In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
(John Atkinson) wrote:

In message
Arny Krueger ) wrote:
In the past Arny Krueger has refused to substantiate a large
number of offensive accusations he has made of me. For example, he
has accused me of sending him child pornography; of encouraging
people to make fun of the tragic death of his son Nate; of
defaulting on a $150 payment he claims I owe him; and on and on.
In every case, Mr. Krueger has refused either to provide
substantiation or to withdraw the accusations when he was unable
to do so.

I'd like to see Mr. Atkinson document each of these claims.

Sigh. Thus Mr. Krueger gives the roundabout another spin, on the
assumption that no-one knows how to use the groups.google.com search
engine.

He probably gets a kick out of generating activity at his request.
After all, *he* knows he did all those things.

I suppose he'll claim "I'd like to see" as weasel words because the
phrase isn't a literal denial.

Since I posted my reply to Atkinson about a half hour before you posted
this, your post looks even more like groveling and stupidity, Stephen.

So, did you?

Stephen

Lionel wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote
John Atkinson wrote




And as I have also pointed out, as by your own admission you have not
actually _read_ the article in the January 1986 issue of Hi-Fi News in
which the results were presented, any specific comments you make
regarding those results are suspect.

I seem to recall that in middle-late 2002 someone provided me with a copy
of it, and I read it. It may have been earlier, but it was no later than
this. I don't remember too much about it because it was quite obviously
********.


"Obviously ********"? Okay, Mr. Krueger, I know Tom Nousaine has a copy
of this article. But without any help from Tom and without him sending
you _his_ copy, what was the number of identifications of absolute
polarity out of how many attempts listed at the foot of the first column
on the second page?



Since you are requesting evidences please don't forget to supply us with
the evidence of Mr Krueger manipulation on his web site by the begining
of January.

Supply the evidence? You're a silly clown Lionel. The evidence being
requested upon your heartthrob was in demand to substantiate the claim he
made wrt to the "article" being ******** which, btw, remain elusive to this
point...


Don't forget that you said that you have a copy of the original screen
on your hard disk...

As usual, feel free to ignore this request.

.... yet here you are, attempting to compare this dissimilar, irrelevant
position to forcefully push an argument to press for consistency. This
is not a reasonable request and there's no logical reason to comply
unless you hero provide evidence to substatntiate his claim when he said
that the said article was "********."

If you wish to press for consistency, you must oblige and follow the
Question-Answer rules in an open dialogue.

ScottW wrote:
John Atkinson wrote
Lionel wrote
John Atkinson wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote




I seem to recall that in middle-late 2002 someone provided me with a
copy of it, and I read it. It may have been earlier, but it was no
later than this. I don't remember too much about it because it was
quite obviously ********.

"Obviously ********"? Okay, Mr. Krueger, I know Tom Nousaine has a copy
of this article. But without any help from Tom and without him sending
you _his_ copy, what was the number of identifications of absolute
polarity out of how many attempts listed at the foot of the first column
on the second page?

Since you are requesting evidences please don't forget to supply us
with the evidence of Mr Krueger manipulation on his web site by the
begining of January.

Hi Lionel, it seems like a reasonable request for you to make. And
I have no logical reason not to comply. But Lionel, if you insist
(correctly) to demand proof of what they say from people like me,
aren't you obliged also to demand the same of Mr. Krueger.




No, he isn't.

You're wrong about that.

Unless your standards are no higher than Arny's.

You might as well add Lionel' in there.


Is that the case here John? You choose to set
your standards based upon the actions of Arny?


You too are engaging in a distraction using Arny's lack of personal
standard as a "false analogy" in comparing dissimilar attribute to
forcefully press for consistency. But more than that, you are
grotesquely attempting to shift the burden of reply in order to
accuse an opposer of failing to be consistent.

Further, you puckishly uses the mechanism of circumstantial argument
which is: failure to elevate oneself from arny's lack of standard--
just so you can shift the burden of reply (proof) towards the
opposition.

Shame on you.



Pathetic crap people use to rationalize their own behavior.

Hahah, swing away man.

Admit you stepped into the swamp and Lionel called you on it.

Admit that you step into a swamp and a clown trick you to it.


Not a big deal, we've all made mistakes.
But rationalizing a mistake will not lead you from the swamp,
you will become the swamp.


Rationalizing a mistake? Care to elaborate?


In the past
Arny Krueger has refused to substantiate a large number of offensive
accusations he has made of me. For example, he has accused me of
sending him child pornography; of encouraging people to make fun
of the tragic death of his son Nate; of defaulting on a $150
payment he claims I owe him; and on and on. In every case, Mr.
Krueger has refused either to provide substantiation or to withdraw
the accusations when he was unable to do so. He has even claimed that
his word that such things happened should be sufficient, that he is
_not_ obliged to provide proof. For example, see message
om where Mr.
Krueger wrote: "I believe I've said that I will respond...or not in
accordance with my own personal wishes. If I haven't said it before,
this statement should suffice."


Yeah, yeah, yeah, Arny's a ****head? What's your excuse?


You want an excuse for wanting to level the playing field?

No, no, it's you. What's your excuse?


So, when Mr. Krueger either supplies proof for or withdraws these
offensive and untrue accusations he has publicly made of me, then and only
then will I consider sending you, for example, a screenshot supporting
what I wrote about Mr. Krueger's jitter measurements.

