in
Christianity? How are you going to not look stupid here?

THIS is why I don't want to discuss religion with you. You are a stupid ****,
and there aren't enough hours in the day to point out your errors.

>
>> ROTFLMAO!
>
>This would be like the sound of a laughing hyena?

No, dumb ****. Stop being an idiot. I'm busy.

Boon

[Arny Krueger]

"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message


> Arny said:

>> Prove that I'm a pedophile, crazy man.

> "what did it feel like to grope me in my coffin, daddy?"

I didn't ask for evidence that you are a pedophile, Phillips. But thanks
for providing it.

[Marc Phillips]

Arny said:

>"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message

>
>> Arny said:
>
>>> Prove that I'm a pedophile, crazy man.
>
>> "what did it feel like to grope me in my coffin, daddy?"
>
>I didn't ask for evidence that you are a pedophile, Phillips. But thanks
>for providing it.

For the rest of your life, you'll be identified with those words. You thought
them up, you typed them, you forced a bunch of strangers on the Internet to
share in your sick fantasy that is described by them. Trying to disassociate
yourself from them now will not work.

By the way, I guess you took a bath on that rosary bead thing. This must be
your way of admitting it.

Boon

[Arny Krueger]

"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message

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

>>> Arny said:

>>>> Prove that I'm a pedophile, crazy man.

>>> "what did it feel like to grope me in my coffin, daddy?"

>> I didn't ask for evidence that you are a pedophile, Phillips. But
>> thanks for providing it.

> For the rest of your life, you'll be identified with those words.

Why? I didn't author them. However Phillips, you seem to be compelled to
make them your own. I think that you made them up, and this is some kind of
crazy scheme of yours to avoid taking responsibility for your years of
reprehensible public behavior.

> You thought them up,

Not at all.

>you typed them,

Not at all.

>you forced a bunch of strangers
> on the Internet to share in your sick fantasy that is described by
> them.

It wasn't my fantasy.

>Trying to disassociate yourself from them now will not work.

Obviously, I'm not associated with them Phillips, because you keep trying to
bring them up again and again.

> By the way, I guess you took a bath on that rosary bead thing.

You're really delusional Phillips, aren't you?

> This must be your way of admitting it.

You really need to get some professional help Phillips, before you hurt
yourself or someone else.

[Marc Phillips]

Arny said:

>>>>> Prove that I'm a pedophile, crazy man.
>
>>>> "what did it feel like to grope me in my coffin, daddy?"
>
>>> I didn't ask for evidence that you are a pedophile, Phillips. But
>>> thanks for providing it.
>
>> For the rest of your life, you'll be identified with those words.
>
>Why? I didn't author them. However Phillips, you seem to be compelled to
>make them your own. I think that you made them up, and this is some kind of
>crazy scheme of yours to avoid taking responsibility for your years of
>reprehensible public behavior.
>
>> You thought them up,
>
>Not at all.
>
>>you typed them,
>
>Not at all.
>
>>you forced a bunch of strangers
>> on the Internet to share in your sick fantasy that is described by
>> them.
>
>It wasn't my fantasy.
>
>>Trying to disassociate yourself from them now will not work.
>
>Obviously, I'm not associated with them Phillips, because you keep trying to
>bring them up again and again.
>
>> By the way, I guess you took a bath on that rosary bead thing.
>
>You're really delusional Phillips, aren't you?
>
>> This must be your way of admitting it.
>
>You really need to get some professional help Phillips, before you hurt
>yourself or someone else.

Simply denying all this isn't proof enough. You, of all people, should know
this, not that we expect you to live up to your own standards.

Just prove that the headers are real. Leon said he'd pay you $100,000 now to
prove you didn't manufacture them. And you still can't.

Boon

[Arny Krueger]

"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message

> Arny said:
>
>>>>>> Prove that I'm a pedophile, crazy man.
>>
>>>>> "what did it feel like to grope me in my coffin, daddy?"
>>
>>>> I didn't ask for evidence that you are a pedophile, Phillips. But
>>>> thanks for providing it.
>>
>>> For the rest of your life, you'll be identified with those words.
>>
>> Why? I didn't author them. However Phillips, you seem to be
>> compelled to make them your own. I think that you made them up, and
>> this is some kind of crazy scheme of yours to avoid taking
>> responsibility for your years of reprehensible public behavior.
>>
>>> You thought them up,
>>
>> Not at all.
>>
>>> you typed them,
>>
>> Not at all.

