On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 12:08:09 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

My oddly-formed ego rebels against people who deceptively edit posts to
support their agenda.

You mean like *you* routinely do?

Just curious.

Take a look in the mirror (or maybe on your RAO neighbor's lawn).

On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 17:21:54 GMT, MiNE 109
wrote:

In article ,
dave weil wrote:

Let's see you admit that you intentially edited Scott's
post to deceive the readership of RAO.

I didn't edit his second comment out to deceive anyone.

Arny's playing the "deceptive editing" card lately. Too bad he doesn't
back it up by showing what difference the editing makes.

I think it's hilarious actually. I could tell him that the sky was
blue and he'd post at 3am just to prove me wrong.

I love it when he dances to my tune. The funny thing is, if he could
just bring himself to say the words, "Yes Weil I was wrong", he
wouldn't get all of the ****. But the words choke him up, don't they?

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...
"dave weil" wrote in message
Let's hear your detailed argument to support your claim, Weil. I
haven't seen any of your pretzel logic for at least a day...

LOL!

OK, you asked:

So Scotty, are you the pervert who did the Jamie Benchimol shtick?

He answered:

No.

You're lying Weil. Let's see you admit that you intentially edited Scott's
post to deceive the readership of RAO.

If anyone needs anymore proof of Arnolds insanity, I don't know what it could be.

ScottW

In article ,
dave weil wrote:

On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 17:21:54 GMT, MiNE 109
wrote:

In article ,
dave weil wrote:

Let's see you admit that you intentially edited Scott's
post to deceive the readership of RAO.

I didn't edit his second comment out to deceive anyone.

Arny's playing the "deceptive editing" card lately. Too bad he doesn't
back it up by showing what difference the editing makes.

I think it's hilarious actually. I could tell him that the sky was
blue and he'd post at 3am just to prove me wrong.

I love it when he dances to my tune. The funny thing is, if he could
just bring himself to say the words, "Yes Weil I was wrong", he
wouldn't get all of the ****. But the words choke him up, don't they?

Evidently.

I think my recent "deceptive editing" actually improved his
communication by eliminating a tangent.

Stephen

"MiNE 109" wrote in message

In article ,
dave weil wrote:

Let's see you admit that you intentionally edited Scott's
post to deceive the readership of RAO.

I didn't edit his second comment out to deceive anyone.

Arny's playing the "deceptive editing" card lately. Too bad he doesn't
back it up by showing what difference the editing makes.


Stephen, when you Dormer, Middius, and Weil do it, it's so sloppy and
obvious that it's self-evident.

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

So Scotty, are you the pervert who did the Jamie Benchimol schtick?


I like Scott, and, as you know, he is my friend, but I don't think he has
the
imagination necessary to pull it off.

Nor the stamina. I've nowhere near sufficient time to compose those
multi-page rants. I couldn't even find time to read 'em.


But I admire your paranoia.

There is no purpose in attempting to communicate with Arnold. The guy
has sunk to the point of being unable to comprehend "no" as a response
to a question, he must be one step from the Alzheimers care center.

ScottW

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 13:43:54 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"MiNE 109" wrote in message

In article ,
dave weil wrote:

Let's see you admit that you intentionally edited Scott's
post to deceive the readership of RAO.

I didn't edit his second comment out to deceive anyone.

Arny's playing the "deceptive editing" card lately. Too bad he doesn't
back it up by showing what difference the editing makes.


Stephen, when you Dormer, Middius, and Weil do it, it's so sloppy and
obvious that it's self-evident.

Only to you - not the rest of the known universe.

Keep spinning Arnold - you're just providing proof of your profound
shiftlessness.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNE 109" wrote in message

In article ,
dave weil wrote:

Let's see you admit that you intentionally edited Scott's
post to deceive the readership of RAO.

I didn't edit his second comment out to deceive anyone.

Arny's playing the "deceptive editing" card lately. Too bad he doesn't
back it up by showing what difference the editing makes.


Stephen, when you Dormer, Middius, and Weil do it, it's so sloppy and
obvious that it's self-evident.

Nope.

dave weil wrote in message . ..
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 12:08:09 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

It was
irrelevant to the fact that he answered your question with a simple
"no".

There was no simple "no". There was a sentence, that clearly modified the
meaning of the no to the point where in my judgement, there was no longer a
clear answer to the question at hand.

How do you figure? The two things are independent of each other. He
said that he didn't and then he asked you a separate question, which
*you* didn't bother to answer directly. It didn't modify the "no" one
iota.

Since I authored the sentence in question, I am the ultimate
authority on its meaning and the authors intent.

Dave is right, Arny is wrong. End of story.


You'll do *anything* to avoid admitting to me that you were just
wrong, won't you, Arnold?

Including going stark raving mad just so he has the "insanity plea"
available if he really needs it.

ScottW

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"MiNE 109" wrote in message

In article ,
dave weil wrote:

Let's see you admit that you intentionally edited Scott's
post to deceive the readership of RAO.

I didn't edit his second comment out to deceive anyone.

Arny's playing the "deceptive editing" card lately. Too bad he doesn't
back it up by showing what difference the editing makes.


Stephen, when you Dormer, Middius, and Weil do it, it's so sloppy and
obvious that it's self-evident.


Well, let see if there was "deceptive editing". Here's the actual post:

Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

So Scotty, are you the pervert who did the Jamie Benchimol schtick?

No, were you the dumb **** calling my house asking if Jamie was here?

ScottW


I'll leave it to others to decide whose characterization of the editing is
correct.

Phil

MiNE 109 said:

Arny's playing the "deceptive editing" card lately. Too bad he doesn't
back it up by showing what difference the editing makes.

Stephen, when you Dormer, Middius, and Weil do it, it's so sloppy and
obvious that it's self-evident.

Nope.

As usual, poor demented Krooger can't tell the difference between
mockery and an actual attempt to fool him.