Arny isn't the only one reading your posts you know.
Have you no concern about your own credibility?


This is Krooglish, and therefore rejected.


You appear to be at a crossroads here. Will you choose
to hold yourself to a higher standard or will you let the abhorrent
actions of Arny beget the same from you?


Are you saying that one must be held accountable for Arny's abhorrent
lack of standard?


ScottW

JBorg a écrit :

Lionel wrote:

John Atkinson wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote

John Atkinson wrote




And as I have also pointed out, as by your own admission you have not
actually _read_ the article in the January 1986 issue of Hi-Fi News in
which the results were presented, any specific comments you make
regarding those results are suspect.

I seem to recall that in middle-late 2002 someone provided me with a copy
of it, and I read it. It may have been earlier, but it was no later than
this. I don't remember too much about it because it was quite obviously
********.


"Obviously ********"? Okay, Mr. Krueger, I know Tom Nousaine has a copy
of this article. But without any help from Tom and without him sending
you _his_ copy, what was the number of identifications of absolute
polarity out of how many attempts listed at the foot of the first column
on the second page?



Since you are requesting evidences please don't forget to supply us with
the evidence of Mr Krueger manipulation on his web site by the begining
of January.


Supply the evidence? You're a silly clown Lionel.

Yes you're right. ;-)
Is the dialogue open now ?

JBorg a écrit :

Supply the evidence? You're a silly clown Lionel.

Yes you're right.
Is the dialogue open now ? ;-)

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
. com
In message
Arny Krueger ) wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote:
In message ,
Arny Krueger ) wrote:
Considering for example the fact that [John Atkinson] couldn't
find my PCAVTech web site last New Year's Eve, you have very
little to complain about.

I never wrote that I couldn't find his "PCAVTech website." That was
another poster, Stephen McElroy ("MINe 109") in message
. I
never had problems accessing Mr. Krueger's website, complete with
its broken links and missing graphics. I _did_ have difficulty
accessing two specific pages on that website.

This has all been explained to Atkinson recently and he chooses not
to believe the explanations.

You miss the point Mr. Krueger. You wrote that I "couldn't find [your]
PCAVTech web site last New Year's Eve." I never said I couldn't find
the site. That was someone else. As I wrote to "Lionel," you can't
even admit you were wrong even when it was something as trivial as
this.

Sure I can. I was wrong when I said you couldn't find my entire web
site, except I didn't say that you couldn't find my entire web site.

Sigh. Thus Arny Krueger caps yet another waste of my time arguing, not
with me but with himself!

I point out that he was incorrect to state that I couldn't find his
"PCAVTech website" and that even in such an inconsequential matter as
this he was unable to admit his error.

Arny Krueger responds by saying that "sure" he would admit his error,
_except_ that he didn't say that I couldn't find his "entire web site"
even though his exact text is quoted immediately above my own
statement: "[John Atkinson] couldn't find my PCAVTech web site last New
Year's Eve..."

Go on, Mr. Krueger. Admit you were wrong, with no "ifs" and "buts."
Admit that you had confused me with Stephen McElroy. Or are you once
again going to retreat into the classic argument you expressed in
message .com:
"Had I said what I meant then I would be unquestionably correct."

Unfortunately, in this instance you didn't say what you meant, Mr.
Krueger. For you to continue to insist otherwise, by pretending that
"entire website" means something different from the unmodified word
"website" is simply more evidence that, as an audio engineer expressed
to me at the recent CES, "Arny Krueger is simply insane."

And you still haven't worked out why the table on your website doesn't
say what you think it says. Here's a clue: You toss a coin 20 times
and get 19 heads and 1 tail. Your table claims that result is 99.9%
due to chance. Is the table correct, or it it, in your famous words,
"lying to you." :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

On 19 Jan 2004 07:18:40 -0800, (John
Atkinson) wrote:

Arny Krueger responds by saying that "sure" he would admit his error,
_except_ that he didn't say that I couldn't find his "entire web site"
even though his exact text is quoted immediately above my own
statement: "[John Atkinson] couldn't find my PCAVTech web site last New
Year's Eve..."

I think he's still hung over from the "downers" party that he went to
this weekend. Maybe he needs to check himself in to rehab.

dave weil said:

Arny Krueger responds by saying that "sure" he would admit his error,
_except_ that he didn't say that I couldn't find his "entire web site"
even though his exact text is quoted immediately above my own
statement: "[John Atkinson] couldn't find my PCAVTech web site last New
Year's Eve..."

I think he's still hung over from the "downers" party that he went to
this weekend. Maybe he needs to check himself in to rehab.

Is there a treatment for malfunctioning nanites? ;-)

PD said to ****-for-Brains:

Why do you persist in erroneously referring to Mr Wheeler as a
"sockpuppet"?

I think it's part of Krooger's therapy.

"Le Artiste" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" emitted :

"S888Wheel" wrote in message

I'll see if I can find a disk that I can sacrifice. Do you see why
this would be counterintuitive though? If the velocity is constant
but the distance travelled (sic) is reduced, it seems that the time
between tics would also be reduced. What am I missing?

The velocity speed is constant.

You must have lied about the three semesters of Physics sockpuppet

Why do you persist in erroneously referring to Mr Wheeler as a
"sockpuppet"?


Because he has delusions that a sockpuppet can't sue him for $25,000.




----== 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 =---