[Vinylanach]

I know deep down you want to thank me for distracting Bob away from
Pastor Matt. You don't have to say a word, buddy...I know, I
know. ;-)

Boon

[Arny Krueger]

"Vinylanach" wrote in message

I know deep down you want to thank me for distracting Bob
away from Pastor Matt. You don't have to say a word,
buddy...I know, I know. ;-)

Pastor Matt is nobody's fool. He saw through Robert very early on.

[Vinylanach]

On Jun 20, 6:49�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Vinylanach" wrote in message



I know deep down you want to thank me for distracting Bob
away from Pastor Matt. �You don't have to say a word,
buddy...I know, I know. ;-)

Pastor Matt is nobody's fool. He saw through Robert very early on.

So did Jason Gross.

Boon

[TT]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Vinylanach" wrote in message

I know deep down you want to thank me for distracting Bob
away from Pastor Matt. You don't have to say a word,
buddy...I know, I know. ;-)

Pastor Matt is nobody's fool. He saw through Robert very early on.
Then why can't he see through you?

TT

[Arny Krueger]

"TT" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Vinylanach" wrote in message

I know deep down you want to thank me for distracting
Bob away from Pastor Matt. You don't have to say a
word, buddy...I know, I know. ;-)

Pastor Matt is nobody's fool. He saw through Robert very
early on.

Then why can't he see through you?

Exactly what is he supposed to be seeing?

[TT]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"TT" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Vinylanach" wrote in message

I know deep down you want to thank me for distracting
Bob away from Pastor Matt. You don't have to say a
word, buddy...I know, I know. ;-)

Pastor Matt is nobody's fool. He saw through Robert very
early on.

Then why can't he see through you?

Exactly what is he supposed to be seeing?
Your true nature that you regularly display on NGs.

TT

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

TT said:

Pastor Matt is nobody's fool. He saw through Robert very early on.

Then why can't he see through you?

I'm sure the unfortunate Normals who know the Krooborg in real life are too
tactful to say what we on Usenet have no problem saying.

[Clyde Slick]

On 20 Iun, 21:49, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Vinylanach" wrote in message



I know deep down you want to thank me for distracting Bob
away from Pastor Matt. *You don't have to say a word,
buddy...I know, I know. ;-)

Pastor Matt is nobody's fool. He saw through Robert very early on.

How does he feel about your false kp allegations against a number of
people?

[Clyde Slick]

On 20 Iun, 22:10, "Soundhaspriority" wrote:


In my sole opinion, you are misconstruing Mr. Gross's thoughts, another sign
that you have a bad character.


You are absolutley correct, it is your sole opinion.

[Vinylanach]

On Jun 20, 10:58�pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 20 Iun, 22:10, "Soundhaspriority" wrote:

In my sole opinion, you are misconstruing Mr. Gross's thoughts, another sign
that you have a bad character.

You are absolutley correct, it is your sole opinion.

Another sign of Bob's malady...he presumes to know what Jason and I
discussed in a private email. He judges people on what he thinks he
knows, as opposed to what's real. I wonder how many times Bob's
picture shows up in the DSM-IV.

Boon

[Arny Krueger]

"TT" wrote in message
. au
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"TT" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Vinylanach" wrote in message

I know deep down you want to thank me for distracting
Bob away from Pastor Matt. You don't have to say a
word, buddy...I know, I know. ;-)

Pastor Matt is nobody's fool. He saw through Robert
very early on.

Then why can't he see through you?

Exactly what is he supposed to be seeing?

Your true nature that you regularly display on NGs.

Right, I tell the truth no matter what kind of pressure is put on me to say
otherwise.

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

On 20 Iun, 21:49, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Vinylanach" wrote in message



I know deep down you want to thank me for distracting
Bob away from Pastor Matt. You don't have to say a word,
buddy...I know, I know. ;-)

Pastor Matt is nobody's fool. He saw through Robert very
early on.

How does he feel about your false kp allegations against
a number of people?

There is no such thing, and you can't prove otherwise.

Art, let's talk about your many libels of my wife and child. There's no
dispute about them, they are in the google archive. Then there is the slight
matter of your defense of the Middiot's reprehensible "dead boy in casket"
libels of my late son.

