Gregipus Twinkiefus whimpered:

And you are incapable of blaming yourself for anything.

No, I've already referred to myself as belligerent.

That's a start. There are at least 20 more adjectives that fit you
perfectly. Of course, every time somebody mentions them, you go off
on a lying jag.

In article , trotsky
wrote:

MiNE 109 wrote:
In article , trotsky wrote:


Again, you are just another one of the
ones suffering from arrested development and unable to ascribe blame in
more than one direction. Notice how nobody has a counter argument every
time I bring this up?


That's because it's nonsense,


Really?

Really.

Are you claiming you and your cronies blame each other for poor
behavior as needed?

No. Your argument had two parts: arrested development and inability to
ascribe blame in more than one direction. You've made no case for the
former and as for the latter, I had no trouble "ascribing blame" to
Howard when he made a mockery of his journalistic responsibilities.

Or is the cronies' behavior as flawless as dave's
reviewing attempt.

Face it, cheesy, your doing a little dance I will now call the bull****
dance.

Listen everyone: Tinky-Winky's singing his Loud Song again.

trotsky wrote:


No, I've already referred to myself as belligerent. If I'm to blame for
so much, though, why do people keep responding and talking about me?

Because it's a pleasure to make joke about you, clown.

ScottW wrote:
trotsky wrote in message ...


Scottie, I think you've set an new newsgroup record: you are talking out
of three or four sides of your mouth simultaneously:


When did this get too complicated for you to correctly comprehend
the issue?


on the one hand you
are trying to make fun of my speakers,


Provide a reference. I actually make fun of your effort.
Obviously you have shown what Howard has stated all along. It isn't
that tough to come up with a pretty decent (albeit range limited)
speaker.


Then do it, you lying sack of dog****.


on the other you acknowledge that
dave said that they were good,


Yes, but according to you Dave's perception is suspect due to his
acceptance of questionable other speakers.


Translation in English, please?


on the third hand you call dave a sack of
****,


Only for being stupid enough to think you could keep your mouth shut
until he was finished or be gracious about the review at all.


dave tries hard to be a dick, but he's not stupid. You, though, are
definitely stupid. What did you say you were good at, Scottie?


and on the fourth you acknowledge the reason I had for criticizing
his attempt at a review is valid.


No. I said there is no such thing as a perfect review and for you to
criticize his as flawed is ridiculous. Obviously that little concept
goes way over your head.


I see, so your pea brain tells you all attempts at audio reviewing are
flawed to the exact same degree. I guess that makes sense, TO SOMEBODY
THAT IS VERY STUPID.


Let's be blunt he what's your
history with recreational drugs? I'm guessing that you've done copious
amounts of LSD in your youth, and that you've suffered chromosome
damage. Is this true?


I guess you think with your chromosomes. It doesn't work very well.


Scottie, are you afraid to answer me already? God, this is getting too
easy.


You wouldn't know good equipment if it bit you in the ass. You
are the classic audio biggot.
Don't quote your years in the trade as proof otherwise. That
culminated in your FIRING.
Some reference.


The economy sucks, Scottie. I was the highest paid employee, and the
first to get laid off.


First canned. That says a lot. You were the least valuable employee.
Economy is picking up, do you expect a call back? I doubt it. Do you
know the difference between being laid off and fired?


No idea. Why, did you get fired often?


First
you need to tell us about your history with recreational drugs.


Keep on obfuscating. There is nothing there.


Yeah, it smells like fear to me.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Look what the Krooborg said about the libel lawsuit that Mister
Wheeler filed. (In case anybody has lost the page, Krooger is the
defendant in the lawsuit.)

You haven't answered the lawsuit so far and
your deadline hasn't passed so there is still a possibility that
you will.

If you don't [answer,] it makes things easier, if you do [answer,]
you will have to spend some money [to defend yourself in court].
...
Either way you have a problem.

Three's only a problem if I let you bully me into responding,
sockpuppet wheel.

Can you believe this? (Not you, Arnii -- I mean anybody with a
brain.)

Krooger has actually convinced himself that if he doesn't answer the
lawsuit, it will go away of its own accord. Apparently he really is
going to follow the "strategy" he's mentioned -- to hope the judge
dismisses the case sua sponte, without hearing any argument from the
defendant.

