"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 18:24:42 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


In addition, you'll notice that art appreciation is but one part of a
larger development process. Just as important is time away from
stimulus. Alot of people's lives are constant overstimulation from
television, radio, traffic, and signs. I read on your site that you
listen to music 12 hrs a day. I've found that time alone with one's
thoughts can be just as enlightening as quality sensory input. My goal
is simply to reduce the noise and improve the quality of the signal.


I can't decide whether you are a bore or a boor.

And why does that conundrum raise its ugly head in your fevered brain,
Art?


If you get excited by Bruce's self indulgent
ramblings, so be it.

Andre,

I'll genuflect your way because I know you were a childhood genius, a war
hero, an award-winning radio announcer, a commander general of SWAPO, a
Nobel Laureate, Nelson Mandela's secret right-hand man, the winner of two
Pulitzers, designer extraordinaire of audio equipment, autos, and the Lear
Jet, Knighted by the Queen herself, etc. etc.

I know in your self-absorbed narcissistic reverie it might never occur to
you that there are forums that are geared to your brilliant and esoteric
opinions on DDT, the war in Iraq, Bohemians, etc. ad nauseam.

Rec.audio.tubes ain't one of them.

Your friend,

Jon

I have my own fartcatcher. It has been years since I last contributed
to a thread without the crooked garage trader and Atlanta rent-boy Jon
Yaeger, also know to the Atland PD as John and Jono, chiming in with
some irrelevant attack.

Hey, Bruce, when your opinions attract the reflex obliquy of the
slimier morons on the net, like Jon-John-Jono Yeager, you'll know you
have arrived, perhaps even with an opinion of your own rather than the
predigested designer brands of political correctness as believed by the
lowest common denominators that you call proles.

Andre Jute

Jon Yaeger wrote:
Andre,

I'll genuflect your way because I know you were a childhood genius, a war
hero, an award-winning radio announcer, a commander general of SWAPO, a
Nobel Laureate, Nelson Mandela's secret right-hand man, the winner of two
Pulitzers, designer extraordinaire of audio equipment, autos, and the Lear
Jet, Knighted by the Queen herself, etc. etc.

I know in your self-absorbed narcissistic reverie it might never occur to
you that there are forums that are geared to your brilliant and esoteric
opinions on DDT, the war in Iraq, Bohemians, etc. ad nauseam.

Rec.audio.tubes ain't one of them.

Your friend,

Jon

Andre Jute wrote:
I have my own fartcatcher. It has been years since I last contributed
to a thread without the crooked garage trader and Atlanta rent-boy Jon
Yaeger, also know to the Atland PD as John and Jono, chiming in with
some irrelevant attack.

Hey, Bruce, when your opinions attract the reflex obliquy of the
slimier morons on the net, like Jon-John-Jono Yeager, you'll know you
have arrived, perhaps even with an opinion of your own rather than the
predigested designer brands of political correctness as believed by the
lowest common denominators that you call proles.

Yes, because calling someone a "garage trader" or "rent-boy" is
completely different from calling them a proletariat.

Bruce C. Miller said:

Hey, Bruce, when your opinions attract the reflex obliquy of the
slimier morons on the net, like Jon-John-Jono Yeager, you'll know you
have arrived, perhaps even with an opinion of your own rather than the
predigested designer brands of political correctness as believed by the
lowest common denominators that you call proles.

Yes, because calling someone a "garage trader" or "rent-boy" is
completely different from calling them a proletariat.

The word is "proletarian", and it should be "him" rather than "them". As you
proceed with tuning up your tastes for material goods, you might consider
polishing your composition skills a tad.

George Middius wrote:
Bruce C. Miller said:

Hey, Bruce, when your opinions attract the reflex obliquy of the
slimier morons on the net, like Jon-John-Jono Yeager, you'll know you
have arrived, perhaps even with an opinion of your own rather than the
predigested designer brands of political correctness as believed by the
lowest common denominators that you call proles.

Yes, because calling someone a "garage trader" or "rent-boy" is
completely different from calling them a proletariat.

The word is "proletarian", and it should be "him" rather than "them". As you
proceed with tuning up your tastes for material goods, you might consider
polishing your composition skills a tad.

Thanks, officer.

BTW, since "someone" doesn't necessarily refer to anyone in particular,
"them" is considered an acceptable singular pronoun replacing "he or
she."

http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexper...utgrammar/they

On 5 Oct 2005 13:07:08 -0700, Bruce C. Miller wrote:

George Middius wrote:
Bruce C. Miller said:

Hey, Bruce, when your opinions attract the reflex obliquy of the
slimier morons on the net, like Jon-John-Jono Yeager, you'll know you
have arrived, perhaps even with an opinion of your own rather than the
predigested designer brands of political correctness as believed by the
lowest common denominators that you call proles.

