[[email protected]]

Eeyore wrote:

What I mean there is the accuracy with which the sound of a similar acoustic instrument is
reproduced accurately. Clearly no acoustic instrument will exactly match the precise timbre
of the synthesiser itself but it'll give you a good clue.


One can certainly use their aural memory to determine a reasonable
level of realism but not accuracy. An example. I have two versions of
John Renbourn's Lady and the Unicorn. Two different masterings. The
sound of the instruments on both are startlingly realistic yet the
timbre is distinctly different between the two masterings. I can't tell
you which one is accurate but I can tell you which one sounds better.
But as for pure realism they are pretty close.


What's wrong with multiway speakers or crossovers ?

A good electronic crossover ( often in DSP these days ) will provide such precise
band-to-band matching that you can end up with something that's truly quite like a single
idealised FR speaker !


Can you cite any examples of such a beast. I must say I hear plenty
wrong with multi-driver speakers having lived with Martin Logan CLSs
and Sound Lab A3s.



And I think you're simply obsessed with 'glowing bottles'. I doubt you've ever heard a
professional monitoring system for example and you might even hate it for its accuracy !


I have heard a few. The good ones were quite good.




I also really don't care that you know 'an electronics bloke' who thinks the sun shines out
of you arse. I've been doing pro-audio for 33 yrs. I don't need any 'bloke' to validate my
gear.


Are you suggesting that this gives you more authority?



Scott

[paul packer]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 10:06:51 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Even sockpuppets can follow a script and appear not to be
silly. It is when they attempt to animate themselves that
they are both stupid and silly. In the case of Mr.
Middius, it is obvious that it has no knowledge of any of
the subjects under discussion. So, when it confines
itself to attack-dog tactics, it is merely stupidly doing
what it is told. When it attempts to comment on the
actual subject at hand as if it had anything to offer,
then it is both silly and stupid.

One irony about Middius is that his animator truely believes that he's so
smart that if he didn't dumb himself down when he posts as the sockpuppet,
his real-world identity would be too apparent.


What are you two babbling about? The Usenet personality of George
Middius has many faults (some of which he and I have clashed over in
the past), like not knowing where to draw the line and leave well
enough alone, but stupidity isn't one of them. George rarely posts
about audio. As I've previously observed, I don't think it interests
him very much. He appears to be here to amuse himself, which is pretty
much why I'm here. If you can point to any instances where George has
been drawn on any subject, even politics, enough to make a fool of
himself I'd be interested to read it, but I certainly can't recall
one.

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

If you can point to any instances where George has
been drawn on any subject, even politics, enough to make a fool of
himself I'd be interested to read it, but I certainly can't recall
one.

Thanks, paul. I do try not to be an idiot.

What you've just seen, I believe, is two 'borgs whose vocabularies are too
limited to express their thoughts. It might be accurate to call me a
troublemaker, or a pedant, or a vituperative SOB. However, such terms as
those entail value judgments. Krooger in particular tries to view the
world without engaging his vestigial human feelings. When he says "idiot"
or "stupid" or "liar", he believes he can summon "facts" to support his
accusations. But he is simply incapable of discerning anybody's social
value because the entire concept is alien to him.

I'm rambling a bit, but do you recall Krooger's ranting about belonging to
church groups as evidence of his social skills? Tasks at churches always
outnumber those willing to do them. But Krooger fancies himself as morally
upstanding because he volunteers to do tedious chores at his church. You
have to be really nasty to get chucked out of church.




--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[Peter Wieck]

George M. Middius bleated:

.. It might be accurate to call me a
troublemaker, or a pedant, or a vituperative SOB. However, such terms as
those entail value judgments.


"Troublemaker" endows you with the actual power to make trouble. This
you lack.

"Pedant" assumes you have knowledge to offer. You do not.

"Vituperative" assumes you have the wherewithall to be clever. You do
not.

"SOB" assumes that you are the product of a natural act. Unlikely.

