On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 15:57:07 -0400, "Robert L. Bass"
wrote:

Hmm. As I have tried to make clear, I have no interest in the war
between
you and Arny.

Sorry, but you inserted yourself in when you took a position.

My position regaring Arny is that he posts a lot of stuff about audio. Your
personal problems with him are of no concern to me.

If you want to mistakenly hold that position, fine.

Yes, I intend to continue to believe that he posts stuff about audio.

However, that's not what you said before, so you're already
backtracking.

Anything he posts regarding you is irrelavent to me, as are your opinions of
him.

Don't expect me to think that you know what
you're talking about though.

Do you believe that I care whether you think I know something about Arny?
It's your war, friend. Feel free to fight it until Jesus comes back.
[yawn]

Yes, yawn. That would be about forever, wouldn't it?

I read what he says for content just as I read
what you say. Why does this trouble you?
Just because I get along with Arny does not
mean I'm your enemy. It also does not mean
that I agree with everything he says. The
world does not consist entirely of two camps
-- pro-Arny vs. anti-Arny.

All I can say is wait. You'll eventually come around
if you stay long enough. They all do.

Perhaps. Then again, perhaps I'll come to some conclusions concerning you.
I've already decided not to read more from a certain other combatant.

You want to defend Arnold, that's your right. It's your right to
defend a guy who talks about feces and other anal images.

shrug

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 18:01:13 -0400, "Robert L. Bass"
wrote:

There are no absolute truths (except that Jesus is Lord). That has no
statement of your personal experience. You state it to be an absolute
truth, not a personal truth. What more need be said. You can waffle
and change the goalposts all you want. My argument is with your
initial statement.

It sounds more like your *real* argument is with Jesus.

Prove that. At what point have I had an problem with Christianity?

Read my other posts, and you'll find I have no problem with
Christians...

As long as we keep our mouths shut, right?

You can have them shut, open or anywhere in between. My full argument
is with a statement you claimed to be an absolute truth, not on your
religion or your right to believe in that religion.

I have a problem with those who have the audacity to state
their beliefs as an absolute truth.

You state yours with equal certitude. Shouldn't I also take offense?

What belief have I staed as an absolute truth. I have a belief, I
don't claim it to be absolute truth, I respect that fact that to
believe mine to be an absolute truth would imply that others beliefs
are an absolute untruth. Some, one or none of those may be. It's not
my perogative to state which is or is not.

That you wish to believe in it is fine, that you wish to
define it as an absolute truth is not, as it is not.

Sorry, but I don't know any way to say it other than as an absolute truth.

The easy way is to say you believe it, what we believe are not
absolute truths. That I can predict that the sun will rise tomorrow is
made on centuries of valid observation. But it is still not an
absolute truth. It is only a very likely one.

I can only say that I made a decision to believe many years ago and the
results were nothing less than spectacular. For me that is proof enough.
Note, however, that the proof is a result of a decision to believe -- not
the other way around.

And this defines Jesus is Lord as an absolute truth in exactly what
way??

Like I said before, understanding of truth comes *after* the decision to
exercise faith. There's no way to prove that which requires faith even to
be seen.

In other words it is NOT an absolute truth, get it? It is only
something you have chosen to believe. Your statement that Jesus is
Lord is no more an absolute truth than the Muslim belief that Allah is
God, and God has no son.

Grant Kinsley MD

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 18:01:13 -0400, "Robert L. Bass"
wrote:

There are no absolute truths (except that Jesus is Lord). That has no
statement of your personal experience. You state it to be an absolute
truth, not a personal truth. What more need be said. You can waffle
and change the goalposts all you want. My argument is with your
initial statement.

It sounds more like your *real* argument is with Jesus.

Prove that. At what point have I had an problem with Christianity?

Read my other posts, and you'll find I have no problem with
Christians...

As long as we keep our mouths shut, right?

You can have them shut, open or anywhere in between. My full argument
is with a statement you claimed to be an absolute truth, not on your
religion or your right to believe in that religion.

I have a problem with those who have the audacity to state
their beliefs as an absolute truth.

You state yours with equal certitude. Shouldn't I also take offense?