Yes, because calling someone a "garage trader" or "rent-boy" is
completely different from calling them a proletariat.

The word is "proletarian", and it should be "him" rather than "them". As you
proceed with tuning up your tastes for material goods, you might consider
polishing your composition skills a tad.

Thanks, officer.

BTW, since "someone" doesn't necessarily refer to anyone in particular,
"them" is considered an acceptable singular pronoun replacing "he or
she."

http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexper...utgrammar/they

No. "They" could replace "he or she". "Them" would replace "him or her".

d

Bruce C. Miller said:

Yes, because calling someone a "garage trader" or "rent-boy" is
completely different from calling them a proletariat.

The word is "proletarian", and it should be "him" rather than "them". As you
proceed with tuning up your tastes for material goods, you might consider
polishing your composition skills a tad.

Thanks, officer.

BTW, since "someone" doesn't necessarily refer to anyone in particular,
"them" is considered an acceptable singular pronoun replacing "he or
she."

Not by anybody with a little bit of class.

Bruce C. Miller wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
I have my own fartcatcher. It has been years since I last contributed
to a thread without the crooked garage trader and Atlanta rent-boy Jon
Yaeger, also know to the Atland PD as John and Jono, chiming in with
some irrelevant attack.

Hey, Bruce, when your opinions attract the reflex obliquy of the
slimier morons on the net, like Jon-John-Jono Yeager, you'll know you
have arrived, perhaps even with an opinion of your own rather than the
predigested designer brands of political correctness as believed by the
lowest common denominators that you call proles.

Yes, because calling someone a "garage trader" or "rent-boy" is
completely different from calling them a proletariat.

I think we're having a misunderstanding about numbers here, Bruce. Jon
Yaeger is only one queer, also known as John and Jono, but still only
one queer, singular, and therefore a proletarian if only in the sense
that a proletarian is a workingman and Jono the rentboy is surely a
hardworking asshole.

In general, one proletarian plus another proletarian plus several more
proletarians make up a proletariat, a mob by any other name.

Proletariat is a technical word in communism, now not used in any
non-pejorative sense by anyone not on the fascist left, and rarely by
them. It is used by everyone else only as a sneer, as you did.

I don't even know that there are any proletarians today. It must be a
quarter-century since Frank Chappell, leader of Electrician's Union in
England, said, "How can I go to my members and say, Brother, let me
raise you out of your misery, when all they want to talk about is
whether it is safe to leave the speedboat at the marina near the
holiday home in Marbella." (That's in Spain and you should check the
pronunciation before you make a fool of yourself.)

I think the other rent-boys on the river might ostracize Jono if they
think he is proletarian; well, maybe not, if he is rough trade (I don't
really know; he attached himself to me like a lost puppy; I ask no
questions for fear of what the answers might be).

Andre Jute

I see now that you and George have sorted the kid. I coulda saved my
breath. Thanks Don, George. -- Andre Jute

Don Pearce wrote:
On 5 Oct 2005 13:07:08 -0700, Bruce C. Miller wrote:

George Middius wrote:
Bruce C. Miller said:

Hey, Bruce, when your opinions attract the reflex obliquy of the
slimier morons on the net, like Jon-John-Jono Yeager, you'll know you
have arrived, perhaps even with an opinion of your own rather than the
predigested designer brands of political correctness as believed by the
lowest common denominators that you call proles.

Yes, because calling someone a "garage trader" or "rent-boy" is
completely different from calling them a proletariat.

The word is "proletarian", and it should be "him" rather than "them". As you
proceed with tuning up your tastes for material goods, you might consider
polishing your composition skills a tad.

Thanks, officer.

BTW, since "someone" doesn't necessarily refer to anyone in particular,
"them" is considered an acceptable singular pronoun replacing "he or
she."

http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexper...utgrammar/they

No. "They" could replace "he or she". "Them" would replace "him or her".

d

I see now that you and George have sorted the kid. I coulda saved my
breath. Thanks Don, George. -- Andre Jute

Don Pearce wrote:
On 5 Oct 2005 13:07:08 -0700, Bruce C. Miller wrote:

George Middius wrote:
Bruce C. Miller said:

Hey, Bruce, when your opinions attract the reflex obliquy of the
slimier morons on the net, like Jon-John-Jono Yeager, you'll know you
have arrived, perhaps even with an opinion of your own rather than the
predigested designer brands of political correctness as believed by the
lowest common denominators that you call proles.

Yes, because calling someone a "garage trader" or "rent-boy" is
completely different from calling them a proletariat.

The word is "proletarian", and it should be "him" rather than "them". As you
proceed with tuning up your tastes for material goods, you might consider
polishing your composition skills a tad.