"Value Judgement" is the escape-clause of those without either.

And you are clearly not amused as you are so tiresomely repetitive,
strident and generally unimaginative as to preclude that possibility.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Jon Yaeger]

in article , Peter Wieck
at wrote on 9/11/06 9:50 PM:


George M. Middius bleated:

. It might be accurate to call me a

troublemaker, or a pedant, or a vituperative SOB. However, such terms as
those entail value judgments.


"Troublemaker" endows you with the actual power to make trouble. This
you lack.

"Pedant" assumes you have knowledge to offer. You do not.

"Vituperative" assumes you have the wherewithall to be clever. You do
not.

"SOB" assumes that you are the product of a natural act. Unlikely.

"Value Judgement" is the escape-clause of those without either.

And you are clearly not amused as you are so tiresomely repetitive,
strident and generally unimaginative as to preclude that possibility.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA



Give it a frigggin' rest mate.

Jute, Middius, Arny et. al. aren't worth two synapses of consideration.

[paul packer]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 14:47:02 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


'God grant me a big dick and a pound more than I can spend....'

(But I'd only get him accusing me of being 'shallow' again!! :-)


Now who would ever accuse you of that?

[paul packer]

On 11 Sep 2006 18:50:14 -0700, "Peter Wieck" wrote:


And you are clearly not amused as you are so tiresomely repetitive,


I assume you mean amusing. That at least is in the individual funny
bone.

[paul packer]

On 11 Sep 2006 18:50:14 -0700, "Peter Wieck" wrote:


George M. Middius bleated:

. It might be accurate to call me a
troublemaker, or a pedant, or a vituperative SOB. However, such terms as
those entail value judgments.


"Troublemaker" endows you with the actual power to make trouble. This
you lack.

Really? I thought he was very good at it.

"Pedant" assumes you have knowledge to offer. You do not.

Rubbish. Just ask him anything about grammar. He's very knowledgeable
about the gerand modifying the past participle or whatever.

"Vituperative" assumes you have the wherewithall[sic] to be clever. You do
not.

(thinks) I hope George notices I put square brackets around my [sic]

"SOB" assumes that you are the product of a natural act. Unlikely.

He's the product of a natural act between two sockpuppets. It took
place in the third drawer down of his mother's dressing table.

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

And you are clearly not amused as you are so tiresomely repetitive,

I assume you mean amusing. That at least is in the individual funny
bone.

Witless is getting wobbly. Jute is staying out of this thread, so Wiecky
is impelled to channel his pent-up rage at another target.

We should remember that Worthless Wiecky, alone among all the residents of
North America, chose to aid and abet Lyin' Bwian McFraudster in a
real-world attack on an RAO regular. Infer what you will about Wiecky's
character, or lack thereof.




--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[Keith G]

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 14:47:02 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


'God grant me a big dick and a pound more than I can spend....'

(But I'd only get him accusing me of being 'shallow' again!! :-)


Now who would ever accuse you of that?



Oh, only someone who wants to plaster his own failings onto someone else -
it's a form of expiation....

[Arny Krueger]

"Keith G" wrote in message


One of the little things the Fidelity Freaks like to
overlook is that they don't actually get the *live
performance* even when it is live (never mind
'electronica' which only ever existed inside a computer)

Yup, in Keith's world there are no groups that are entirely or mostly
acoustical. No symphonies, no string quartets, no quartets, no choirs, no
organs, no pianos, no good live rooms, and no classically-trained singers
who need no electronics to entertain 100's or perhaps even 1,000's of
people.


- what they get is the Mixing Engineer's *idea* of the
live performance, so we get 20' wide pianos and
violinists running backwards and forwards between the
left and right speakers.

Keith doesn't seem to know that most live systems are mono.

(When they do get their copy of this 'live performance'
they ram through their systems which, because they got an
amp with low quoted THD characteristics, they consider
somehow it *magically* doesn't turn it all into slurry
when pushing it through their hugely inefficient
multiway, crossovered speakers.....)

