[Clyde Slick]

On 9 Sep, 07:35, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

The July 4 reference to your supposed insanity was
actually *by "Sssh," not me.

You both posted in that thread, and your posts were related.


Arnie, you are an asshole and a mother ****er.
Now, we both posted in the same thread, and
our posts are related. You now bear responsibility
for what I said; in essence,
you callled yourself an asshole and a mother ****er.
the miracles of Kroologic!!!!

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,

"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Take a person who is overwhelmed with hysteria, and
mouths pre-programmed sayings from various high end
ragazines and authors. Obviously, this person is out of
touch with their real perceptions. A person with insight
to the situation may better understand that person's
unhinged perceptions better than that person themselves.

Here you show a lack of even basic understanding of
perception. A person can't be "out of touch with their
real perceptions".

Here Jenn denies the existence of illusions.

Their perception is their perception.

Here Jenn asserts that a given set of stimuli can cause only one response.

Then, it seems that a light dawns, and she admits that other, better founded
perceptions might be possible.

Their perception may be misguided, against the norm,
influenced by confounding factors, etc. but it is STILL
their perception.

I never said it wasn't. What I was trying to communicate is that were the
poor guidance and confounding factors removed, that different perceptions
would result. I called those unconfounded, properly guided perceptions "true
perceptions".

But Jenn, in her typical hysterical rush to judgment, starts mouthing off
with cheap accusations like:

"Here you show a lack of even basic understanding of perception."

Kind of you Jenn to so quickly contradict yourself.

Your post nets out to a logical zero, so there's no need to address its
content, other than to observe that it cancelled itself out.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 9, 3:11*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message



In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:
Take a person who is overwhelmed with hysteria, and
mouths pre-programmed sayings from various high end
ragazines and authors. *Obviously, this person is out of
touch with their real perceptions. A person with insight
to the situation may better understand that person's
unhinged perceptions better than that person themselves.
Here you show a lack of even basic understanding of
perception. *A person can't be "out of touch with their
real perceptions".

Here Jenn denies the existence of illusions.

No, GOIA, here Jenn states that a person who sees an oasis in the
desert sees an oasis in the desert.

Are you really this dense, or is your insanity at work again?

Their perception is their perception.

Here Jenn asserts that a given set of stimuli can cause only one response..

The Debating Trade. Don't try this at home, kids! GOIA is a trained
perfeshunnel!

Then, it seems that a light dawns, and she admits that other, better founded
perceptions might be possible.

GOIA is getting a woody.

Their perception may be misguided, against the norm,
influenced by confounding factors, etc. but it is STILL
their perception.

I never said it wasn't. What I was trying to communicate is that were the
poor guidance and confounding factors removed, that different perceptions
would result. I called those unconfounded, properly guided perceptions "true
perceptions".

They are no more true than any other perception, GOIA. Jenn's point
that a perception is a perception is valid. It's axiomatic, in fact.

But Jenn, in her typical hysterical rush to judgment, *starts mouthing off
with cheap accusations like:

"Here you show a lack of even basic understanding of perception."

Kind of you Jenn to so quickly contradict yourself.

Your post nets out to a logical zero, so there's no need to address its
content, other than to observe that it cancelled itself out.

Your wiring requires rerouting, GOIA.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,

"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Take a person who is overwhelmed with hysteria, and
mouths pre-programmed sayings from various high end
ragazines and authors. Obviously, this person is out of
touch with their real perceptions. A person with insight
to the situation may better understand that person's
unhinged perceptions better than that person themselves.

Here you show a lack of even basic understanding of
perception. A person can't be "out of touch with their
real perceptions".

Here Jenn denies the existence of illusions.

Incorrect, Arny. Whether or not one's perception is an illusion, it is
still their perception.


Their perception is their perception.

Here Jenn asserts that a given set of stimuli can cause only one response.

Incorrect, Arny. A person's response to a given stimulus at any given
moment IS that person's perception.


Then, it seems that a light dawns, and she admits that other, better founded
perceptions might be possible.

Incorrect, Arny.

Their perception may be misguided, against the norm,
influenced by confounding factors, etc. but it is STILL
their perception.

I never said it wasn't. What I was trying to communicate is that were the
poor guidance and confounding factors removed, that different perceptions
would result. I called those unconfounded, properly guided perceptions "true
perceptions".