>>> you forced a bunch of strangers
>>> on the Internet to share in your sick fantasy that is described by
>>> them.

>> It wasn't my fantasy.

>>> Trying to disassociate yourself from them now will not work.

>> Obviously, I'm not associated with them Phillips, because you keep
>> trying to bring them up again and again.

What is it they say about criminals returning to the scene of their crime?
Seems to fit very well with Marc Phillips' behavior.

>>> By the way, I guess you took a bath on that rosary bead thing.

>> You're really delusional Phillips, aren't you?

This would be more fun if Phillips weren't so ignorant about the religious
practices of various religions. I can just see Phillips walking into a
Methodist, Pentecostal or Baptist church with rosary beads, ready to show
everybody how devout of a Methodist, Pentecostal or Baptist he was! We're
talking truly amazing levels of ignorance here.

>>> This must be your way of admitting it.

>> You really need to get some professional help Phillips, before you
>> hurt yourself or someone else.

> Simply denying all this isn't proof enough.

That's all you've offered us to prove your innocence of this reprehensible
act, Phillips. When are you going to do better?

> Just prove that the headers are real.

Been there, done that. Nobody has proven that they are false.

> Leon said he'd pay you
> $100,000 now to prove you didn't manufacture them.

Leon declines to substantiate his offer in accordance with usual business
practices. You bozos are a real bunch of no-shows aren't you. First Leon
waves this imaginary cash, and then sockpuppet "Wheel" sends me a registered
letter with no return address.

When will your madness and lies end, Phillips?

>And you still can't.

Been there, done that. Time to make up a new series of lies, Phillips. How
about raising Jamie from the dead? That would be good for a few laughs.

[MiNE 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> This would be more fun if Phillips weren't so ignorant about the religious
> practices of various religions. I can just see Phillips walking into a
> Methodist, Pentecostal or Baptist church with rosary beads, ready to show
> everybody how devout of a Methodist, Pentecostal or Baptist he was! We're
> talking truly amazing levels of ignorance here.

Ignorance of Methodists, anyway.

http://www.upperroom.org/askjulian/default.asp?act=answer&itemid=116787

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

Sockpuppet "Leon North" > lied and exposed its
ignorance in message ...

> > "Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
> >
> > >> Arny said:
> > >>> you typed them,
> > >>
> > >> Not at all.
>
> Look how you do trip over your own words. My, my, Turdy, but you're
looking
> mendaciously stupid, again. Remember posting this little nugget in regard
to
> the disgusting text being discussed?
>
> "I wrote it some years ago. Why is it that it is being quoted over and
over
> again in an [sic] vain attempt to embarrass in [sic] humiliate me?"

Missing context.

> You admit it and then deny it.

I guess you don't understand what a pronoun is, sockpuppet "North".

Let me give you a clue - a pronoun refers to something else. The word "it"
is a pronoun.

In this case you need to post the context of the entire post in order to
determine what the word "it" was referring to.

Hope this little English lesson helps you, sockpuppet "North".

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNE 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > This would be more fun if Phillips weren't so ignorant about the
religious
> > practices of various religions. I can just see Phillips walking into a
> > Methodist, Pentecostal or Baptist church with rosary beads, ready to
show
> > everybody how devout of a Methodist, Pentecostal or Baptist he was!
We're
> > talking truly amazing levels of ignorance here.

> Ignorance of Methodists, anyway.

> http://www.upperroom.org/askjulian/default.asp?act=answer&itemid=116787

It's a pretty good article. There's nothing that prevents a Protestant from
using prayer beads. However, their usage by a Methodist would probably vary
from common Roman Catholic practice in that repetitive prayers (prayer beads
are usually used in the RC tradition to count repetitions of the same
prayer) are discouraged, both by the scriptures and and also by Protestant
tradition.

http://www.briceandbensa.com/PrivateandPointedPrayer.htm contains a typical
Protestant view of repetitive prayers.