Arnii, you stupefyingly dumb ****, take this question to a
first-year law student: Is it more likely the judge will dismiss a
lawsuit if the defendant makes a motion for dismissal or if the
defendant doesn't even answer the suit?



It could be that Arny 'has' actually made a motion for dismissal,
though he presents the facade of having ignored the lawsuit. It would
be his style to lie like that.




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

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

So, what gives, ? From my view point, you appear to
be begging Arny for a retraction, and seem to have dropped the
requirement for an apology.


Why are you referring to yourself in the third person?




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

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"S888Wheel" wrote in message


Arny said

BTW sockpuppet wheel, how many times did you have to fill your gas
tank by cashing in food stamps in order to come up with enough money
for the court?

At least you have your sociopathic fantasies about me and my life to
give you comfort.

Which sociopathic fantasies are those, sockpuppet wheel.

BTW, why are you afraid to admit to the dollars and cents amount you
gambled
on being able to bully me into replying to your ridiculous vanity lawsuit?



Why do you insist that your response to the suit is in Wheel's best
interest,
rather than in your best interest?




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

Sockpuppet Yustabe said:

Arnii, you stupefyingly dumb ****, take this question to a
first-year law student: Is it more likely the judge will dismiss a
lawsuit if the defendant makes a motion for dismissal or if the
defendant doesn't even answer the suit?

It could be that Arny 'has' actually made a motion for dismissal,
though he presents the facade of having ignored the lawsuit. It would
be his style to lie like that.

Even the least expensive lawyer would charge a few hundred. If
Krooger has a "style", it's much more along the lines of trying to
"debating trade" Mister Wheeler and pretend he can get the suit
dismissed through thought experiments.

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message



Why do you insist that your response to the suit is in Wheel's best
interest,
rather than in your best interest?

There are no real damages, so the case is about ego. By not involving
myself, my ego is not at stake. Thus sockpuppet wheel is the only one with
his ego at stake.

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

So, what gives, ? From my view point, you appear
to be begging Arny for a retraction, and seem to have dropped the
requirement for an apology.


Why are you referring to yourself in the third person?


Because the post is a forgery. Check the headers if you are competent to do
so.

Arny said

BTW sockpuppet wheel, how many times did you have to fill your gas
tank by cashing in food stamps in order to come up with enough money
for the court?

I said


At least you have your sociopathic fantasies about me and my life to
give you comfort.


Arny said


Which sociopathic fantasies are those, sockpuppet wheel.

Pretty much everything you have ever said about me. I relize you have so many
it is hard for you to keep track.

I said

and to think, all
he had to do before I filed this lawsuit was retract his libel and
apologize.
Hell, I wouldn't have filed the lawsuit if he had made a clear retraction
and
no apology. Ego and stupidity are a bad mix.

Arny said


So, what gives, ? From my view point, you appear to
be begging Arny for a retraction, and seem to have dropped the
requirement for an apology.

I expect nothing less than this kind of skewed view point from you Arny. you
cannot even keep track of what tense I was speaking in.

Arny said


Are you worried your lawsuit will be decided against you?

Not in the least. you obviously didn't understand my post. A retraction doesn't
get you out of the lawsuit now even with an apology. I told you quite clearly
that window of oppurtunity was closed after the lawsuit was filed. Can't you
read?

Arny said

Are you
worried that Mr. **** will suffer damages much greater than you
intended? I don't think so.

Are you suffering from dimensia now?

Arny said


I think you are you starting to realize that you look like a complete
ass for actually filing a lawsuit over what most anyone who has read
this newsgroup for any length of time would recognize as a trivial
insult.

And you continue to be painfully wrong.

Arny said

The fact that you are getting all worried and fearful that
this lawsuit is getting out of your control is obvious evidence that
you haven't *really* been damaged in the least.

the only clear fact is that you have totally misunderstood my post.

Arny said


Let me make a suggestion: Why don't you call the Jerry Springer Show
and see if you can arrange to settle your dispute there? That would
appear to be the perfect venue!.


While i think you would fit in well at the Jerry Springer show Arny, I have no
interest.

"trotsky" wrote in message
...


ScottW wrote:
trotsky wrote in message
...
on the other you acknowledge that
dave said that they were good,


Yes, but according to you Dave's perception is suspect due
to his
acceptance of questionable other speakers.