What belief have I staed as an absolute truth. I have a belief, I
don't claim it to be absolute truth, I respect that fact that to
believe mine to be an absolute truth would imply that others beliefs
are an absolute untruth. Some, one or none of those may be. It's not
my perogative to state which is or is not.

That you wish to believe in it is fine, that you wish to
define it as an absolute truth is not, as it is not.

Sorry, but I don't know any way to say it other than as an absolute truth.

The easy way is to say you believe it, what we believe are not
absolute truths. That I can predict that the sun will rise tomorrow is
made on centuries of valid observation. But it is still not an
absolute truth. It is only a very likely one.

I can only say that I made a decision to believe many years ago and the
results were nothing less than spectacular. For me that is proof enough.
Note, however, that the proof is a result of a decision to believe -- not
the other way around.

And this defines Jesus is Lord as an absolute truth in exactly what
way??

Like I said before, understanding of truth comes *after* the decision to
exercise faith. There's no way to prove that which requires faith even to
be seen.

In other words it is NOT an absolute truth, get it? It is only
something you have chosen to believe. Your statement that Jesus is
Lord is no more an absolute truth than the Muslim belief that Allah is
God, and God has no son.

Grant Kinsley MD

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 17:13:22 -0400, "Robert L. Bass"
wrote:

You have no idea what Jesus might have said. All you
have read is what someone else said that Jesus said,

The same can be said of all of us on almost every subject.

So you are making the point that your statement that Jesus is Lord is
in fact not an absolute truth?

and you are not reading it in the same language as it
was written.

Don't be too sure about that.

You read Greek, Latin and Hebrew?

just curious

I have a minister friend that does. His insights into the Christian
faith arey interesting

I would note that not even he would make a statemnet that Jesus is
Lord, and then try to place it as an absolute truth. The truth of the
statement is bounded by personal beliefs, which inherently does not
make it an absolute truth.

Grant Kinsley MD

Have you ecery seen the Movie "History of the World,
Part One"? Remember the scene about the Fifiteen
Commandments?

:^)

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 17:13:22 -0400, "Robert L. Bass"
wrote:

You have no idea what Jesus might have said. All you
have read is what someone else said that Jesus said,

The same can be said of all of us on almost every subject.

So you are making the point that your statement that Jesus is Lord is
in fact not an absolute truth?

and you are not reading it in the same language as it
was written.

Don't be too sure about that.

You read Greek, Latin and Hebrew?

just curious

I have a minister friend that does. His insights into the Christian
faith arey interesting

I would note that not even he would make a statemnet that Jesus is
Lord, and then try to place it as an absolute truth. The truth of the
statement is bounded by personal beliefs, which inherently does not
make it an absolute truth.

Grant Kinsley MD

Have you ecery seen the Movie "History of the World,
Part One"? Remember the scene about the Fifiteen
Commandments?

:^)

Yes, I intend to continue to believe that he
posts stuff about audio.

However, that's not what you said before, so
you're already backtracking.

When did I say that he doesn't post stuff about audio?

Do you believe that I care whether you think
I know something about Arny? It's your war,
friend. Feel free to fight it until Jesus comes
back. [yawn]

Yes, yawn. That would be about forever, wouldn't it?

Or perhaps this very day. It's not ours to know.

You want to defend Arnold, that's your right...

I'm not defending Arny. I simply choose not to join your attacks. If you
have a problem with Arny it's your problem. He has never been rude to me
and I've not given him reason to do so. You, on the other hand, have been
rude and that without provocation. Care to guess which way this is leaning?

Yes, I intend to continue to believe that he
posts stuff about audio.

However, that's not what you said before, so
you're already backtracking.

When did I say that he doesn't post stuff about audio?

Do you believe that I care whether you think
I know something about Arny? It's your war,
friend. Feel free to fight it until Jesus comes
back. [yawn]

Yes, yawn. That would be about forever, wouldn't it?

Or perhaps this very day. It's not ours to know.

You want to defend Arnold, that's your right...

I'm not defending Arny. I simply choose not to join your attacks. If you
have a problem with Arny it's your problem. He has never been rude to me
and I've not given him reason to do so. You, on the other hand, have been
rude and that without provocation. Care to guess which way this is leaning?

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 19:30:17 -0400, "Robert L. Bass"
wrote:

and you are not reading it in the same language as it
was written.