I've been a goodly number of Methodist, Pentecostal and Baptist services and
never seen even one use of prayer beads. OTOH, I can't see a Methodist,
Pentecostal or Baptist getting thrown out or disciplined because they used
them. There are a goodly number of ex-Catholics in many protestant churches
and the use of prayer beads seems to be one of those things that Catholics
shed when they convert.

[Leon North]

Turdy "Skidmark of the borg" Kroogles bleats for context:

> Sockpuppet "Leon North" > lied and exposed its
> ignorance in message ...
>
> > > "Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > >> Arny said:
> > > >>> you typed them,
> > > >>
> > > >> Not at all.
> >
> > Look how you do trip over your own words. My, my, Turdy, but you're
> looking
> > mendaciously stupid, again. Remember posting this little nugget in regard
> to
> > the disgusting text being discussed?
> >
> > "I wrote it some years ago. Why is it that it is being quoted over and
> over
> > again in an [sic] vain attempt to embarrass in [sic] humiliate me?"
>
> Missing context.
>
> In this case you need to post the context of the entire post in order to
> determine what the word "it" was referring to.

Nope. Don't need the entire post. Why, if that were true then what you just
did (i.e., responded with an edited post) would be anathema. Right? +You+
wouldn't happen to be a hypocrite, would you? Gasp! But I know you're ****ed
in the head so here ya go, Turdy.

begin quoted text -

> In fact the person who wrote this nasty piece of prose, which you
> now admit is offensive, was none other than _yourself_.

I wrote it some years ago.

end quoted text -

Or, I could take your tack and refer you to http://groups.google.com/

A fart smeller like you can now use the above text to find the whole post.
Those are your words, retard. BTW, I notice that you did the krooballoo all
around the rest of my post. Here it is again, just in case you missed it.

REPEAT OF CHALLENGE TO THE LYING, ****-EATING PEDERAST:

Now, that $100,000 thing is a wager. Turdy sends me his bank info showing that
he can cover the wager and I send him the same (here's where Turdy's bluff is
called, in spades). We then put the money in escrow and give him, say, a week
to accomplish this impossible task. At the end of the week, or whatever, I
collect my hundred large. Turdy is unimaginably stupid but somewhere a brain
cell or two is still firing as he won't do this, ever. He doesn't have the
scratch anyway. Crap, he's overwhelmed by the thought of spending a few
hundred bucks to file a lawsuit. The bottom line is that I agree to his terms
for the wager but impose the same terms on him. Let's see what mind boggling
evasive move S-f-B makes to get out of this one. Whatever, he'll look par
(i.e., stupid -very stupid).



Ok, Kroogles, you're move. My bet is that you'll crap your pants and snip this
part. Sure is easy to win bets when a predictable blow-hard coward like you is
involved. I'm laughing at you, dimbulb. Any idea how bad you're looking right
about now? <s******-chuckle-guffaw>

You remain pathetically stupid.*

I remain,

The Shadow

* more variety

--
"The discussion is what I meant, not what I said." A. Dimbulb Kroooger

[Leon North]

Leon North wrote:

> Turdy "Skidmark of the borg" Kroogles bleats for context:
>
> > Sockpuppet "Leon North" > lied and exposed its
> > ignorance in message ...
> >
> > > > "Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > >> Arny said:
> > > > >>> you typed them,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Not at all.
> > >
> > > Look how you do trip over your own words. My, my, Turdy, but you're
> > looking
> > > mendaciously stupid, again. Remember posting this little nugget in regard
> > to
> > > the disgusting text being discussed?
> > >
> > > "I wrote it some years ago. Why is it that it is being quoted over and
> > over
> > > again in an [sic] vain attempt to embarrass in [sic] humiliate me?"
> >
> > Missing context.
> >
> > In this case you need to post the context of the entire post in order to
> > determine what the word "it" was referring to.
>
> Nope. Don't need the entire post. Why, if that were true then what you just
> did (i.e., responded with an edited post) would be anathema. Right? +You+
> wouldn't happen to be a hypocrite, would you? Gasp! But I know you're ****ed
> in the head so here ya go, Turdy.
>
> begin quoted text -
>
> > In fact the person who wrote this nasty piece of prose, which you
> > now admit is offensive, was none other than _yourself_.
>
> I wrote it some years ago.
>
> end quoted text -
>
> Or, I could take your tack and refer you to http://groups.google.com/
>
> A fart smeller like you can now use the above text to find the whole post.
> Those are your words, retard. BTW, I notice that you did the krooballoo all
> around the rest of my post. Here it is again, just in case you missed it.
>
> REPEAT OF CHALLENGE TO THE LYING, ****-EATING PEDERAST:
>
> Now, that $100,000 thing is a wager. Turdy sends me his bank info showing that
> he can cover the wager and I send him the same (here's where Turdy's bluff is
> called, in spades). We then put the money in escrow and give him, say, a week
> to accomplish this impossible task. At the end of the week, or whatever, I
> collect my hundred large. Turdy is unimaginably stupid but somewhere a brain
> cell or two is still firing as he won't do this, ever. He doesn't have the
> scratch anyway. Crap, he's overwhelmed by the thought of spending a few
> hundred bucks to file a lawsuit. The bottom line is that I agree to his terms
> for the wager but impose the same terms on him. Let's see what mind boggling
> evasive move S-f-B makes to get out of this one. Whatever, he'll look par
> (i.e., stupid -very stupid).
>
> Ok, Kroogles, you're move.