Yup, Keith doesn't know that low efficiency speakers can be as clean if not
cleaner than high efficiency speakers.

Confusion between 'fidelity' based on numbers and
*realism* based on listening is rife among the Fidelity
Freaks (who all swallowed the red pill without a second
thought) - the last person (an electronics engineer) who
visited me to hear my 'SET and horns' was so unimpressed
he was only here *ELEVEN HOURS* and has since bought my
'spare' Chinese 300B SET at full price to save himself
the 6 week wait for a new one from China....

I guess you hang out with some really impressionable folks, Keith.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
oups.com
Eeyore wrote:

What I mean there is the accuracy with which the sound
of a similar acoustic instrument is reproduced
accurately. Clearly no acoustic instrument will exactly
match the precise timbre of the synthesiser itself but
it'll give you a good clue.


One can certainly use their aural memory to determine a
reasonable level of realism but not accuracy. An example.
I have two versions of John Renbourn's Lady and the
Unicorn. Two different masterings. The sound of the
instruments on both are startlingly realistic yet the
timbre is distinctly different between the two
masterings. I can't tell you which one is accurate but I
can tell you which one sounds better. But as for pure
realism they are pretty close.

All this means is that you know what you like, Scott.

What's wrong with multiway speakers or crossovers ?

A good electronic crossover ( often in DSP these days )
will provide such precise band-to-band matching that you
can end up with something that's truly quite like a
single idealised FR speaker !

Can you cite any examples of such a beast. I must say I
hear plenty wrong with multi-driver speakers having lived
with Martin Logan CLSs and Sound Lab A3s.

Interesting, because I heard plenty of things wrong the last time I
seriously listened to ML's.

And I think you're simply obsessed with 'glowing
bottles'.

That's Scott - tubes and vinyl to the end.

I doubt you've ever heard a professional
monitoring system for example and you might even hate it
for its accuracy !

I have heard a few. The good ones were quite good.

Hmmm, can a light dawn?

I also really don't care that you know 'an electronics
bloke' who thinks the sun shines out of you arse. I've
been doing pro-audio for 33 yrs. I don't need any
'bloke' to validate my gear.

Are you suggesting that this gives you more authority?

At least as much as you have, Scott.

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" wrote in message



If you can
point to any instances where George has been drawn on any
subject, even politics, enough to make a fool of himself
I'd be interested to read it, but I certainly can't
recall one.

Spoken like a true Middius dupe.

George makes a fool of himself just about every time he posts.

Many of his posts are incomprehensible to anybody but his tiny clique of
dupes.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jon Yaeger" wrote in message

in article
,
Peter Wieck at wrote on 9/11/06 9:50 PM:


George M. Middius bleated:

. It might be accurate to call me a

troublemaker, or a pedant, or a vituperative SOB.
However, such terms as those entail value judgments.


"Troublemaker" endows you with the actual power to make
trouble. This you lack.

"Pedant" assumes you have knowledge to offer. You do not.

"Vituperative" assumes you have the wherewithall to be
clever. You do not.

"SOB" assumes that you are the product of a natural act.
Unlikely.

"Value Judgement" is the escape-clause of those without
either.

And you are clearly not amused as you are so tiresomely
repetitive, strident and generally unimaginative as to
preclude that possibility.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA



Give it a frigggin' rest mate.

Jute, Middius, Arny et. al. aren't worth two synapses of
consideration.

Neither are you, Jon.

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
ups.com
George M. Middius bleated:

. It might be accurate to call me a
troublemaker, or a pedant, or a vituperative SOB.
However, such terms as those entail value judgments.


"Troublemaker" endows you with the actual power to make
trouble. This you lack.

"Pedant" assumes you have knowledge to offer. You do not.

"Vituperative" assumes you have the wherewithall to be
clever. You do not.

"SOB" assumes that you are the product of a natural act.
Unlikely.