Art, what is your defense for your own reprehensible behavior and defense of
others equally reprehensible behavior?

[Clyde Slick]

On 21 Iun, 06:19, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message


Pastor Matt is nobody's fool. He saw through Robert very
early on.

How does he feel about your false kp allegations against
a number of people?

There is no such thing, and you can't prove otherwise.


You sure did make false kp allegations against
Marc, George, JA, myself and others


Art, let's talk about your many libels of my wife and child. There's no
dispute about them, they are in the google archive. Then there is the slight
matter of your defense of the Middiot's reprehensible "dead boy in casket"
libels of my late son.


I thought his mocking of your own pathetic pity
parade was funnier than your own insane rantings.
But looking back on it, maybe I was mistaken.
Your insanity and frequent meltdowns
do have a cetain unintended humorous apect.


Art, what is your defense for your own reprehensible behavior and defense of
others equally reprehensible behavior?

I never defended your behavior.
I never accused you of sending kp emails

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

On 21 Iun, 06:19, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message


Pastor Matt is nobody's fool. He saw through Robert
very early on.

How does he feel about your false kp allegations against
a number of people?

There is no such thing, and you can't prove otherwise.

You sure did make false kp allegations against
Marc, George, JA, myself and others

Prove it!

Art, let's talk about your many libels of my wife and
child. There's no dispute about them, they are in the
google archive. Then there is the slight matter of your
defense of the Middiot's reprehensible "dead boy in
casket" libels of my late son.

I thought his mocking of your own pathetic pity
parade was funnier than your own insane rantings.

IOW Art, you think that libelling a dead child and an innocent woman is
"funny".

How sick is that? :-(

But looking back on it, maybe I was mistaken.
Your insanity and frequent meltdowns
do have a cetain unintended humorous apect.

IOW Art, you think that objecting to libelling a dead child and an innocent
woman is also "funny".

How sick is that? :-(

Art, what is your defense for your own reprehensible
behavior and defense of others equally reprehensible
behavior?

Art continues to approve of libelling the dead, and finds it "funny".

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Jun 21, 9:27 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

On 21 Iun, 06:19, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
How does he feel about your false kp allegations against
a number of people?

There is no such thing, and you can't prove otherwise.

You sure did make false kp allegations against
Marc, George, JA, myself and others

Prove it!

You certainly conjectured on r.a.o. that it could have
been me who sent you the emails in question, Mr.
Krueger. I assume you did this because it can be
potentially damaging for a public person like myself
to be associated with this subject.

You did so despite the fact that I offered you my
sympathy for your tragic loss, both in public and
via private email, something I don't believe you
have ever acknowledged.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Clyde Slick]

On 21 Iun, 09:27, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message



How does he feel about your false kp allegations against
a number of people?

There is no such thing, and you can't prove otherwise.
You sure did make false kp allegations against
Marc, George, JA, myself and others

Prove it!


So, now you are saying you didn't make those allegations
Is this how you talk to Jesus?
Do you lie to him, also?


Art, let's talk about your many libels of my wife and
child. There's no dispute about them, they are in the
google archive. Then there is the slight matter of your
defense of the Middiot's reprehensible "dead boy in
casket" libels of my late son.
I thought his mocking of your own pathetic pity
parade was funnier than your own insane rantings.

IOW *Art, you think that libelling a dead child and an innocent woman is
"funny".

How sick is that? :-(


No, mocking YOU is funny.



But looking back on it, maybe I was mistaken.
Your insanity and frequent meltdowns
do have a cetain unintended humorous apect.

IOW Art, you think that objecting to libelling a dead child and an innocent
woman is also "funny".


We did'/t libel your child, IDIOT.
A dead body can't help, it if it is fondeld by its father.

How sick is that? :-(


Every time you bring up this family ****
in one of your pity parties, you are going get
well deserved abuse heaped upon you.
If you don't keep bringing it up,
I won't keep mocking you for
your necrophiliac fondling incident.




Art, what is your defense for your own reprehensible
behavior and defense of others equally reprehensible
behavior?

Art *continues to approve of libelling the dead, and finds it "funny".


I'm talking about YOU, you stupid moron.