Incorrect, Arny. It has NOTHING to do with correct or incorrect. If
you look across your living room and see a pink elephant, that IS your
perception, whether the elephant is there or not.


But Jenn, in her typical hysterical rush to judgment, starts mouthing off
with cheap accusations like:

"Here you show a lack of even basic understanding of perception."

That's because you do, clearly.


Kind of you Jenn to so quickly contradict yourself.

Your post nets out to a logical zero, so there's no need to address its
content, other than to observe that it cancelled itself out.

Finally, you are correct: there is no need for you to address the
content because you are incorrect on each count. One can't be "out of
touch with their real perceptions".

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Sep 9, 3:01*pm, Jenn wrote:

Finally, you are correct: there is no need for you to address the
content because you are incorrect on each count. *One can't be "out of
touch with their real perceptions".

Most people can't, at least not without drinking a lot.
Sssshhhh and George may be exceptions.
But a person's perception can be out of touch with reality.
It's called delusional.

ScottW

Of course.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Sep 9, 3:13*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW wrote:
On Sep 9, 3:01*pm, Jenn wrote:

Finally, you are correct: there is no need for you to address the
content because you are incorrect on each count. *One can't be "out of
touch with their real perceptions".

Most people can't, at least not without drinking a lot.
Sssshhhh and George may be exceptions.
But a person's perception can be out of touch with reality.
It's called delusional.

ScottW

Of course.

So would you rather be drunk or delusional?

ScottW

C.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Sep 9, 3:16*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,





*ScottW wrote:
On Sep 9, 3:13*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW wrote:
On Sep 9, 3:01*pm, Jenn wrote:

Finally, you are correct: there is no need for you to address the
content because you are incorrect on each count. *One can't be "out
of
touch with their real perceptions".

Most people can't, at least not without drinking a lot.
Sssshhhh and George may be exceptions.
But a person's perception can be out of touch with reality.
It's called delusional.

ScottW

Of course.

So would you rather be drunk or delusional?

ScottW

C.

Try sleeping that one off.

ScottW

There's no "none of the above"?

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Sep 9, 3:27*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,





*ScottW wrote:
On Sep 9, 3:16*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW wrote:
On Sep 9, 3:13*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW wrote:
On Sep 9, 3:01*pm, Jenn wrote:

Finally, you are correct: there is no need for you to address
the
content because you are incorrect on each count. *One can't be
"out
of
touch with their real perceptions".

Most people can't, at least not without drinking a lot.
Sssshhhh and George may be exceptions.
But a person's perception can be out of touch with reality.
It's called delusional.

ScottW

Of course.

So would you rather be drunk or delusional?

ScottW

C.

* Try sleeping that one off.

ScottW

There's no "none of the above"?

Sure, if you're a corpse, otherwise you must have
a preference.

ScottW

Lack of experience is the problem. As far as I know, I'm not
delusional, and I haven't been drunk since 1990.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Jenn said:

Lack of experience is the problem. As far as I know, I'm not
delusional, and I haven't been drunk since 1990.

Not even a little? That must have been a hell of a bender.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 9, 5:11*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Sep 9, 3:01*pm, Jenn wrote:



Finally, you are correct: there is no need for you to address the
content because you are incorrect on each count. *One can't be "out of
touch with their real perceptions".

Most people can't, at least not without drinking a lot.
Sssshhhh and George may be exceptions.

Nice one, 2pid! Who says you don't have a sense of humor?

LoL.

But a person's perception can be out of touch with reality.
It's called delusional.

Even if deluded, their perception is still their perception.

For example, you claim to "not be a christian" yet you defend that
religion frequently. Maybe that's because of all the "love" you get at
christmas.

You also appear to think that you're smart.

Both are delusions. LoL.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Sep 9, 3:57*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,





*ScottW wrote:
On Sep 9, 3:27*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW wrote:
On Sep 9, 3:16*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW wrote:
On Sep 9, 3:13*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article

om,

*ScottW wrote:
On Sep 9, 3:01*pm, Jenn
wrote:

Finally, you are correct: there is no need for you to
address
the
content because you are incorrect on each count. *One can't
be
"out
of
touch with their real perceptions".

Most people can't, at least not without drinking a lot.
Sssshhhh and George may be exceptions.
But a person's perception can be out of touch with reality.
It's called delusional.

ScottW

Of course.

So would you rather be drunk or delusional?

ScottW

C.

* Try sleeping that one off.