Translation in English, please?

and you call me stupid.


on the third hand you call dave a sack of
****,


Only for being stupid enough to think you could keep your
mouth shut
until he was finished or be gracious about the review at all.


dave tries hard to be a dick, but he's not stupid. You,
though, are
definitely stupid. What did you say you were good at, Scottie?

I am good at refusing to accept obfuscation as a viable
counterpoint.


and on the fourth you acknowledge the reason I had for
criticizing
his attempt at a review is valid.


No. I said there is no such thing as a perfect review and
for you to
criticize his as flawed is ridiculous. Obviously that little
concept
goes way over your head.


I see, so your pea brain tells you all attempts at audio
reviewing are
flawed to the exact same degree.

You asked was his review flawless.
You now admit that it is a matter of degree.
Therefore your question was flawed by your own admission.


I guess that makes sense, TO SOMEBODY
THAT IS VERY STUPID.


Scottie, are you afraid to answer me already? God, this is
getting too
easy.

Obfuscation is an easy escape of a weak mind. Try to stay on
topic and quit abdicating.

The economy sucks, Scottie. I was the highest paid employee,
and the
first to get laid off.


First canned. That says a lot. You were the least valuable
employee.
Economy is picking up, do you expect a call back? I doubt
it. Do you
know the difference between being laid off and fired?


No idea. Why, did you get fired often?

Never have, but a layoff is supposed to be temporary with
possibility of returning to your previous position under the same
terms. I see you were too scared to answer the question about
being called back. Why?



First
you need to tell us about your history with recreational
drugs.


Keep on obfuscating. There is nothing there.


Yeah, it smells like fear to me.

Did you fart?

ScottW

It could be that Arny 'has' actually made a motion for dismissal,
though he presents the facade of having ignored the lawsuit. It would
be his style to lie like that.

Except he has to send a copy of such a motion to me. Is Arny stupid enough to
try to sneek a motion into the courts? Maybe. He would soon find out that it is
a very bad idea.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message



Why do you insist that your response to the suit is in Wheel's best
interest,
rather than in your best interest?

There are no real damages, so the case is about ego. By not involving
myself, my ego is not at stake. Thus sockpuppet wheel is the only one with
his ego at stake.


You are saying that you just don't care if he wins the suit,
as long as it doesn't cost you anything. So, for you, it is about
money, not about honor.

However, money is at stake, unless you don't have any.




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

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

So, what gives, ? From my view point, you appear
to be begging Arny for a retraction, and seem to have dropped the
requirement for an apology.


Why are you referring to yourself in the third person?


Because the post is a forgery. Check the headers if you are competent to
do
so.


Yes, I see a lot of differences.
For one out of several of them, you are known to use Outlook Express and not
Free Agent.

Also, it just didn't read like your voice.

It must be one of the few friends you have left.




----== 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 =---

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 22:48:12 GMT, trotsky wrote:

Or is the cronies' behavior as flawless as dave's
reviewing attempt.

You're the only one prattering about my "flawless" reviewing.

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 22:54:37 GMT, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:



dave weil wrote:
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 16:09:29 GMT, trotsky wrote:



dave, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you're agreeing that
I've had a ****storm launched at me because I came on this group in
earnest, you CAN'T POSSIBLY be claiming that the "blame" wasn't launched
in only one direction, can you? You're busted, dude. You can't ascribe
blame to any of the usual suspects like Middius, McElroy, yourself,
"Devil", Paul Dormer, etc. We both know they all piled on, while being
incapable of blaming themselves for anything. We also both know that
per your own admission you are ineffective at communicating stuff that
comes up in an audio review. We both know that by my admitting I was
just observing a sociology experiment at work I'm pretty darned self
aware. Jeez, I just totalled it all up and I didn't see where I wasn't
right about everything.


And you are incapable of blaming yourself for anything.


No, I've already referred to myself as belligerent. If I'm to blame for
so much, though, why do people keep responding and talking about me?


So, we're at a stalemate. The difference is of course, I'm not trying
to sell speakers on a non-commercial USENET group either.


Hardly a stalemate, dave. You have yet to prove you can ascribe blame
in the direction of any of the members of the peanut gallery.

Frankly, Greg, this is getting tiring. I stood up for you against
Mike, ScottW, Arnold, Joe and others.

You've screwed your own business.

I'm tired of you now.

You're dismissed.

You are saying that you just don't care if he wins the suit,
as long as it doesn't cost you anything. So, for you, it is about
money, not about honor.

However, money is at stake, unless you don't have any.