[Clyde Slick]

On 21 Iun, 10:28, John Atkinson wrote:



You did so despite the fact that I offered you my
sympathy for your tragic loss, both in public and
via private email, something I don't believe you
have ever acknowledged.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Arny is testimg God, to see
if he really is such a merciful being
as is written in the Book.
It's Arny's way of saying "Prove it!" to Jesus

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" wrote in
message

On Jun 21, 9:27 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

On 21 Iun, 06:19, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in
message
How does he feel about your false kp allegations
against a number of people?

There is no such thing, and you can't prove otherwise.

You sure did make false kp allegations against
Marc, George, JA, myself and others

Prove it!

You certainly conjectured on r.a.o. that it could have
been me who sent you the emails in question, Mr.
Krueger.

In certain paranoid minds, conjecture might constitute "allegations".

In fact it could have been you John that sent the email in question, or
didn't you have email service that week? ;-)

Frankly, a more likely conjecture might be that Art sent the email, applying
the theory that criminals return to the scene of the crime. Obviously Art
wants to draw attention to the matter, even some 8 years after it happened.
Likely explanation, he did it and never received the adulation that he
expected to receive when he sent it. So he keeps bringing it up again and
again.

Second explanation - Since Art has repeated the idea that libelling my late
son in the reprehesible ways that Middius did back in the day was funny,
perhaps Art thought that the email was funny.

Yes right now, if one were to make idle speculation about who sent the email
in question, the likely party was Art.

[Vinylanach]

On Jun 21, 11:01�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in






On Jun 21, 9:27 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

On 21 Iun, 06:19, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in
message
How does he feel about your false kp allegations
against a number of people?

There is no such thing, and you can't prove otherwise.

You sure did make false kp allegations against
Marc, George, JA, myself and others
Prove it!
You certainly conjectured on r.a.o. that it could have
been me who sent you the emails in question, Mr.
Krueger.

In certain paranoid minds, conjecture might constitute "allegations".

In fact it could have been you John that sent the email in question, or
didn't you have email service that week? �;-)

Frankly, a more likely conjecture might be that Art sent the email, applying
the theory that criminals return to the scene of the crime. �Obviously Art
wants to draw attention to the matter, even some 8 years after it happened.
Likely explanation, he did it and never received the adulation that he
expected to receive when he sent it. So he keeps bringing it up again and
again.

Second explanation - Since Art has repeated the idea that libelling my late
son in the reprehesible ways that Middius did back in the day was funny,
perhaps Art thought that the email was funny.

Yes right now, if one were to make idle speculation about who sent the email
in question, the likely party was Art.

What a completely meaningless yet hopelessly insinuating comment.
Let's analyze it:

"Yes right now, if one were to make idle speculation about who sent
the email
in question, the likely party was Art."

"Yes right now..." In other words, if one were to read your comments
today, one might place Art on the list of suspects. Back when it
happened, however, Art was not an active participant here. So "right
now," maybe. But "back when it happened," no.

"If one were..." Who's this one? You? No one believes Art sent the
email. You don't even believe it. Why? BECAUSE THERE WAS NO EMAIL.
So I can only surmise that this "one" really can't look at the facts
and come up with a logical answer.

"...make idle speculation..." In other words, make a wild guess. You
know for sure that Art didn't send the email. Why? BECAUSE THERE WAS
NO EMAIL. So you want people to think that Art may have sent the
email without actually saying it. That's pretty cowardly.

"...about who sent the email..." There was NO email. The headers
were forged by you. It was proven by professionals. You did not
DEBUNK it. You squirmed and wiggled and tried to get out of it.
That's not debunking.

"...in question..." Here's a good question, Arny? Why do you keep
bringing this up? Is it because you know that no one believes you,
and you'll keep bringing it until someone does? I know you think that
enough time will pass where people will forget what happened, or
they'll be too lazy to look in the archives.

"the likely party was Art." No, it was proven that it was you. It's
not "likely," it's certain.

If we said we believed you, Arny, would you drop it forever? Or would
you launch on a new vendetta based upon this supposed exoneration?
It's an honest question.

Personally, I think I'll go back to ignoring you, since this is all
you ever want to talk about.

Boon

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Jun 21, 2:01 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in message

On Jun 21, 9:27 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

On 21 Iun, 06:19, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote:
How does he feel about your false kp allegations
against a number of people?

There is no such thing, and you can't prove otherwise.