Thanks, officer.

BTW, since "someone" doesn't necessarily refer to anyone in particular,
"them" is considered an acceptable singular pronoun replacing "he or
she."

http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexper...utgrammar/they

No. "They" could replace "he or she". "Them" would replace "him or her".

d

I see now that you and George have sorted the kid. I coulda saved my
breath. Thanks Don, George. -- Andre Jute

Don Pearce wrote:
On 5 Oct 2005 13:07:08 -0700, Bruce C. Miller wrote:

George Middius wrote:
Bruce C. Miller said:

Hey, Bruce, when your opinions attract the reflex obliquy of the
slimier morons on the net, like Jon-John-Jono Yeager, you'll know you
have arrived, perhaps even with an opinion of your own rather than the
predigested designer brands of political correctness as believed by the
lowest common denominators that you call proles.

Yes, because calling someone a "garage trader" or "rent-boy" is
completely different from calling them a proletariat.

The word is "proletarian", and it should be "him" rather than "them". As you
proceed with tuning up your tastes for material goods, you might consider
polishing your composition skills a tad.

Thanks, officer.

BTW, since "someone" doesn't necessarily refer to anyone in particular,
"them" is considered an acceptable singular pronoun replacing "he or
she."

http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexper...utgrammar/they

No. "They" could replace "he or she". "Them" would replace "him or her".

d

On 5 Oct 2005 13:07:08 -0700, "Bruce C. Miller"
wrote:

George Middius wrote:
Bruce C. Miller said:

Hey, Bruce, when your opinions attract the reflex obliquy of the
slimier morons on the net, like Jon-John-Jono Yeager, you'll know you
have arrived, perhaps even with an opinion of your own rather than the
predigested designer brands of political correctness as believed by the
lowest common denominators that you call proles.

Yes, because calling someone a "garage trader" or "rent-boy" is
completely different from calling them a proletariat.

The word is "proletarian", and it should be "him" rather than "them". As you
proceed with tuning up your tastes for material goods, you might consider
polishing your composition skills a tad.

Thanks, officer.

BTW, since "someone" doesn't necessarily refer to anyone in particular,
"them" is considered an acceptable singular pronoun replacing "he or
she."

http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexper...utgrammar/they

Don't worry, it's just an "obliiquy" from our "professional writer".

Well, not "our" (referring to RAO).

Funny how the chickens come home to roost (and yes, I've had MY share
of chickens roosting on MY head chuckle).

"Andre Jute" wrote 3 times in a message
oups.com...
: I see now that you and George have sorted the kid. I coulda saved my
: breath. Thanks Don, George. -- Andre Jute

He, Dre, You've got a hairy mouse, too ?
R.

On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 08:04:25 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


I can't decide whether you are a bore or a boor.

And why does that conundrum raise its ugly head in your fevered brain,
Art?


If you get excited by Bruce's self indulgent
ramblings, so be it.

I get excited by anything that isn't the same pointless bickering to
no end. But in fact I found Bruce refreshingly honest. I admit some of
his language was a bit intemperate in our "all men are created equal"
society, but hey, he's finding his way, moving into a new sphere of
life. How about cutting him a bit of slack. After all, he could be
sinking into drug addiction and alcoholism, or just decided to embrace
Satanic heavy metal. Isn't this better? :-)

On 5 Oct 2005 13:28:17 -0700, George Middius
wrote:



Bruce C. Miller said:

Yes, because calling someone a "garage trader" or "rent-boy" is
completely different from calling them a proletariat.

The word is "proletarian", and it should be "him" rather than "them". As you
proceed with tuning up your tastes for material goods, you might consider
polishing your composition skills a tad.

Thanks, officer.

BTW, since "someone" doesn't necessarily refer to anyone in particular,
"them" is considered an acceptable singular pronoun replacing "he or
she."

Not by anybody with a little bit of class.

That's a bit of a low blow, George.

paul packer said:

Not by anybody with a little bit of class.

That's a bit of a low blow, George.

Are you drumming me out of the Snobs' League?

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 08:04:25 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


I can't decide whether you are a bore or a boor.

And why does that conundrum raise its ugly head in your fevered brain,
Art?


If you get excited by Bruce's self indulgent
ramblings, so be it.

I get excited by anything that isn't the same pointless bickering to
no end. But in fact I found Bruce refreshingly honest. I admit some of
his language was a bit intemperate in our "all men are created equal"
society, but hey, he's finding his way, moving into a new sphere of
life. How about cutting him a bit of slack. After all, he could be
sinking into drug addiction and alcoholism, or just decided to embrace
Satanic heavy metal. Isn't this better? :-)

I just have no respect for anyone
that equates parading around the house in
a Hugh Hefner pajama set as being a "Bohemian".

in article , Andre Jute
at wrote on 10/5/05 12:01 PM:

I have my own fartcatcher. It has been years since I last contributed
to a thread without the crooked garage trader and Atlanta rent-boy Jon
Yaeger, also know to the Atland PD as John and Jono, chiming in with
some irrelevant attack.