Don't be too sure about that.

Until you show me otherwise

Sure thing.

http://bible.crosswalk.com/InterlinearBible/
http://www.studylight.org/isb/
http://www.blueletterbible.org/

There are other study aids online. AFAIK the Aramaic text is only available
in print.

But are you reading the actual Greek, Hebrew and Latin origins or are
you trying to say looking at an interlinear type of bible is adequate.
It certainly isn't

The nuances of the languages are not evident unless you personally are
fluent in those ancient languages, and damn few are.

An example of this is the controversy that rages between
fundamentalists and liberals on how the word alma should be
interpreted in Isaiah 1:28.

Remeber as well that ancient hebrew was written without vowels or word
breaks, thre is significant controversy over a lot of interpretations
simply due to that. Jots and Tittles were a late innovation, as were
word breaks.

So agin, are you reading the original language or are you using a faux
method such as an interlinear system, that really serves little
purpose unless you are actually studying those languages.

Or more to the point, go to Babelfish and plug this letter in,
translate to Latin, then Greek, then back to Engloish and see what
happens. The structural differences in the languages that are not
evident will cause confusion, as will the inability to understand
idioms. (Paul covering his feet, doesn't mean much unless you know
what that idiom means, an interlinear bible will give you literal
translation, but will not give understanding of the statement)

Grant Kinsley MD

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 19:30:17 -0400, "Robert L. Bass"
wrote:

and you are not reading it in the same language as it
was written.

Don't be too sure about that.

Until you show me otherwise

Sure thing.

http://bible.crosswalk.com/InterlinearBible/
http://www.studylight.org/isb/
http://www.blueletterbible.org/

There are other study aids online. AFAIK the Aramaic text is only available
in print.

But are you reading the actual Greek, Hebrew and Latin origins or are
you trying to say looking at an interlinear type of bible is adequate.
It certainly isn't

The nuances of the languages are not evident unless you personally are
fluent in those ancient languages, and damn few are.

An example of this is the controversy that rages between
fundamentalists and liberals on how the word alma should be
interpreted in Isaiah 1:28.

Remeber as well that ancient hebrew was written without vowels or word
breaks, thre is significant controversy over a lot of interpretations
simply due to that. Jots and Tittles were a late innovation, as were
word breaks.

So agin, are you reading the original language or are you using a faux
method such as an interlinear system, that really serves little
purpose unless you are actually studying those languages.

Or more to the point, go to Babelfish and plug this letter in,
translate to Latin, then Greek, then back to Engloish and see what
happens. The structural differences in the languages that are not
evident will cause confusion, as will the inability to understand
idioms. (Paul covering his feet, doesn't mean much unless you know
what that idiom means, an interlinear bible will give you literal
translation, but will not give understanding of the statement)

Grant Kinsley MD

You have no idea what Jesus might have said. All you
have read is what someone else said that Jesus said,

The same can be said of all of us on almost every subject.

So you are making the point that your statement that Jesus is Lord is
in fact not an absolute truth?

I only said that much of what we learn comes from reading. Is there a
problem with that concept? You proudly proclaim that you're an MD in every
post. Did you learn all that was necessary to obtain your degree through
direct experience or did you learn a few things by reading and by sitting in
lecture halls listening to others explain what hey know?

and you are not reading it in the same language as it
was written.

Don't be too sure about that.

You read Greek, Latin and Hebrew?

Not quite. I do word studies in those languages to better understand the
original meaning.

just curious

I have a minister friend that does. His insights into
the Christian faith arey interesting

He's probably much more scholarly than I.

I would note that not even he would make a
statemnet that Jesus is Lord, and then try to
place it as an absolute truth.

How sad for the group who he leads.

The truth of the statement is bounded by personal
beliefs, which inherently does not make it an
absolute truth.

That is a fundamental misunderstanding of the dynamics of truth and belief,
friend. Truth is unchanged by personal belief. Truth simply is.

You have no idea what Jesus might have said. All you
have read is what someone else said that Jesus said,

The same can be said of all of us on almost every subject.

So you are making the point that your statement that Jesus is Lord is
in fact not an absolute truth?