You sure did make false kp allegations against
Marc, George, JA, myself and others

Prove it!

You certainly conjectured on r.a.o. that it could have
been me who sent you the emails in question, Mr.
Krueger.

In certain paranoid minds, conjecture might constitute "allegations".

At least I got you to admit that Art was correct, Mr.
Krueger. But this is the same cowardly stuff you
pulled back then, pretending that it was reasonable
to conjecture, without having a shred of evidence,
that I was responsible. It is neither reasonable nor
supportbale for you to conjecture that I sent the
offensive emails, Mr. Krueger.

In fact it could have been you John that sent the
email in question, or didn't you have email service
that week? ;-)

As I assured you at the time, Mr. Krueger, I was
not responsible in any way. And it saddens me
to see you making jokes about something that
stemmed from the tragic death of your son.

You did so despite the fact that I offered you my
sympathy for your tragic loss, both in public and
via private email, something I don't believe you
have ever acknowledged.

As expected, no response from Mr. Krueger. He
appears to believe that as far as I am concerned,
no good deed goes unpunished. :-(

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Clyde Slick]

On 21 Iun, 14:01, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in






On Jun 21, 9:27 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

On 21 Iun, 06:19, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in
message
How does he feel about your false kp allegations
against a number of people?

There is no such thing, and you can't prove otherwise.

You sure did make false kp allegations against
Marc, George, JA, myself and others
Prove it!
You certainly conjectured on r.a.o. that it could have
been me who sent you the emails in question, Mr.
Krueger.

In certain paranoid minds, conjecture might constitute "allegations".

In fact it could have been you John that sent the email in question, or
didn't you have email service that week? *;-)

Frankly, a more likely conjecture might be that Art sent the email, applying
the theory that criminals return to the scene of the crime. *Obviously Art
wants to draw attention to the matter, even some 8 years after it happened.
Likely explanation, he did it and never received the adulation that he
expected to receive when he sent it. So he keeps bringing it up again and
again.

Second explanation - Since Art has repeated the idea that libelling my late
son in the reprehesible ways that Middius did back in the day was funny,
perhaps Art thought that the email was funny.

Yes right now, if one were to make idle speculation about who sent the email
in question, the likely party was Art.-

Tomorrow, ask Jesus, he will fill you
in on who 'sent it'.
No need to guess anymore, LOL!!!!!!

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Vinylanach said:

[nonexistent email Krazy Krooger klaimed kontained kiddie porn]

Why do you keep bringing this up?

Hold that thought.

Personally, I think I'll go back to ignoring you, since this is all
you ever want to talk about.

It's high on Mr. ****'s list, but it's not the only topic. He loves it
because he pretends to be a victim. By now, everybody knows the truth --
there never was any email, no kiddie porn, no undercover cops, etc. But
Krazy Krooger wants to milk it because it causes Normals to pay attention
to him.

Pretty soon, Turdborg will tire of the kiddie porn lie. Then he'll go back
to begging Mistress Jenn for punishment, or rehashing the "debate" with JA,
or even dragging his dead son into his "pitty party".

[Clyde Slick]

On 21 Iun, 14:57, Vinylanach wrote:
On Jun 21, 11:01�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:





"John Atkinson" wrote in


On Jun 21, 9:27 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

On 21 Iun, 06:19, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in
message
How does he feel about your false kp allegations
against a number of people?

There is no such thing, and you can't prove otherwise.

You sure did make false kp allegations against
Marc, George, JA, myself and others
Prove it!
You certainly conjectured on r.a.o. that it could have
been me who sent you the emails in question, Mr.
Krueger.

In certain paranoid minds, conjecture might constitute "allegations".

In fact it could have been you John that sent the email in question, or
didn't you have email service that week? �;-)

Frankly, a more likely conjecture might be that Art sent the email, applying
the theory that criminals return to the scene of the crime. �Obviously Art
wants to draw attention to the matter, even some 8 years after it happened.
Likely explanation, he did it and never received the adulation that he
expected to receive when he sent it. So he keeps bringing it up again and
again.

Second explanation - Since Art has repeated the idea that libelling my late
son in the reprehesible ways that Middius did back in the day was funny,
perhaps Art thought that the email was funny.

Yes right now, if one were to make idle speculation about who sent the email
in question, the likely party was Art.