"Value Judgement" is the escape-clause of those without
either.

And you are clearly not amused as you are so tiresomely
repetitive, strident and generally unimaginative as to
preclude that possibility.

Well said.

[Keith G]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Keith G" wrote in message


One of the little things the Fidelity Freaks like to
overlook is that they don't actually get the *live
performance* even when it is live (never mind
'electronica' which only ever existed inside a computer)

Yup, in Keith's world there are no groups that are entirely or mostly
acoustical. No symphonies, no string quartets, no quartets, no choirs, no
organs, no pianos, no good live rooms, and no classically-trained singers
who need no electronics to entertain 100's or perhaps even 1,000's of
people.



What TF are you whining about Arny?

(Unsurprisingly perhaps, there's none of that stuff in this house except the
the piano....)




- what they get is the Mixing Engineer's *idea* of the
live performance, so we get 20' wide pianos and
violinists running backwards and forwards between the
left and right speakers.

Keith doesn't seem to know that most live systems are mono.


Do try to wake up to the fact we are talking about audio
*replay/reproduction* kit....



(When they do get their copy of this 'live performance'
they ram through their systems which, because they got an
amp with low quoted THD characteristics, they consider
somehow it *magically* doesn't turn it all into slurry
when pushing it through their hugely inefficient
multiway, crossovered speakers.....)

Yup, Keith doesn't know that low efficiency speakers can be as clean if
not cleaner than high efficiency speakers.


Arny doesn't seem to know one of my pairs of speakers has 82 dB FR drivers
in it....



Confusion between 'fidelity' based on numbers and
*realism* based on listening is rife among the Fidelity
Freaks (who all swallowed the red pill without a second
thought) - the last person (an electronics engineer) who
visited me to hear my 'SET and horns' was so unimpressed
he was only here *ELEVEN HOURS* and has since bought my
'spare' Chinese 300B SET at full price to save himself
the 6 week wait for a new one from China....

I guess you hang out with some really impressionable folks, Keith.


Sure, walked right in (a stranger to me then) and made a snap decision, I
guess....

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote:
And you are clearly not amused as you are so tiresomely repetitive,

I assume you mean amusing. That at least is in the individual funny
bone.

Witless is getting wobbly. Jute is staying out of this thread, so Wiecky
is impelled to channel his pent-up rage at another target.

What makes you think any readers of ukra give a toss?

--
*A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[George M. Middius]

Dodo Plowborg said:

Witless is getting wobbly. Jute is staying out of this thread, so Wiecky
is impelled to channel his pent-up rage at another target.

What makes you think any readers of ukra give a toss?

Plowie, are you having another bad day?




--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[paul packer]

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 08:12:00 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message



If you can
point to any instances where George has been drawn on any
subject, even politics, enough to make a fool of himself
I'd be interested to read it, but I certainly can't
recall one.

Spoken like a true Middius dupe.

Interesting that you chopped the part where I criticise Middius.

George makes a fool of himself just about every time he posts.

No. He shows that he's obsessed with bashing you every time he posts.
There's a difference.

Many of his posts are incomprehensible to anybody but his tiny clique of
dupes.

I'm supposed to be one of his clique of dupes and I don't understand
them half the time, so that can't be right.

[Peter Wieck]

paul packer wrote:

I assume you mean amusing. That at least is in the individual funny
bone.

Oh, no. I meant "amused"...

Mr. Middius displays neither humor nor wit. And it even tried to
justify itself with a bit of apologia. "Obsessed" would be applicable.
Amusement ceases entirely when obsession begins.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 08:12:00 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message



If you can
point to any instances where George has been drawn on
any subject, even politics, enough to make a fool of
himself I'd be interested to read it, but I certainly
can't recall one.

Spoken like a true Middius dupe.

Interesting that you chopped the part where I criticise
Middius.