It is amazing that he refers to me taking steps to protect my reputation
against false accusations of pedophilia as vanity.

S888Wheel wrote:

I said


and to think, all
he had to do before I filed this lawsuit was retract his libel and

apologize.

Hell, I wouldn't have filed the lawsuit if he had made a clear retraction

and

no apology. Ego and stupidity are a bad mix.


Arny said


So, what gives, ? From my view point, you appear to
be begging Arny for a retraction, and seem to have dropped the
requirement for an apology.


I expect nothing less than this kind of skewed view point from you Arny. you
cannot even keep track of what tense I was speaking in.

Arny said


Are you worried your lawsuit will be decided against you?


Not in the least. you obviously didn't understand my post. A retraction doesn't
get you out of the lawsuit now even with an apology. I told you quite clearly
that window of oppurtunity was closed after the lawsuit was filed. Can't you
read?

Arny said


Are you
worried that Mr. **** will suffer damages much greater than you
intended? I don't think so.


Are you suffering from dimensia now?

Arny said


I think you are you starting to realize that you look like a complete
ass for actually filing a lawsuit over what most anyone who has read
this newsgroup for any length of time would recognize as a trivial
insult.


And you continue to be painfully wrong.

Arny said


The fact that you are getting all worried and fearful that
this lawsuit is getting out of your control is obvious evidence that
you haven't *really* been damaged in the least.


the only clear fact is that you have totally misunderstood my post.

Arny said


Let me make a suggestion: Why don't you call the Jerry Springer Show
and see if you can arrange to settle your dispute there? That would
appear to be the perfect venue!.



While i think you would fit in well at the Jerry Springer show Arny, I have no
interest.

Mr. S888Wheel, you should check since how many time you use to answer to
a Krueger forgery, since how many time you frenetically save forgery's
messages on your HD. ;-)

George M. Middius wrote:

Gregipus the Undead croaked:


The airy, free-floating Gregipus Wraith warbled:


Lack of response to witty thrust noted.



My apologies


Even though you have no idea how bestial you are,


Obviously if you're still here not bestial enough. I'll try to figure
out how to up the ante.

George M. Middius wrote:

Gregipus Twinkiefus whimpered:


And you are incapable of blaming yourself for anything.



No, I've already referred to myself as belligerent.


That's a start.


George, you're obsessed with me just like you're obsessed with "the
Krooborg". Personally, I'm sick of it, and we'll just see who goes the
way of "the Devil"--how's that?

MiNE 109 wrote:
In article , trotsky wrote:


MiNE 109 wrote:

In article , trotsky wrote:



Again, you are just another one of the
ones suffering from arrested development and unable to ascribe blame in
more than one direction. Notice how nobody has a counter argument every
time I bring this up?


That's because it's nonsense,


Really?


Really.


Are you claiming you and your cronies blame each other for poor
behavior as needed?


No. Your argument had two parts: arrested development and inability to
ascribe blame in more than one direction.


No, the latter is a symptom of the former.


You've made no case for the
former and as for the latter, I had no trouble "ascribing blame" to
Howard when he made a mockery of his journalistic responsibilities.


Of course you did. Did you ascribe blame with the incestual and
necrophilia references that George and the "Devil" proffered? Those are
far worse than any of Howard's transgressions.


Or is the cronies' behavior as flawless as dave's
reviewing attempt.

Face it, cheesy, your doing a little dance I will now call the bull****
dance.


Listen everyone: Tinky-Winky's singing his Loud Song again.


Answer the question if you have the guts, you effete, lying son of a bitch.

ScottW wrote:
"trotsky" wrote in message
...


ScottW wrote:

trotsky wrote in message

...

on the other you acknowledge that
dave said that they were good,


Yes, but according to you Dave's perception is suspect due

to his

acceptance of questionable other speakers.


Translation in English, please?


and you call me stupid.


Still do.


on the third hand you call dave a sack of
****,


Only for being stupid enough to think you could keep your

mouth shut

until he was finished or be gracious about the review at all.


dave tries hard to be a dick, but he's not stupid. You,

though, are

definitely stupid. What did you say you were good at, Scottie?


I am good at refusing to accept obfuscation as a viable
counterpoint.


Which, of course, is a euphemism for saying you're too stupid to answer
properly.


and on the fourth you acknowledge the reason I had for

criticizing

his attempt at a review is valid.