What a completely meaningless yet hopelessly insinuating comment.
Let's analyze it:

"Yes right now, if one were to make idle speculation about who sent
the email
Â*in question, the likely party was Art."

"Yes right now..." Â*In other words, if one were to read your comments
today, one might place Art on the list of suspects. Â*Back when it
happened, however, Art was not an active participant here. So "right
now," maybe. Â*But "back when it happened," no.

"If one were..." Â*Who's this one? Â*You? Â*No one believes Art sent the
email. You don't even believe it. Â*Why? Â*BECAUSE THERE WAS NO EMAIL.
So I can only surmise that this "one" really can't look at the facts
and come up with a logical answer.

"...make idle speculation..." Â*In other words, make a wild guess. Â*You
know for sure that Art didn't send the email. Â*Why? Â*BECAUSE THERE WAS
NO EMAIL. Â*So you want people to think that Art may have sent the
email without actually saying it. Â*That's pretty cowardly.

"...about who sent the email..." Â*There was NO email. Â*The headers
were forged by you. Â*It was proven by professionals. You did not
DEBUNK it. Â*You squirmed and wiggled and tried to get out of it.
That's not debunking.

"...in question..." Â*Here's a good question, Arny? Â*Why do you keep
bringing this up? Â*Is it because you know that no one believes you,
and you'll keep bringing it until someone does? Â*I know you think that
enough time will pass where people will forget what happened, or
they'll be too lazy to look in the archives.

"the likely party was Art." Â*No, it was proven that it was you. Â*It's
not "likely," it's certain.

If we said we believed you, Arny, would you drop it forever? Â*Or would
you launch on a new vendetta based upon this supposed exoneration?
It's an honest question.

Personally, I think I'll go back to ignoring you, since this is all
you ever want to talk about.

Boon- Ascunde citatul -

I'm not worried, when Arny talks to Jesus,
he'll clear my name.
That's even better than being cleared by DNA.

[Vinylanach]

On Jun 21, 12:29Â*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 21 Iun, 14:57, Vinylanach wrote:





On Jun 21, 11:01�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

"John Atkinson" wrote in


On Jun 21, 9:27 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

On 21 Iun, 06:19, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in
message
How does he feel about your false kp allegations
against a number of people?

There is no such thing, and you can't prove otherwise.

You sure did make false kp allegations against
Marc, George, JA, myself and others
Prove it!
You certainly conjectured on r.a.o. that it could have
been me who sent you the emails in question, Mr.
Krueger.

In certain paranoid minds, conjecture might constitute "allegations".

In fact it could have been you John that sent the email in question, or
didn't you have email service that week? �;-)

Frankly, a more likely conjecture might be that Art sent the email, applying
the theory that criminals return to the scene of the crime. �Obviously Art
wants to draw attention to the matter, even some 8 years after it happened.
Likely explanation, he did it and never received the adulation that he
expected to receive when he sent it. So he keeps bringing it up again and
again.

Second explanation - Since Art has repeated the idea that libelling my late
son in the reprehesible ways that Middius did back in the day was funny,
perhaps Art thought that the email was funny.

Yes right now, if one were to make idle speculation about who sent the email
in question, the likely party was Art.

What a completely meaningless yet hopelessly insinuating comment.
Let's analyze it:

"Yes right now, if one were to make idle speculation about who sent
the email
Â*in question, the likely party was Art."

"Yes right now..." Â*In other words, if one were to read your comments
today, one might place Art on the list of suspects. Â*Back when it
happened, however, Art was not an active participant here. So "right
now," maybe. Â*But "back when it happened," no.

"If one were..." Â*Who's this one? Â*You? Â*No one believes Art sent the
email. You don't even believe it. Â*Why? Â*BECAUSE THERE WAS NO EMAIL.
So I can only surmise that this "one" really can't look at the facts
and come up with a logical answer.

"...make idle speculation..." Â*In other words, make a wild guess. Â*You
know for sure that Art didn't send the email. Â*Why? Â*BECAUSE THERE WAS
NO EMAIL. Â*So you want people to think that Art may have sent the
email without actually saying it. Â*That's pretty cowardly.