I'm afraid I'm not the one guilty of irrelevance here . . . .

An online dictionary of vulgar terms defines "fartcatcher" as someone who is
the active partner during anal sex. That clearly establishes your position
in such a tryst, dear Andre . . . . .

;-)

"Bruce C. Miller" wrote in message
oups.com...
[snip]

Actually it was pretty stupid. The only thing wrong with your post was
that it was so honest I thought it was a put-on. That's because one
just doesn't expect honesty on RAO. Ignore the knockers. Go on as
you're going--straight on till morning. ;-)

Thanks. Yes, I have better things to do than troll flamebait, which is
why I seldom post here

One more thought, Bruce.
Move to one of the world-class cities.
No man is an island. You aspire to higher things, but I get the impression
that the cost to you is increased isolation.
You probably subscribe to existentialism. According to this doctrine, a man
is not fully made until he's dead.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 08:04:25 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


I can't decide whether you are a bore or a boor.

And why does that conundrum raise its ugly head in your fevered brain,
Art?


If you get excited by Bruce's self indulgent
ramblings, so be it.

I get excited by anything that isn't the same pointless bickering to
no end. But in fact I found Bruce refreshingly honest. I admit some of
his language was a bit intemperate in our "all men are created equal"
society, but hey, he's finding his way, moving into a new sphere of
life. How about cutting him a bit of slack. After all, he could be
sinking into drug addiction and alcoholism, or just decided to embrace
Satanic heavy metal. Isn't this better? :-)

I just have no respect for anyone
that equates parading around the house in
a Hugh Hefner pajama set as being a "Bohemian".

True, but think of what a makeover would do for Mikey.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
.
You probably subscribe to existentialism. According to this doctrine, a
man
is not fully made until he's dead.



Thank God my progress is so slow.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
.
You probably subscribe to existentialism. According to this doctrine, a
man
is not fully made until he's dead.



Thank God my progress is so slow.

Yes, I'm procrastinating as well.

Ruud Broens wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote 3 times in a message
oups.com...
: I see now that you and George have sorted the kid. I coulda saved my
: breath. Thanks Don, George. -- Andre Jute

He, Dre, You've got a hairy mouse, too ?
R.

Nope. Apple Wireless Mouse.

Okay, Ruud, in the interest of street cred, I'll bite. What is "a
hairy mouse"? I hope it isn't another slimy Yaeger-trail.

Andre Jute

Fartcatcher defines a useless jerk on a newsgroup who contributes
nothng but follows around a more useful member of the internet
community to make a useless comment on every post from the useful
member.

Leave your disgusting sex-work off the net, Yaeger. Take your crooked
garage trading away to wherever Vince the Nodding Dog went when I ran
him out.

Andre Jute

Jon Yaeger wrote:
in article , Andre Jute
at wrote on 10/5/05 12:01 PM:

I have my own fartcatcher. It has been years since I last contributed
to a thread without the crooked garage trader and Atlanta rent-boy Jon
Yaeger, also known to the Atland PD as John and Jono, chiming in with
some irrelevant attack.


[snipped, Yaeger's description of his disgusting work]

On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 22:15:11 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



paul packer said:

Not by anybody with a little bit of class.

That's a bit of a low blow, George.

Are you drumming me out of the Snobs' League?

Just reminding you of your duty to uphold goodness and niceness on
this NG. :-)

On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 00:16:18 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
.
You probably subscribe to existentialism. According to this doctrine, a
man
is not fully made until he's dead.



Thank God my progress is so slow.

You noticed that too, Art? :-)

On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 22:25:00 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


I get excited by anything that isn't the same pointless bickering to
no end. But in fact I found Bruce refreshingly honest. I admit some of
his language was a bit intemperate in our "all men are created equal"
society, but hey, he's finding his way, moving into a new sphere of
life. How about cutting him a bit of slack. After all, he could be
sinking into drug addiction and alcoholism, or just decided to embrace
Satanic heavy metal. Isn't this better? :-)

I just have no respect for anyone
that equates parading around the house in
a Hugh Hefner pajama set as being a "Bohemian".

You've been looking in the window?

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 00:16:18 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
.
You probably subscribe to existentialism. According to this doctrine, a
man
is not fully made until he's dead.



Thank God my progress is so slow.

You noticed that too, Art? :-)



Not yet, maybe tomorrow.