No. I said there is no such thing as a perfect review and

for you to

criticize his as flawed is ridiculous. Obviously that little

concept

goes way over your head.


I see, so your pea brain tells you all attempts at audio

reviewing are

flawed to the exact same degree.


You asked was his review flawless.
You now admit that it is a matter of degree.


It's called further the discussion, Scottie. Based on your past
performance there's no way you can fathom this.


Therefore your question was flawed by your own admission.


Stupid.


I guess that makes sense, TO SOMEBODY
THAT IS VERY STUPID.


Scottie, are you afraid to answer me already? God, this is

getting too

easy.


Obfuscation is an easy escape of a weak mind. Try to stay on
topic and quit abdicating.


What's the topic again, Scottie? Everything is beautiful in its own way?


The economy sucks, Scottie. I was the highest paid employee,

and the

first to get laid off.


First canned. That says a lot. You were the least valuable

employee.

Economy is picking up, do you expect a call back? I doubt

it. Do you

know the difference between being laid off and fired?


No idea. Why, did you get fired often?


Never have, but a layoff is supposed to be temporary with
possibility of returning to your previous position under the same
terms. I see you were too scared to answer the question about
being called back. Why?


Your definition is trash, Scottie. (Why am I not surprised?) Firing
was done for a reason, and believe me, I was given no reason.

dave weil wrote:
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 22:48:12 GMT, trotsky wrote:


Or is the cronies' behavior as flawless as dave's
reviewing attempt.


You're the only one prattering about my "flawless" reviewing.


I don't believe you understand what's being said he I claim that if
none of the cronies can tell me what the flaws in your review attempt
are they must think it to be flawless. You need to whip that peanut
gallery into shape, dave.

dave weil wrote:
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 22:54:37 GMT, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:



dave weil wrote:

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 16:09:29 GMT, trotsky wrote:




dave, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you're agreeing that
I've had a ****storm launched at me because I came on this group in
earnest, you CAN'T POSSIBLY be claiming that the "blame" wasn't launched
in only one direction, can you? You're busted, dude. You can't ascribe
blame to any of the usual suspects like Middius, McElroy, yourself,
"Devil", Paul Dormer, etc. We both know they all piled on, while being
incapable of blaming themselves for anything. We also both know that
per your own admission you are ineffective at communicating stuff that
comes up in an audio review. We both know that by my admitting I was
just observing a sociology experiment at work I'm pretty darned self
aware. Jeez, I just totalled it all up and I didn't see where I wasn't
right about everything.


And you are incapable of blaming yourself for anything.


No, I've already referred to myself as belligerent. If I'm to blame for
so much, though, why do people keep responding and talking about me?



So, we're at a stalemate. The difference is of course, I'm not trying
to sell speakers on a non-commercial USENET group either.


Hardly a stalemate, dave. You have yet to prove you can ascribe blame
in the direction of any of the members of the peanut gallery.


Frankly, Greg, this is getting tiring. I stood up for you against
Mike, ScottW, Arnold, Joe and others.


They're given less credibility on this group than guys like McElroy,
Dormer, "Devil", and "Middius". You know, the guys who were incapable
of posting about any flaws in your written review when I asked.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message

You are saying that you just don't care if he wins the suit,
as long as it doesn't cost you anything. So, for you, it is about
money, not about honor.

However, money is at stake, unless you don't have any.

It is amazing that he refers to me taking steps to protect my
reputation against false accusations of pedophilia as vanity.

It is amazing that you haven't figured out that in the process you've
hopelessly destroyed your reputation for rational thought and maturity.

George M. Middius wrote in message . ..
Look what the Krooborg said about the libel lawsuit that Mister
Wheeler filed. (In case anybody has lost the page, Krooger is the
defendant in the lawsuit.)

You haven't answered the lawsuit so far and
your deadline hasn't passed so there is still a possibility that you will.

If you don't [answer,] it makes things easier, if you do [answer,]
you will have to spend some money [to defend yourself in court].
...
Either way you have a problem.

Three's only a problem if I let you bully me into responding, sockpuppet wheel.

Can you believe this? (Not you, Arnii -- I mean anybody with a
brain.)

Krooger has actually convinced himself that if he doesn't answer the
lawsuit, it will go away of its own accord. Apparently he really is
going to follow the "strategy" he's mentioned -- to hope the judge
dismisses the case sua sponte, without hearing any argument from the
defendant.