ScottW

There's no "none of the above"?

*Sure, if you're a corpse, otherwise you must have
a preference.

ScottW

Lack of experience is the problem. *As far as I know, I'm not
delusional,

Delusional people are always the last to know.

Of course.


and I haven't been drunk since 1990.

What was the occasion?

Lost track of how much wine I was drinking at a fund raiser for the
Oregon Symphony.

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Sep 9, 7:35 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in message

On Sep 8, 4:45 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in message

You said that I have "long held" that you are "insane,"
Mr. Krueger...This is not correct.

Are you saying that ****R doesn't believe that I'm
insane?

He has stated many times that he does. But that has
nothing to do with me.

Maybe yes, maybe no.

Definitely no. You do yourself no favors when you
start hinting at conspiracies, Mr. Krueger.

Certainly, your many suggests that I may be insane...

There were not "many." As you are well aware, Mr.
Krueger, having apparently stored it on your hard
drive,there was a post back in July 2002 in which
I conjectured that you were insane. This post
didn't come out of a vacuum; the disconnect
between what you were saying and reaiity was
so large that your being insane was a possible
explanation.

... were part of his mindset before he started his
current campaign of libel and character assassination.

Except that "Sssh" wasn't posting to r.a.o. back in
2002.

As I said, he is not me, neither does he speak for me.

No John...

At least you now admit the obvious, Mr. Krueger, whereas
yesterday you seemed to be implying the opposite. :-)

but when it comes to repeated libels and character
assignation, he speaks like you.

Perhaps to a non-native English speaker like yourself,
Mr. Krueger.

I have made no statement about your purported insanity
since 2002, Mr. Krueger.

Well, other than on July 23 of this year, and an
indirect reference on July 4, and...

The reference I made on July 23 was to the same 2002
posting to which I have already referred in this thread.

Doesn't matter, John. Whether you repeat yourself or not,
every time you make a posting like that, you are libeling me.

I was asked a direct question about the subject, Mr.
Krueger. And in the context of your misleading statement,
that I have "long held" that you are "insane," my referring
to that July 2002 post in response to a question does not
support your case, Mr. Krueger. And nor have I "libeled"
you, please note.

The July 4 reference to your supposed insanity was
actually by "Sssh," not me.

You both posted in that thread, and your posts were related.

Right, He said you were insane; in response I offered
an alternative explanation for your behavior. By doing so,
it should be clear that I therefore disagreed with him
regarding your purported insanity.

As I said, we are two different people with different
opinions on this matter. I actually defended you in that
July 4 posting, Mr. Krueger, by conjecturing that a
possible reason for your inability to find a Web page for
which you had been given the URL was not insanity.
Instead, it could just have been your lack of familiarity
with browser programs.

Obviously the true explanation was beyond your ability to
correctly surmise, John.

Huh? Are you now saying that I was wrong, that you _are_
insane, Mr. Krueger?

You could have put an end to the whole affair by posting a URL...

I did. I also gave clear instructions on how to find the webpage
in question. Everyone else on this newsgroup had no problem
visiting the page yet you _still_ couldn't find it, even with the
URL. Hence my conjecture that you were not familiar with how
to use a Web browser. After all, you had already admitted
having problems using search engines.

John every time I troll you, you jump out of the water and bite at my hook.

Just put it down to my being an editor, wanting to correct
gross misstatements of the sort you post, Mr. Krueger. But
if you wish to be a self-admitted troll, I am certainly not
going to stop you.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 9, 10:03*am, Vinylanach wrote:
On Sep 9, 4:56 am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

Character assignation: the act of apportioning GOIA's 'character'.
Currently GOIA's 'character' is apportioned 65% ****ty, 15% hypocrite,
10% paranoid and 10% deluded.-

For the record, I think he's a 'tard.

I accept and embrace your differing POV and I promise not to oppress
it.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 9, 5:54*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Sep 9, 3:27*pm, Jenn wrote:

There's no "none of the above"?

*Sure, if you're a corpse, otherwise you must have
a preference.

There's that binary 'thinking' again.

Watch out, Clyde. It appears to be contagious.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 9, 7:04*pm, John Atkinson wrote:
On Sep 9, 7:35 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

... were part of his mindset before he started his
current campaign of libel and character assassination.

Except that "Sssh" wasn't posting to r.a.o. back in
2002.

When did you invent me again? I forget.