"...about who sent the email..." Â*There was NO email. Â*The headers
were forged by you. Â*It was proven by professionals. You did not
DEBUNK it. Â*You squirmed and wiggled and tried to get out of it.
That's not debunking.

"...in question..." Â*Here's a good question, Arny? Â*Why do you keep
bringing this up? Â*Is it because you know that no one believes you,
and you'll keep bringing it until someone does? Â*I know you think that
enough time will pass where people will forget what happened, or
they'll be too lazy to look in the archives.

"the likely party was Art." Â*No, it was proven that it was you. Â*It's
not "likely," it's certain.

If we said we believed you, Arny, would you drop it forever? Â*Or would
you launch on a new vendetta based upon this supposed exoneration?
It's an honest question.

Personally, I think I'll go back to ignoring you, since this is all
you ever want to talk about.

Boon

I'm not worried, when Arny talks to Jesus,
he'll clear my name.
That's even better than being cleared by DNA.

When Arny prays, do you think he says, "Dear God please bless all
those people who try to attack me, because they don't know me and
understand what is in my heart"? That's what a Christian would do.

Or, do you think Arny prays and says, "Dear Lord, smite my enemies!"?

Boon

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" wrote in
message


You did so despite the fact that I offered you my
sympathy for your tragic loss, both in public and
via private email, something I don't believe you
have ever acknowledged.

John, so did your good buddy George Middius. Then he made how many posts
about lovemaking in coffins?

Now John I'm not putting you in the same league as George even though you
have defended him and praised him. But, the example points out the sort of
flawed logic that you're trying to foist off on me here.

[Clyde Slick]

On 21 Iun, 18:23, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in


You did so despite the fact that I offered you my
sympathy for your tragic loss, both in public and
via private email, something I don't believe you
have ever acknowledged.

John, so did your good buddy George Middius. Then he made how many posts
about lovemaking in coffins?


LOL!!!!
It wasn't lovemenaking, it was flat out grunt and groan rabid hair
pulling ****ing.

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Jun 21, 6:23 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in

Arny Kruger conjectured, on the basis of zero evidence:
In fact it could have been you John that sent the
email in question, or didn't you have email service
that week? ;-)

As I assured you at the time, Mr. Krueger, I was
not responsible in any way. And it saddens me
to see you making jokes about something that
stemmed from the tragic death of your son.

No response from Arny Krueger. And the more I
see that winky-smiley icon at the end of his "joke,"
the sadder I become that this man has not sought
professional help.

You did so despite the fact that I offered you my
sympathy for your tragic loss, both in public and
via private email, something I don't believe you
have ever acknowledged.

John, so did your good buddy George Middius. Then he
made how many posts about lovemaking in coffins?

I have no idea. But as I am not George, nor is he me,
nor could our relationship be described as our
neing "good buddies," I fail to see why you feel that
your defamatory actions regarding me are justified by
things that George has done, Mr. Krueger. Your
behavior is delusional or paranoid or perhaps both.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[TT]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"TT" wrote in message
. au
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"TT" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Vinylanach" wrote in message

I know deep down you want to thank me for distracting
Bob away from Pastor Matt. You don't have to say a
word, buddy...I know, I know. ;-)

Pastor Matt is nobody's fool. He saw through Robert
very early on.

Then why can't he see through you?

Exactly what is he supposed to be seeing?

Your true nature that you regularly display on NGs.

Right, I tell the truth no matter what kind of pressure is put on me to
say otherwise.

So you are now affirming that the disgusting allegations *you* made against
me are true?

Be warned, you're committing libel and defamation Mr. Krueger!

[Vinylanach]

On Jun 21, 6:00�pm, "TT" wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message

. ..



"TT" wrote in message
.au
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
m...
"TT" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news:eIGdnRBg766qw8HVnZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d@comcast. com...
"Vinylanach" wrote in message

I know deep down you want to thank me for distracting
Bob away from Pastor Matt. �You don't have to say a
word, buddy...I know, I know. ;-)

Pastor Matt is nobody's fool. He saw through Robert
very early on.

Then why can't he see through you?

Exactly what is he supposed to be seeing?

Your true nature that you regularly display on NGs.

Right, I tell the truth no matter what kind of pressure is put on me to
say otherwise.

So you are now affirming that the disgusting allegations *you* made against
me are true?