I'll dismiss a huge bowel movement right into your mouth, you stupid bitch.

--

In article , trotsky
wrote:

MiNE 109 wrote:
In article , trotsky wrote:


MiNE 109 wrote:

In article , trotsky wrote:



Again, you are just another one of the
ones suffering from arrested development and unable to ascribe blame in
more than one direction. Notice how nobody has a counter argument every
time I bring this up?


That's because it's nonsense,


Really?


Really.


Are you claiming you and your cronies blame each other for poor
behavior as needed?


No. Your argument had two parts: arrested development and inability to
ascribe blame in more than one direction.


No, the latter is a symptom of the former.

See below.

You've made no case for the former

No case. Your argument fails.

and as for the latter, I had no trouble "ascribing blame" to
Howard when he made a mockery of his journalistic responsibilities.


Of course you did.

The second part of your argument fails.

Did you ascribe blame with the incestual and
necrophilia references that George and the "Devil" proffered? Those are
far worse than any of Howard's transgressions.

No, but I explained myself to Arny on the subject. He seems to enjoy
mistreatment because it gives his "debate trade" points.

Or is the cronies' behavior as flawless as dave's
reviewing attempt.

Face it, cheesy, your doing a little dance I will now call the bull****
dance.


Listen everyone: Tinky-Winky's singing his Loud Song again.


Answer the question if you have the guts, you effete, lying son of a bitch.

Or you'll call me names? Okay: their behaviour is not as flawless as
dave's reviewing attempt.

Gregipus has his nutter-butter cap on today.

I don't believe you understand what's being said he I claim that if
none of the cronies can tell me what the flaws in your review attempt
are they must think it to be flawless.

"They don't have a word for what you are."

MiNE 109 wrote:
In article , trotsky
wrote:


MiNE 109 wrote:

In article , trotsky wrote:



MiNE 109 wrote:


In article , trotsky wrote:




Again, you are just another one of the
ones suffering from arrested development and unable to ascribe blame in
more than one direction. Notice how nobody has a counter argument every
time I bring this up?


That's because it's nonsense,


Really?


Really.



Are you claiming you and your cronies blame each other for poor
behavior as needed?


No. Your argument had two parts: arrested development and inability to
ascribe blame in more than one direction.


No, the latter is a symptom of the former.


See below.


You've made no case for the former


No case. Your argument fails.


and as for the latter, I had no trouble "ascribing blame" to
Howard when he made a mockery of his journalistic responsibilities.


Of course you did.


The second part of your argument fails.


Did you ascribe blame with the incestual and
necrophilia references that George and the "Devil" proffered? Those are
far worse than any of Howard's transgressions.


No, but I explained myself to Arny on the subject. He seems to enjoy
mistreatment because it gives his "debate trade" points.


Or is the cronies' behavior as flawless as dave's
reviewing attempt.

Face it, cheesy, your doing a little dance I will now call the bull****
dance.


Listen everyone: Tinky-Winky's singing his Loud Song again.


Answer the question if you have the guts, you effete, lying son of a bitch.


Or you'll call me names? Okay: their behaviour is not as flawless as
dave's reviewing attempt.

I'm sorry to insist Stephen, but this was *my* round. Please send me the
bill. ;-)

It is amazing that you haven't figured out that in the process you've
hopelessly destroyed your reputation for rational thought and maturity.

As if your opinion about me matters.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message

It is amazing that you haven't figured out that in the process you've
hopelessly destroyed your reputation for rational thought and
maturity.

As if your opinion about me matters.

It matters enough for you to spend so much money you can't admit the exact
amount in public, to try to sue me over it.

LOL!

MiNE 109 wrote:
In article , trotsky wrote:


MiNE 109 wrote:

In article , trotsky wrote:



MiNE 109 wrote:


In article , trotsky wrote:




Again, you are just another one of the
ones suffering from arrested development and unable to ascribe blame in
more than one direction. Notice how nobody has a counter argument every
time I bring this up?


That's because it's nonsense,


Really?


Really.



Are you claiming you and your cronies blame each other for poor
behavior as needed?


No. Your argument had two parts: arrested development and inability to
ascribe blame in more than one direction.


No, the latter is a symptom of the former.


See below.


You've made no case for the former


No case. Your argument fails.