Make that "your move". And now back to our regular programming.

> My bet is that you'll crap your pants and snip this
> part. Sure is easy to win bets when a predictable blow-hard coward like you is
> involved. I'm laughing at you, dimbulb. Any idea how bad you're looking right
> about now? <s******-chuckle-guffaw>
>
> You remain pathetically stupid.*
>
> I remain,
>
> The Shadow
>
> * more variety
>
> --
> "The discussion is what I meant, not what I said." A. Dimbulb Kroooger




--
"The discussion is what I meant, not what I said." A. Dimbulb Kroooger

[Arny Krueger]

"Leon North" > wrote in message
...
> Turdy "Skidmark of the borg" Kroogles bleats for context:
>
> > Sockpuppet "Leon North" > lied and exposed its
> > ignorance in message ...
> >
> > > > "Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > >> Arny said:
> > > > >>> you typed them,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Not at all.
> > >
> > > Look how you do trip over your own words. My, my, Turdy, but you're
looking
> > > mendaciously stupid, again. Remember posting this little nugget in
regard to
> > > the disgusting text being discussed?

> > > "I wrote it some years ago. Why is it that it is being quoted over and
over
> > > again in an [sic] vain attempt to embarrass in [sic] humiliate me?"

> > Missing context.

> > In this case you need to post the context of the entire post in order to
> > determine what the word "it" was referring to.

> Nope. Don't need the entire post.

I never said you needed the entire post, sockpuppet North, just a proper
rendition of its context.

<snip rememainder of dissembling post>

[Arny Krueger]

"Leon North" > wrote in message
...

So Leon, why can't you email me that information I need to see, about your
$100,000 + bank account?

[MiNE 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MiNE 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > > This would be more fun if Phillips weren't so ignorant about the
> religious
> > > practices of various religions. I can just see Phillips walking into a
> > > Methodist, Pentecostal or Baptist church with rosary beads, ready to
> show
> > > everybody how devout of a Methodist, Pentecostal or Baptist he was!
> We're
> > > talking truly amazing levels of ignorance here.
>
> > Ignorance of Methodists, anyway.
>
> > http://www.upperroom.org/askjulian/default.asp?act=answer&itemid=116787
>
> It's a pretty good article. There's nothing that prevents a Protestant from
> using prayer beads. However, their usage by a Methodist would probably vary
> from common Roman Catholic practice in that repetitive prayers (prayer beads
> are usually used in the RC tradition to count repetitions of the same
> prayer) are discouraged, both by the scriptures and and also by Protestant
> tradition.
>
> http://www.briceandbensa.com/PrivateandPointedPrayer.htm contains a typical
> Protestant view of repetitive prayers.
>
> I've been a goodly number of Methodist, Pentecostal and Baptist services and
> never seen even one use of prayer beads. OTOH, I can't see a Methodist,
> Pentecostal or Baptist getting thrown out or disciplined because they used
> them. There are a goodly number of ex-Catholics in many protestant churches
> and the use of prayer beads seems to be one of those things that Catholics
> shed when they convert.

It's a truism that lapsed Catholic is the second largest "denomination"
behind practicing Catholic.

Protestant rosaries: rare but not prohibited.