Those were love taps. It's all a setup Paul, you have a few little public
lover's quarrels with the Middiot so you can feign a modicum of objectivity.
The man is nuts, we all know it, but you can't bring yourself to even 1% of
the vituperation you unleash on me with considerable regularity.

George makes a fool of himself just about every time he
posts.

No. He shows that he's obsessed with bashing you every
time he posts. There's a difference.

That, too. At least he is making those really crazy noises about scaring me
off of RAO any more. Or is he?

Many of his posts are incomprehensible to anybody but
his tiny clique of dupes.

I'm supposed to be one of his clique of dupes and I don't
understand them half the time, so that can't be right.

That must be why you're such a dupe, Paul. In essence you've admitted that
you aren't qualified to judge George's posts on the grounds of poor mental
powers. I can live with that. ;-)

[paul packer]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 08:39:23 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 08:12:00 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message



If you can
point to any instances where George has been drawn on
any subject, even politics, enough to make a fool of
himself I'd be interested to read it, but I certainly
can't recall one.

Spoken like a true Middius dupe.

Interesting that you chopped the part where I criticise
Middius.

Those were love taps.

Some of those love taps over the years have been delivered with
baseball bats on both sides. It should be obvious to anybody with
reading skills that George and I will never agree on many very basic
issues, especially given my conservative views.

It's all a setup Paul, you have a few little public
lover's quarrels with the Middiot so you can feign a modicum of objectivity.
The man is nuts, we all know it, but you can't bring yourself to even 1% of
the vituperation you unleash on me with considerable regularity.

I see that vituperation (verbal abuse or castigation; violent
denunciation or condemnation) is This Month's Word, replacing
dissemble. Well, first off I never unleash vituperation on anyone; I
take gentle digs at a few people, specifically you because you ask for
it more than anyone else. If you insist that what I post to you is
vituperation, I believe the impression held by many at RAO that you do
not see things as they are will only be reinforced.

George makes a fool of himself just about every time he
posts.

No. He shows that he's obsessed with bashing you every
time he posts. There's a difference.

That, too. At least he is making those really crazy noises about scaring me
off of RAO any more. Or is he?

I assume you mean he's NOT making crazy noises.

Many of his posts are incomprehensible to anybody but
his tiny clique of dupes.

I'm supposed to be one of his clique of dupes and I don't
understand them half the time, so that can't be right.

That must be why you're such a dupe, Paul. In essence you've admitted that
you aren't qualified to judge George's posts on the grounds of poor mental
powers. I can live with that. ;-)

What I'm saying is that George likes to write cryptic posts. Those I
ignore. Fortunately he writes enough posts in plain English for me to
gather what he's on about most of the time. You will note that I
write no more posts in support of his posts than I write in
opposition. As I'm sure he'd admit himself, George is slightly
eccentric, so there's no point going into agree/disagree mode with
him. I'm sure Jenn, Sander and others feel the same, which explains
why, despite your passionate urging, half of RAO doesn't rush to
condemn George every five minutes.

Please print this explanation onto a "sticky" and stick it somewhere
prominent for future reference.

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 08:39:23 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 08:12:00 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message



If you can
point to any instances where George has been drawn on
any subject, even politics, enough to make a fool of
himself I'd be interested to read it, but I certainly
can't recall one.

Spoken like a true Middius dupe.

Interesting that you chopped the part where I criticise
Middius.

Those were love taps.

Some of those love taps over the years have been
delivered with baseball bats on both sides.

Pshaw.

It should be
obvious to anybody with reading skills that George and I
will never agree on many very basic issues, especially
given my conservative views.

That is no doubt by design. But, your disagreements have the impact of the
wings of a butterfly fluttering.

It's all a setup Paul, you have a few little public
lover's quarrels with the Middiot so you can feign a
modicum of objectivity. The man is nuts, we all know it,
but you can't bring yourself to even 1% of the
vituperation you unleash on me with considerable
regularity.

I see that vituperation (verbal abuse or castigation;
violent denunciation or condemnation) is This Month's
Word, replacing dissemble.