Would that were true for your sake, McElroy! You weak-minded, simpering
jackasses are always looking for the easy way out.



and as for the latter, I had no trouble "ascribing blame" to
Howard when he made a mockery of his journalistic responsibilities.


Of course you did.


The second part of your argument fails.


More cheesin' out.


Did you ascribe blame with the incestual and
necrophilia references that George and the "Devil" proffered? Those are
far worse than any of Howard's transgressions.


No, but I explained myself to Arny on the subject. He seems to enjoy
mistreatment because it gives his "debate trade" points.


And do I enjoy the mistreatment too, McElroy? Which family member have
you ****ed up the ass lately? Talk about failing arguments. Everything
you've got is an excuse.


Or is the cronies' behavior as flawless as dave's
reviewing attempt.

Face it, cheesy, your doing a little dance I will now call the bull****
dance.


Listen everyone: Tinky-Winky's singing his Loud Song again.


Answer the question if you have the guts, you effete, lying son of a bitch.


Or you'll call me names? Okay: their behaviour is not as flawless as
dave's reviewing attempt.


More excuses. Here, I'll give an easy one: list the three biggest
failings you found in dave's reviewing attempt. Take as much time as
you need.

Gregipus Abstainicus misses Jocasta.

list the three biggest failings you found in dave's reviewing attempt.

Here are mine:

1. dave assumed you were sincere in your stated desire to hear his
opinions.

2. He used many sentences rather than the single one you prefer, i.e.
"These are the best goddamned speakers ever made!"

3. He did not fully investigate the possibility of getting the
speakers to catch fire.

In article , trotsky
wrote:

MiNE 109 wrote:
In article , trotsky wrote:


MiNE 109 wrote:

In article , trotsky
wrote:



MiNE 109 wrote:


In article , trotsky
wrote:




Again, you are just another one of the
ones suffering from arrested development and unable to ascribe blame in
more than one direction. Notice how nobody has a counter argument
every
time I bring this up?


That's because it's nonsense,


Really?


Really.



Are you claiming you and your cronies blame each other for poor
behavior as needed?


No. Your argument had two parts: arrested development and inability to
ascribe blame in more than one direction.


No, the latter is a symptom of the former.


See below.


You've made no case for the former


No case. Your argument fails.


Would that were true for your sake, McElroy! You weak-minded, simpering
jackasses are always looking for the easy way out.

Empty name-calling. You haven't made a case, or do you think assertion
equals proof?

and as for the latter, I had no trouble "ascribing blame" to
Howard when he made a mockery of his journalistic responsibilities.


Of course you did.


The second part of your argument fails.


More cheesin' out.

If by "cheesin' out" you mean responding to the argument directly with
evidence to the contrary, then yes.

Did you ascribe blame with the incestual and
necrophilia references that George and the "Devil" proffered? Those are
far worse than any of Howard's transgressions.


No, but I explained myself to Arny on the subject. He seems to enjoy
mistreatment because it gives his "debate trade" points.


And do I enjoy the mistreatment too, McElroy? Which family member have
you ****ed up the ass lately? Talk about failing arguments. Everything
you've got is an excuse.

I do think you enjoy the mistreatment. You feel strangely alive when yer
(try that spelling from now on) spewing the hate.

Or is the cronies' behavior as flawless as dave's
reviewing attempt.

Face it, cheesy, your doing a little dance I will now call the bull****
dance.


Listen everyone: Tinky-Winky's singing his Loud Song again.


Answer the question if you have the guts, you effete, lying son of a bitch.


Or you'll call me names? Okay: their behaviour is not as flawless as
dave's reviewing attempt.


More excuses.

Oh, so there wasn't a right answer. How does this encourage people to
answer yer questions?

Here, I'll give an easy one: list the three biggest
failings you found in dave's reviewing attempt. Take as much time as
you need.

How would I know? I haven't heard the speakers.

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 22:57:21 GMT, trotsky wrote
the following:



Guilty Bystander wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 20:43:06 GMT, trotsky wrote
the following:


Who wants to know, sockpuppet? Can you be more hypocritical as to

ask a

question of identity?



Can you be more inept at proper grammatical structure of your
website?


So you can't answer the question. That was a bit predictable.

So you've accepted that your inept. That was totally predictable.

MiNE 109 wrote:
In article , trotsky wrote:


Here, I'll give an easy one: list the three biggest
failings you found in dave's reviewing attempt. Take as much time as
you need.