Be warned, you're committing libel and defamation Mr. Krueger!

Old news. Right, Arny? ;-)

Boon

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Vinylanach said:

Be warned, you're committing libel and defamation Mr. Krueger!

Old news. Right, Arny? ;-)

"Sue me!" says the Krooborg.

[Vinylanach]

On Jun 21, 6:23�pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
Vinylanach said:

Be warned, you're committing libel and defamation Mr. Krueger!

Old news. �Right, Arny? �;-)

"Sue me!" says the Krooborg.

I'm just ribbing Arny for making a post in rec.audio.pro where he made
four or five factual errors about me in a single paragraph. I think
he's like 0 for 547 when it comes to being right about my activities
outside of Usenet.

Boon

[TT]

"Vinylanach" wrote in message
...
On Jun 21, 6:23?pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
Vinylanach said:

Be warned, you're committing libel and defamation Mr. Krueger!

Old news. ?Right, Arny? ?;-)

"Sue me!" says the Krooborg.

I'm just ribbing Arny for making a post in rec.audio.pro where he made
four or five factual errors about me in a single paragraph. I think
he's like 0 for 547 when it comes to being right about my activities
outside of Usenet.

Boon

Do you guys use the term "he's still batting zero"? :-))

Cheers TT

[Arny Krueger]

"TT" wrote in message
. au
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"TT" wrote in message
. au
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"TT" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Vinylanach" wrote in message

I know deep down you want to thank me for
distracting Bob away from Pastor Matt. You don't
have to say a word, buddy...I know, I know. ;-)

Pastor Matt is nobody's fool. He saw through Robert
very early on.

Then why can't he see through you?

Exactly what is he supposed to be seeing?

Your true nature that you regularly display on NGs.

Right, I tell the truth no matter what kind of pressure
is put on me to say otherwise.

So you are now affirming that the disgusting allegations
*you* made against me are true?

Yes Terry, you are disgusting. There, I said it. Sue me!

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" wrote in
message


I fail to see why you feel that
your defamatory actions regarding me are justified by
things that George has done, Mr. Krueger. Your
behavior is delusional or paranoid or perhaps both.

John we know exactly what motivates you. Nothing odd or subtle, just pursuit
of the all-mighty dollar.

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Jun 22, 7:02 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in

I fail to see why you feel that
your defamatory actions regarding me are justified by
things that George has done, Mr. Krueger. Your
behavior is delusional or paranoid or perhaps both.

John we know exactly what motivates you. Nothing odd or subtle,
just pursuit of the all-mighty dollar.

Did you get a box of non sequiturs for your birthday, Mr.
Krueger. First you insist that you were entitled to smear
me with your insulting conjectures because of something
George Middius wrote. Now you seem to be saying that
it is because of what you perceive to be my "pursuit of
the all-mighty dollar." You _work_ that envy schtick,
Mr. Krueger.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Clyde Slick]

On 22 Iun, 08:30, John Atkinson wrote:



Did you get a box of non sequiturs for your birthday, Mr.
Krueger. First you insist that you were entitled to smear
me with your insulting conjectures because of something
George Middius wrote. Now you seem to be saying that
it is because of what you perceive to be my "pursuit of
the all-mighty dollar." You _work_ that envy schtick,
Mr. Krueger.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


Arny's latest money making scheme revolves
around his being paid to shut up.

[TT]

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...
On 22 Iun, 08:30, John Atkinson wrote:



Did you get a box of non sequiturs for your birthday, Mr.
Krueger. First you insist that you were entitled to smear
me with your insulting conjectures because of something
George Middius wrote. Now you seem to be saying that
it is because of what you perceive to be my "pursuit of
the all-mighty dollar." You _work_ that envy schtick,
Mr. Krueger.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


Arny's latest money making scheme revolves
around his being paid to shut up.

Who do I make the cheque out to and where do I send it :-)

Cheers TT

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
John Atkinson wrote:

On Jun 22, 7:02 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in

m
I fail to see why you feel that
your defamatory actions regarding me are justified by
things that George has done, Mr. Krueger. Your
behavior is delusional or paranoid or perhaps both.

John we know exactly what motivates you. Nothing odd or subtle,
just pursuit of the all-mighty dollar.

Did you get a box of non sequiturs for your birthday

lol