Stephen

[Marc Phillips]

Arny said:

>"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message

>> Arny said:
>>
>>>>>>> Prove that I'm a pedophile, crazy man.
>>>
>>>>>> "what did it feel like to grope me in my coffin, daddy?"
>>>
>>>>> I didn't ask for evidence that you are a pedophile, Phillips. But
>>>>> thanks for providing it.
>>>
>>>> For the rest of your life, you'll be identified with those words.
>>>
>>> Why? I didn't author them. However Phillips, you seem to be
>>> compelled to make them your own. I think that you made them up, and
>>> this is some kind of crazy scheme of yours to avoid taking
>>> responsibility for your years of reprehensible public behavior.
>>>
>>>> You thought them up,
>>>
>>> Not at all.
>>>
>>>> you typed them,
>>>
>>> Not at all.
>
>>>> you forced a bunch of strangers
>>>> on the Internet to share in your sick fantasy that is described by
>>>> them.
>
>>> It wasn't my fantasy.
>
>>>> Trying to disassociate yourself from them now will not work.
>
>>> Obviously, I'm not associated with them Phillips, because you keep
>>> trying to bring them up again and again.
>
>What is it they say about criminals returning to the scene of their crime?
>Seems to fit very well with Marc Phillips' behavior.

What, you're responding to yourself now?

>
>>>> By the way, I guess you took a bath on that rosary bead thing.
>
>>> You're really delusional Phillips, aren't you?

No, you are. That's the point. You were wrong and you can't admit it. As
usual.


>
>This would be more fun if Phillips weren't so ignorant about the religious
>practices of various religions. I can just see Phillips walking into a
>Methodist, Pentecostal or Baptist church with rosary beads, ready to show
>everybody how devout of a Methodist, Pentecostal or Baptist he was!

Krooglish!

BTW, I said Christian, not Protestant. I was fully aware of what I said and
why I said it. I thought there was an outside chance of you making this
objection, but I really didn't think you were that dumb.

Surprise!

We're
>talking truly amazing levels of ignorance here.

Agreed. That's why we line up to smack you around. Surely someone can't be
THIS dumb.

>
>>>> This must be your way of admitting it.
>
>>> You really need to get some professional help Phillips, before you
>>> hurt yourself or someone else.
>
>> Simply denying all this isn't proof enough.
>
>That's all you've offered us to prove your innocence of this reprehensible
>act, Phillips. When are you going to do better?

There's no "us," Arny. I have to keep telling you. Unless, of course, you're
talking about the voices in your heads...you know, the ones that tell you that
lusting after children is okay.

>
>> Just prove that the headers are real.
>
>Been there, done that. Nobody has proven that they are false.

Oh, brother. More denial.

>
>> Leon said he'd pay you
>> $100,000 now to prove you didn't manufacture them.
>
>Leon declines to substantiate his offer in accordance with usual business
>practices. You bozos are a real bunch of no-shows aren't you. First Leon
>waves this imaginary cash, and then sockpuppet "Wheel" sends me a registered
>letter with no return address.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

>
>When will your madness and lies end, Phillips?

A more accurate question is, when will they start?

>
>>And you still can't.
>
>Been there, done that. Time to make up a new series of lies, Phillips. How
>about raising Jamie from the dead? That would be good for a few laughs.

Why would I do that?

Boon

[Powell]

"Arny Krueger" wrote

> This would be more fun if Phillips weren't so
> ignorant about the religious practices of various
> religions. I can just see Phillips walking into a
> Methodist, Pentecostal or Baptist church with
> rosary beads, ready to show everybody how
> devout of a Methodist, Pentecostal or Baptist
> he was! We're talking truly amazing levels of
> ignorance here.
>
You’re missing the religious intent for prayer
counting. One doesn’t normally arm themselves
with rosary beads as part of a Sunday Catholic
service. The beads are a metaphor for personal
prayer (spiritual meditation)... other times.

What is you practice for getting in touch with the
transcended, Arny? From your inappropriate
behavior here it appears that you leave God at
the Church’s threshold every Sunday :).