Nonsense. I

Well, first off I never
unleash vituperation on anyone; I take gentle digs at a
few people, specifically you because you ask for it more
than anyone else.

How Middius-like of you, Paul. In fact I don't ask for abuse, I simply
respond in kind to a fraction of the abuse you gratutiously heap on me. I
know that both you and Middius have a thing for me, you can hardly contain
yourselves.

If you insist that what I post to you
is vituperation, I believe the impression held by many at
RAO that you do not see things as they are will only be
reinforced.

Would that be opinions held by many real people, or opinions asserted by
many sockpuppets?

George makes a fool of himself just about every time he
posts.

No. He shows that he's obsessed with bashing you every
time he posts. There's a difference.

That, too. At least he is making those really crazy
noises about scaring me off of RAO any more. Or is he?

I assume you mean he's NOT making crazy noises.

You got to get that reading comprehension problem of yours fixed one day,
Paul.

Many of his posts are incomprehensible to anybody but
his tiny clique of dupes.

I'm supposed to be one of his clique of dupes and I
don't understand them half the time, so that can't be
right.

That must be why you're such a dupe, Paul. In essence
you've admitted that you aren't qualified to judge
George's posts on the grounds of poor mental powers. I
can live with that. ;-)

What I'm saying is that George likes to write cryptic
posts.

Middius likes to fancy himself the leader of an in-crowd that adores him.
His social development seems locked at the middle or high school level.

Those I ignore.

Actually Paul, you just said that you don't understand them which implies
that you don't ignore them. But why should you worry about consistency when
you are back-pedaling at such a high rate of speed?

Fortunately he writes enough posts
in plain English for me to gather what he's on about most
of the time. You will note that I write no more posts in
support of his posts than I write in opposition.

I will note no such thing. If you think this is really true, you've got some
serious problems with perceiving your own actions, Paul.

As I'm
sure he'd admit himself, George is slightly eccentric, so
there's no point going into agree/disagree mode with him.

Goodness, what kind of a dupe does it take to characterize George as being
"slightly eccentric"?

I'm sure Jenn, Sander and others feel the same, which
explains why, despite your passionate urging, half of RAO
doesn't rush to condemn George every five minutes.

Sorry Paul, but an explanation based on such an obviously false premise as
"George is slightly eccentric" is meaningless. Try to craft a more
believable falsehood next time, it makes things a tad more interesting.

Please print this explanation onto a "sticky" and stick
it somewhere prominent for future reference.

It's going where it belongs - the bit bucket.

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg

I don't ask for abuse

--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg risks his afterlife in heaven by lying blatantly.

I don't ask for abuse

Arnii, really now. Who do you think you're talking to? We're not a bunch
of teenage "trainees" who will take you at your dissembling word. We know
you; we've seen your shtick. Do try harder if you want to wring a few
sympathy tears out of the Usenet crowd.



--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[paul packer]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 14:56:49 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


It should be
obvious to anybody with reading skills that George and I
will never agree on many very basic issues, especially
given my conservative views.

That is no doubt by design. But, your disagreements have the impact of the
wings of a butterfly fluttering.

By design? What, my conservatism? Haven't you noticed George's and my
world views are fundamentally opposed?

It's all a setup Paul, you have a few little public
lover's quarrels with the Middiot so you can feign a
modicum of objectivity. The man is nuts, we all know it,
but you can't bring yourself to even 1% of the
vituperation you unleash on me with considerable
regularity.

I see that vituperation (verbal abuse or castigation;
violent denunciation or condemnation) is This Month's
Word, replacing dissemble.

Nonsense. I

Time will tell.

Well, first off I never
unleash vituperation on anyone; I take gentle digs at a
few people, specifically you because you ask for it more
than anyone else.

How Middius-like of you, Paul. In fact I don't ask for abuse, I simply
respond in kind to a fraction of the abuse you gratutiously heap on me. I
know that both you and Middius have a thing for me, you can hardly contain
yourselves.