I only said that much of what we learn comes from reading. Is there a
problem with that concept? You proudly proclaim that you're an MD in every
post. Did you learn all that was necessary to obtain your degree through
direct experience or did you learn a few things by reading and by sitting in
lecture halls listening to others explain what hey know?

and you are not reading it in the same language as it
was written.

Don't be too sure about that.

You read Greek, Latin and Hebrew?

Not quite. I do word studies in those languages to better understand the
original meaning.

just curious

I have a minister friend that does. His insights into
the Christian faith arey interesting

He's probably much more scholarly than I.

I would note that not even he would make a
statemnet that Jesus is Lord, and then try to
place it as an absolute truth.

How sad for the group who he leads.

The truth of the statement is bounded by personal
beliefs, which inherently does not make it an
absolute truth.

That is a fundamental misunderstanding of the dynamics of truth and belief,
friend. Truth is unchanged by personal belief. Truth simply is.

In other words it is NOT an absolute truth, get it?

The fact is that He is Lord. Whether you believe it does nothing to make it
any more or less true.

In other words it is NOT an absolute truth, get it?

The fact is that He is Lord. Whether you believe it does nothing to make it
any more or less true.

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 18:00:24 -0400, "Robert L. Bass"
wrote:

Yes, I intend to continue to believe that he
posts stuff about audio.

However, that's not what you said before, so
you're already backtracking.

When did I say that he doesn't post stuff about audio?

You said: "Hmm. I've only seen Arny post about things related to
audio". This is no longer true, is it?

Do you believe that I care whether you think
I know something about Arny? It's your war,
friend. Feel free to fight it until Jesus comes
back. [yawn]

Yes, yawn. That would be about forever, wouldn't it?

Or perhaps this very day. It's not ours to know.

Well, he has 39 minutes left.

You want to defend Arnold, that's your right...

I'm not defending Arny.

Yes you did. Deniy it all you want, but you defended him.

I simply choose not to join your attacks. If you
have a problem with Arny it's your problem. He has never been rude to me
and I've not given him reason to do so. You, on the other hand, have been
rude and that without provocation. Care to guess which way this is leaning?

As you wish. Just you wait though...

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 18:16:26 -0400, "Robert L. Bass"
wrote:

Truth is unchanged by personal belief. Truth simply is.

Hitler's personal belief changed "Truth" for many people.

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 18:21:21 -0400, "Robert L. Bass"
wrote:

The fact is that He is Lord. Whether you believe it does nothing to make it
any more or less true.

A fact must be provable.

Just pointing that out.

I think it's great that you believe in Jesus. Make sure you don't pick
up The DaVinci Code because it will make you angry, even though it's
fiction.

Yes, I intend to continue to believe that he
posts stuff about audio.

However, that's not what you said before, so
you're already backtracking.

When did I say that he doesn't post stuff about audio?

You said: "Hmm. I've only seen Arny post about things related to
audio". This is no longer true, is it?

Correct. After parsing RAO it became clear that Arny also fights with you.
That's none of my business.

Do you believe that I care whether you think
I know something about Arny? It's your war,
friend. Feel free to fight it until Jesus comes
back. [yawn]

Yes, yawn. That would be about forever, wouldn't it?

Or perhaps this very day. It's not ours to know.

Well, he has 39 minutes left.

Or... you do. :^)

You want to defend Arnold, that's your right...

I'm not defending Arny.

Yes you did. Deniy it all you want, but you defended him.

I simply choose not to join your attacks. If you
have a problem with Arny it's your problem. He has never been rude to me
and I've not given him reason to do so. You, on the other hand, have
been
rude and that without provocation. Care to guess which way this is
leaning?

As you wish. Just you wait though...

:^)

Truth is unchanged by personal belief. Truth simply is.

Hitler's personal belief changed "Truth" for many people.

Oops! You just invoked Godwin's law. So much for this thread.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 18:21:21 -0400, "Robert L. Bass"
wrote:

The fact is that He is Lord. Whether you believe it does nothing to make
it
any more or less true.

A fact must be provable.