[Bruce J. Richman]

Powell wrote:


>"Arny Krueger" wrote
>
>> This would be more fun if Phillips weren't so
>> ignorant about the religious practices of various
>> religions. I can just see Phillips walking into a
>> Methodist, Pentecostal or Baptist church with
>> rosary beads, ready to show everybody how
>> devout of a Methodist, Pentecostal or Baptist
>> he was! We're talking truly amazing levels of
>> ignorance here.
>>
>You’re missing the religious intent for prayer
>counting. One doesn’t normally arm themselves
>with rosary beads as part of a Sunday Catholic
>service. The beads are a metaphor for personal
>prayer (spiritual meditation)... other times.
>
>What is you practice for getting in touch with the
>transcended, Arny? From your inappropriate
>behavior here it appears that you leave God at
>the Church’s threshold every Sunday :).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Without a doubt. Based on his detestable and inappropriate RAO behavior, I
would hypothesize that he gets in touch with the descended rather than the
transcended. I think that anybody gullible enough to visit his web site should
beware of hidden messages when any of the audio links are played backwards.
Also, don't open any files there that make references to pentangles. covens or
test tones at 666 Hz.


Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist



(Signed this way in support of pending legal action against Krueger initiated
because of his libelous & false claims against others. Long overdue and richly
deserved.)

[Arny Krueger]

"Powell" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" wrote

>> This would be more fun if Phillips weren't so
>> ignorant about the religious practices of various
>> religions. I can just see Phillips walking into a
>> Methodist, Pentecostal or Baptist church with
>> rosary beads, ready to show everybody how
>> devout of a Methodist, Pentecostal or Baptist
>> he was! We're talking truly amazing levels of
>> ignorance here.

> You're missing the religious intent for prayer counting.

As usual Powell you're imposing your stupidity and ignorance on others.

If prayer is a truly spiritual act, then it has no temporal limits or
dimensions. IMO, counting prayers is like trying to measure God.

>One doesn't normally arm themselves
> with rosary beads as part of a Sunday Catholic
> service.

You may not do so, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.

> The beads are a metaphor for personal
> prayer (spiritual meditation)... other times.

Thanks Powell for trying to convince us of the illogical and incorrect idea
that Roman Catholics never take their prayer beads to church.

> What is you practice for getting in touch with the
> transcended, Arny?

If I have to tell you Powell, you can't possibly understand the answer.

> From your inappropriate
> behavior here it appears that you leave God at
> the Church's threshold every Sunday :).

Powell, your hypocrisy is always like sticks stuck in our eyes. I really
pray to God that my behavior here would be inappropriate, but it isn't. And
you are one of the fools who works hard to keep that true.

[Powell]

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote

> >"Arny Krueger" wrote
> >
> >> This would be more fun if Phillips weren't so
> >> ignorant about the religious practices of various
> >> religions. I can just see Phillips walking into a
> >> Methodist, Pentecostal or Baptist church with
> >> rosary beads, ready to show everybody how
> >> devout of a Methodist, Pentecostal or Baptist
> >> he was! We're talking truly amazing levels of
> >> ignorance here.
> >>
> >You're missing the religious intent for prayer
> >counting. One doesn't normally arm themselves
> >with rosary beads as part of a Sunday Catholic
> >service. The beads are a metaphor for personal
> >prayer (spiritual meditation)... other times.
> >
> >What is you practice for getting in touch with the
> >transcended, Arny? From your inappropriate
> >behavior here it appears that you leave God at
> >the Church's threshold every Sunday :).
> >
> Without a doubt. Based on his detestable and
> inappropriate RAO behavior, I would hypothesize
> that he gets in touch with the descended rather
> than the transcended.
>
Hehehe... did you read his responce?
"I really pray to God that my behavior here
would be inappropriate, but it isn't."
I have no idea if his thinking possesses are
rational anymore.

Also, I don't recall Arny deviling Catholics or
the unless ness of prayer before. I wonder
what brand of Christianity his minister gives
out at church. Sad, sad, sad...


> (Signed this way in support of pending legal action
> against Krueger initiated because of his libelous &
> false claims against others. Long overdue and richly
> deserved.)
>
Is this passive resistance against Arny :)?

You'll need a lot of lipstick (cash/commitment)
to dress-up that pig (weak legal case). Why
don't you actually join Scott's case? As usual
when these litigious treats come up in this
group there is no money for legal actions only
hurt feeling trying to get an audience.