How would I know? I haven't heard the speakers.


Stephen, I think you just ****ed yourself. (Are you now smoking a
cigarette?) By your logic, if you haven't heard an audio product in
question, it is impossible to make a value judgement between, say, John
Atkinson and Peter Aczel as to who's written the better review. I can't
say that Atkinson is my favorite reviewer, but even if he were in the
advanced stages of Alheimer's he would still be light years ahead of Aczel.

So, that said, are you sure you don't want to revise your bull**** story?

In article , trotsky
wrote:

MiNE 109 wrote:
In article , trotsky wrote:


Here, I'll give an easy one: list the three biggest
failings you found in dave's reviewing attempt. Take as much time as
you need.


How would I know? I haven't heard the speakers.


Stephen, I think you just ****ed yourself. (Are you now smoking a
cigarette?) By your logic, if you haven't heard an audio product in
question, it is impossible to make a value judgement between, say, John
Atkinson and Peter Aczel as to who's written the better review. I can't
say that Atkinson is my favorite reviewer, but even if he were in the
advanced stages of Alheimer's he would still be light years ahead of Aczel.
So, that said, are you sure you don't want to revise your bull**** story?

Speaking of pretzel logic, in yer example one would compare Atkinson and
Aczel to *each other*. In dave's case, I would need another
disinterested opinion with which to compare. Yers doesn't count.

Okay, biggest failings:

1. Incomplete. Well, that wasn't his fault. While I don't think I was
alone in wondering how long it would take you to dispute his findings, I
did think you'd let him finish first.

2. Recordings. I don't happen to have any of the music he used, so that
didn't help me as much as familiar music would have. Maybe reviewers
should be restricted to "Buena Vista Social Club" "Brother, Where Art
Thou?" and "Casino Royale".

3. Weather reports. What was the relative humidity? What's the altitude
of Nashville? (Stereophile was always going on about Santa Fe's.)

4. Goofy sidekicks. Doesn't he have any accented visitors or
foreign-born roommates? A dry laugh, modern furniture or an old Swedish
car?

5. Set-up. Most reviewers enjoy a visit from the manufacturer, usually
with scotch, cigars, and "ancillary equipment" for permanent loan. dw
was at sea; he could have put those speaks anywhere.

6. Form. Most reviewers begin by paraphrasing the manufacturers'
brochure.

That's more than three, so there.

MiNE 109 wrote:

In article , trotsky
wrote:


MiNE 109 wrote:

In article , trotsky wrote:


Here, I'll give an easy one: list the three biggest
failings you found in dave's reviewing attempt. Take as much time as
you need.


How would I know? I haven't heard the speakers.


Stephen, I think you just ****ed yourself. (Are you now smoking a
cigarette?) By your logic, if you haven't heard an audio product in
question, it is impossible to make a value judgement between, say, John
Atkinson and Peter Aczel as to who's written the better review. I can't
say that Atkinson is my favorite reviewer, but even if he were in the
advanced stages of Alheimer's he would still be light years ahead of Aczel.
So, that said, are you sure you don't want to revise your bull**** story?


Speaking of pretzel logic, in yer example one would compare Atkinson and
Aczel to *each other*. In dave's case, I would need another
disinterested opinion with which to compare. Yers doesn't count.

Okay, biggest failings:

1. Incomplete. Well, that wasn't his fault. While I don't think I was
alone in wondering how long it would take you to dispute his findings, I
did think you'd let him finish first.

2. Recordings. I don't happen to have any of the music he used, so that
didn't help me as much as familiar music would have. Maybe reviewers
should be restricted to "Buena Vista Social Club" "Brother, Where Art
Thou?" and "Casino Royale".

3. Weather reports. What was the relative humidity? What's the altitude
of Nashville? (Stereophile was always going on about Santa Fe's.)


"Black Market" is surely a good music to test a audio system, "Pretzel
Logic" also but 4-5 steps below.


4. Goofy sidekicks. Doesn't he have any accented visitors or
foreign-born roommates? A dry laugh, modern furniture or an old Swedish
car?

5. Set-up. Most reviewers enjoy a visit from the manufacturer, usually
with scotch, cigars, and "ancillary equipment" for permanent loan. dw
was at sea; he could have put those speaks anywhere.

6. Form. Most reviewers begin by paraphrasing the manufacturers'
brochure.

That's more than three, so there.