Weil, the dictionary you like to cite doesn't say that:

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

fact

1 : a thing done: as a obsolete : FEAT b : CRIME accessory after the fact
c archaic : ACTION
2 archaic : PERFORMANCE, DOING
3 : the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY a question of fact hinges on
evidence
4 a : something that has actual existence space exploration is now a fact
b : an actual occurrence prove the fact of damage
5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality
- in fact : in truth

Just pointing that out.

Yet another deception, inconsistency, call it what you want but it ain't the
truth.

I think it's great that you believe in Jesus.

Sarcasm, anybody?

Make sure you don't pick
up The DaVinci Code because it will make you angry, even though it's
fiction.

Wonderful - a Christians are supposed to get all worked up about some
trivial work of fiction?

LOL!

"Robert L. Bass" wrote in message
...
Mr. Bass, I hope you take note of this, for the record.

Noted. As far as I'm concerned this whole "fantasy" thing is probably
just
a USENET flame anyway. I'm much more interested in your thoughs on audio
than what someone else says you may or may not have done somewhere else at
some time in the past. The same applies to Arny. I'd rather read his
ideas
about wave form propagation than someone else's ideas about Arny.

I will note, for the record, that I have never knowingly
participated in any such claims of paedophila regarding
Mr. Krueger.

Good.

Also a deception. Weil has repeatedly bragged that he agrees with and
conspires with, some of the most egregious posters of pedophile fantasy on
RAO.

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 01:29:26 -0400, "Robert L. Bass"
wrote:

Truth is unchanged by personal belief. Truth simply is.

Hitler's personal belief changed "Truth" for many people.

Oops! You just invoked Godwin's law. So much for this thread.

GMAB.

The bogus Godwin's Law doesn't preclude that you can't use history to
make a point. I didn't call you Hitler or compare you to Hitler.

Now, if you want to be like Hitler and do the metaphorical book
burning...

How was *that*?

PS, there are some that would *like* "Godwin's Law" to be invoked for
this thread, you know.

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 06:08:01 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Weil, the dictionary you like to cite doesn't say that:

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

fact

1 : a thing done: as a obsolete : FEAT b : CRIME accessory after the fact
c archaic : ACTION
2 archaic : PERFORMANCE, DOING
3 : the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY a question of fact hinges on
evidence

Sure it does.

Read the last part.

You lose.

Again.

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 06:08:01 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Make sure you don't pick
up The DaVinci Code because it will make you angry, even though it's
fiction.

Wonderful - a Christians are supposed to get all worked up about some
trivial work of fiction?

Some of them have. The more open-minded ones have appreciated it. It's
a clever, facile book.

Of course, many things in the book are actually based on reality. For
instance, I never noticed that Mary Magdalene was painted in DaVinci's
Last Supper. I thought that it was only Jesus and the Apostles.

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 06:10:02 -0400, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:


"Robert L. Bass" wrote in message
...
Mr. Bass, I hope you take note of this, for the record.

Noted. As far as I'm concerned this whole "fantasy" thing is probably
just
a USENET flame anyway. I'm much more interested in your thoughs on audio
than what someone else says you may or may not have done somewhere else at
some time in the past. The same applies to Arny. I'd rather read his
ideas
about wave form propagation than someone else's ideas about Arny.

I will note, for the record, that I have never knowingly
participated in any such claims of paedophila regarding
Mr. Krueger.

Good.

Also a deception. Weil has repeatedly bragged that he agrees with and
conspires with, some of the most egregious posters of pedophile fantasy on
RAO.

This doesn't mean that I have agreed with them about paedophila and
Arnold Krueger.

This is a pretty disgusting example of your use of the "debating
trade".

Oops! You just invoked Godwin's law. So much for this thread.

GMAB.

The bogus Godwin's Law doesn't preclude that you can't use history to
make a point. I didn't call you Hitler or compare you to Hitler.

I was just having fun. I understand Godwin and knew that you had not used
Hitler as a flame.

Now, if you want to be like Hitler and do the
metaphorical book burning...

Naah. I like to read all kinds of things -- not just the Bible. I just
finished "The Alchemist" by Paulo Coelho, a reknowned Carioca author.
Someone gave it to me for my birthday last week. Many of my conservative
Christian friends would probably label the book heresy, but I found it's
references to various faiths, including Christianity, and the way many
belief systems are related intriguing.

How was *that*?