Get help, Arnie. Soon.

If you insist that what I post to you
is vituperation, I believe the impression held by many at
RAO that you do not see things as they are will only be
reinforced.

Would that be opinions held by many real people, or opinions asserted by
many sockpuppets?

Take a poll of the real people. Does Arny see things as they really
are?

No....nope...no way....hell no....you're joking.....

Thank you.

George makes a fool of himself just about every time he
posts.

No. He shows that he's obsessed with bashing you every
time he posts. There's a difference.

That, too. At least he is making those really crazy
noises about scaring me off of RAO any more. Or is he?

I assume you mean he's NOT making crazy noises.

You got to get that reading comprehension problem of yours fixed one day,
Paul.

Your sentence makes no sense unless you meant to say, "At least he is
NOT making those really crazy noises...." Are you going to deny that?
Better not--it'll just be another corner you've painted yourself into.

Many of his posts are incomprehensible to anybody but
his tiny clique of dupes.

I'm supposed to be one of his clique of dupes and I
don't understand them half the time, so that can't be
right.

That must be why you're such a dupe, Paul. In essence
you've admitted that you aren't qualified to judge
George's posts on the grounds of poor mental powers. I
can live with that. ;-)

What I'm saying is that George likes to write cryptic
posts.

Middius likes to fancy himself the leader of an in-crowd that adores him.
His social development seems locked at the middle or high school level.

Those I ignore.

Actually Paul, you just said that you don't understand them which implies
that you don't ignore them. But why should you worry about consistency when
you are back-pedaling at such a high rate of speed?

Now, now, Arnie. You know very well that I have to read them in order
to ignore them---i.e, not reply to them. You won't get any points on
RAO for that kind of transparent word trickery.

Fortunately he writes enough posts
in plain English for me to gather what he's on about most
of the time. You will note that I write no more posts in
support of his posts than I write in opposition.

I will note no such thing. If you think this is really true, you've got some
serious problems with perceiving your own actions, Paul.

Please reference those posts where I post after George saying things
like, "You're right, George, I agree absolutely." "That;'s just what I
was thinking, George," and "Go get 'em, George." I believe "paucity"
will be your new Word Of The Month after searching for those posts.

As I'm
sure he'd admit himself, George is slightly eccentric, so
there's no point going into agree/disagree mode with him.

Goodness, what kind of a dupe does it take to characterize George as being
"slightly eccentric"?

You will at least admit that his behaviour has improved considerably
over the last five years, unlike your own. Yet....I will give you
this: your literacy has improved somewhat, which is no small thing.
When you concentrate your posts are often of a quite admirable
standard.

I'm sure Jenn, Sander and others feel the same, which
explains why, despite your passionate urging, half of RAO
doesn't rush to condemn George every five minutes.

Sorry Paul, but an explanation based on such an obviously false premise as
"George is slightly eccentric" is meaningless. Try to craft a more
believable falsehood next time, it makes things a tad more interesting.

You should take what you can get, Arnie. Would you rather I'd claimed
that George was a shining example of charity and chastity?

Please print this explanation onto a "sticky" and stick
it somewhere prominent for future reference.

It's going where it belongs - the bit bucket.

I'm not familiar with that particular receptacle.

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" wrote in message
...

Take a poll of the real people.

Enough of them respect me, like to hang out with me, work with me, and share
life's experiences with me, to keep my life interesting. You're the guy that
actually bases his judgements of people on what you see on RAO.

Does Arny see things as they really are?

Well nobody sees things as they really are, Paul. I guess that's part of
your psychosis - you seem to think you see things as they really are.

The fundamental flaw with your mind-set is that nobody knows how things
*really* are - we just know about our perceptions.

In your case Paul, you base your judgements on what you see in RAO, which is
a well-known pile of crap due to Middius and his clique, yourself and Jenn
included.