Heh, heh, heh. :^)

PS, there are some that would *like*
"Godwin's Law" to be invoked for
this thread, you know.

True. We have gone pretty far afield of audio topics. I enjoy the debate
but perhaps it is time to put it to rest.

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 18:21:21 -0400, "Robert L. Bass"
wrote:

In other words it is NOT an absolute truth, get it?

The fact is that He is Lord. Whether you believe it does nothing to make it
any more or less true.


This is my last post.

You don't have a fact. The Sun rose this morning is a fact. Jesus is
Lord is not a fact. It is your personal belief. A Muslim would tell
you that God does not have a son. That is their personal belief, It is
directly contradictory to your belief. both can't be facts, neither
are provable, neither are absolute truths.

You can leave your head in the sand, but try not to force others
there.

Grant Kinsley MD

Some of them have. The more open-minded ones
have appreciated it. It's a clever, facile book.

Sounds interesting. I just placed it in my shopping cart on Amazon. I
always wait until I have enough books on order to get free shipping. :^)

This is my last post.

Sorry to here that. Bye.

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 06:10:02 -0400, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:


"Robert L. Bass" wrote in message
...
Mr. Bass, I hope you take note of this, for the record.

Noted. As far as I'm concerned this whole "fantasy" thing is
probably just a USENET flame anyway. I'm much more interested in
your thoughs on audio than what someone else says you may or may
not have done somewhere else at some time in the past. The same
applies to Arny. I'd rather read his ideas about wave form
propagation than someone else's ideas about Arny.

I will note, for the record, that I have never knowingly
participated in any such claims of paedophila regarding
Mr. Krueger.

Good.

Also a deception. Weil has repeatedly bragged that he agrees with and
conspires with, some of the most egregious posters of pedophile
fantasy on RAO.

This doesn't mean that I have agreed with them about paedophila and
Arnold Krueger.

Weil, I need only point to the google record where you failed to object to
their pedophile fantasies like I did, at the time where they were made. You
had just as much opportunity to object to the posting of pedophile fantasies
as I did. You failed to act like a good moral person. You have bragged about
conspiring with these people. How clear does your acceptance of their
activities have to be?

I have a strong record for objecting to the posting of pedophile fantasies
on RAO, and Weil you have a good record for agreeing with the people who
perpetrate them. People can reach their own conclusions, especially given
your track record for deceptive claims.

This is a pretty disgusting example of your use of the "debating trade".

The fact of the matter is Weil, that you practice making "debating trade"
deceptions all the time. I prove it nearly every day.

For example, in the illegally (in the US) recorded telephone conversation of
me that you've bragged about hearing and made fun of on RAO repeatedly, I
took strong exception to Graham's repeated posting of pedophile fantasies.
You've made fun of that part of the recording. How clear does your agreement
with Graham's reprehensible actions w/r/t pedophilia have to be?

"Robert L. Bass" wrote in message

Truth is unchanged by personal belief. Truth simply is.

Hitler's personal belief changed "Truth" for many people.

Oops! You just invoked Godwin's law. So much for this thread.

Agreed. Now watch Weil try to deceptively wriggle out of his big mistake.

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 06:42:27 -0400, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

This doesn't mean that I have agreed with them about paedophila and
Arnold Krueger.

Weil, I need only point to the google record where you failed to object to
their pedophile fantasies like I did, at the time where they were made.

I'm sorry Arnold, but you haven't earned the consideration. Your
trashing of me just this morning points that out.

You can fight your own battles.

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 06:47:16 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


Oops! You just invoked Godwin's law. So much for this thread.

Agreed. Now watch Weil try to deceptively wriggle out of his big mistake.

Actually, Mr. Bass agreed with me.

sorry. You're a little late to the party. He knew that an invocation
of Godwin's Law wasn't appropriate.

You lose.

Again.

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 06:47:16 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


Oops! You just invoked Godwin's law. So much for this thread.

Agreed. Now watch Weil try to deceptively wriggle out of his big
mistake.

Actually, Mr. Bass agreed with me.

No, he gently let you off the hook you had impaled yourself on, Weil.

sorry. You're a little late to the party. He knew that an invocation
of Godwin's Law wasn't appropriate.


One more example of why politeness is inappropriate with you, Weil. I
learned this the hard way years ago.

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 09:37:10 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 06:47:16 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


Oops! You just invoked Godwin's law. So much for this thread.

Agreed. Now watch Weil try to deceptively wriggle out of his big
mistake.

Actually, Mr. Bass agreed with me.

No, he gently let you off the hook you had impaled yourself on, Weil.

No, he acknowledged that he was only kidding. And he recognized that I
was making a comment about about his statement that had nothing to do
with using Hitler as a flame.

sorry. You're a little late to the party. He knew that an invocation
of Godwin's Law wasn't appropriate.


One more example of why politeness is inappropriate with you, Weil. I
learned this the hard way years ago.

All I can hope is that he's paying attention to this exchange. But
that's just for his benefit, not mine. He doesn't have to fight my
battles for *me* either.

"dave weil" wrote in message


On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 06:42:27 -0400, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

This doesn't mean that I have agreed with them about paedophila and
Arnold Krueger.

Weil, I need only point to the google record where you failed to
object to their pedophile fantasies like I did, at the time where
they were made.

I'm sorry Arnold, but you haven't earned the consideration.

From who? You Weil? Maybe you haven't sobered up as much as I thought! This
statement makes absolutely no sense! It's like you're supposed to agree with
me when I point out your moral and ethical weaknesses in the past and
present?

LOL!

Your trashing of me just this morning points that out.

Thanks for admitting that I nailed you Weil. This might be a first! You're
making progress. Hold that thought.

You can fight your own battles.

As if you've ever helped me fight any significant battles, Weil. Show us
just one...

ROTF!!!!

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 09:58:09 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message


On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 06:42:27 -0400, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

This doesn't mean that I have agreed with them about paedophila and
Arnold Krueger.

Weil, I need only point to the google record where you failed to
object to their pedophile fantasies like I did, at the time where
they were made.

I'm sorry Arnold, but you haven't earned the consideration.

From who? You Weil? Maybe you haven't sobered up as much as I thought! This
statement makes absolutely no sense! It's like you're supposed to agree with
me when I point out your moral and ethical weaknesses in the past and
present?

LOL!

Your trashing of me just this morning points that out.

Thanks for admitting that I nailed you Weil. This might be a first! You're
making progress. Hold that thought.

You can fight your own battles.

As if you've ever helped me fight any significant battles, Weil. Show us
just one...

ROTF!!!!

I just love having Arnold dance like a little puppet boy. I type and
he dances.

Oops! You just invoked Godwin's law. So much for this thread.

Agreed. Now watch Weil try to deceptively wriggle out of his big mistake.

Arny,

After further discussion I don't think he Godwinized the thread.
Nonetheless, it's degenerated at this point to where it's serving no real
purpose (just my opinion). What say?

One more example of why politeness is inappropriate
with you, Weil. I learned this the hard way years ago.

All I can hope is that he's paying attention to this exchange. But
that's just for his benefit, not mine. He doesn't have to fight my
battles for *me* either.

I hope you guys don't mind but I have no intention of fighting the battles
of either of you.

"Robert L. Bass" wrote in message
...
Oops! You just invoked Godwin's law. So much for this thread.

Agreed. Now watch Weil try to deceptively wriggle out of his big
mistake.

Arny,

After further discussion I don't think he Godwinized the thread.

Think as you will, but I think you should have stuck to your claim when you
were still correct.

Nonetheless, it's degenerated at this point to where it's serving no real
purpose (just my opinion). What say?

I almost always leave Weil's last comment hanging. Discussing anything with
him has no lasting consequences on him because he has proven himself to be
unteachable. As a college drop-out, he's effectively admitted that fact
himself. What to say about a person whose proud of his "career", which is
aiding and abetting the sale of a legal but dangerous mind-altering
substance?

I almost always leave Weil's last comment hanging. Discussing
anything with him has no lasting consequences on him because
he has proven himself to be unteachable.

People who live in glass houses...


As a college drop-out, he's effectively admitted that fact himself.

Edwin Land and Bill Gates both dropped out of college, and we know how
insufferably stupid they both were.


Anyone who accuses other people of being unteachable, and thinks that going to
college is necessarily to best way to acquire an education, is not someone you
can have much intellectual respect for.