[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 15, 3:11*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Sep 14, 8:04*pm, Jenn wrote:

*ScottW wrote:

Hint for the link phobic.
This is the library banning religious groups from the library.

No, it's not.

"A federal appeals court ruled September 20 that government libraries
can bar religious groups from holding worship services in public
meeting rooms."

But I'll bet anarchists planning their protests are just fine.

Not if they're worshipping the religion of anarchy, imbecile. LoL.

There isn't a Constitutional separation between anarchists and
government, imbecile. LoL.

Are you brain dead, 2pid? Have you had your 'brain' 'function' tested
recently? LoL.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Sep 14, 8:04*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,





*ScottW wrote:
On Sep 13, 4:43*pm, John Atkinson wrote:
On Sep 13, 7:19 pm, ScottW wrote:

On Sep 13, 6:48 am, John Atkinson wrote:
On Sep 13, 2:04 am, ScottW wrote:
On Sep 12, 4:03 pm, John Atkinson
wrote:
"Flowers for Algernon" is on the list of books
conservatives try to have banned. What's with that?

What that is, is just another broad brushed
smear...

Why is this a "broad-brushed smear"? This book
has long been on the conservatives' banned books
list.

Who are these conservatives which you, in your
typical intellectually laziness and general lack of devotion
to truth, imply they represent all conservatives?

AI agree that not all conservatives have tried to ban
all the books that are listed. But there does seem a
general correlation with wanting to have a book banned
and haolding to a conservative political point of view.
The American Library Association maintains an updated
list of books and the organizations that have banned or
have tried to ban them:http://www.ala.org.

Is this one of your random sites?
I search ban in their search window and what do I
find.

http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/curr.../2006abc/septe...
/contracosta.cfm

Hint for the link phobic.
This is the library banning religious groups from the library.

No, it's not.

"A federal appeals court ruled September 20 that government libraries
can bar religious groups from holding worship services in public
meeting rooms."

You do understand that to "bar religious groups from holding worship
services" is not the same as "banning religious groups from the
library", don't you?

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Yapper is dumbfounded by the ironies of liberty and civil rights.

This is the library banning religious groups from the library.

No, it's not.

"A federal appeals court ruled September 20 that government libraries
can bar religious groups from holding worship services in public
meeting rooms."

So now you 'understand' why your fatuous claim was wrong, don't you?

But I'll bet anarchists planning their protests are just fine.

Is this where you throw a tantrum and curse the liberalism of the Founding
Fathers?

[Vinylanach]

On Sep 15, 1:18�pm, ScottW wrote:
On Sep 14, 8:43�pm, John Atkinson wrote:





On Sep 14, 3:31 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Sep 13, 6:19 pm, ScottW wrote:
On Sep 13, 6:48 am, John Atkinson wrote:
But if you read my 18-word statement and follow-up
question very carefully, you will will see that I
wasn't referring to Mrs. Palin but to conservatives
in general.

As usual, your knowledge of the facts are superficial at best.

Coming from a 'genius' like you, I'm sure that hurt. LoL.

To paraphrase Dorothy Parker, I tried to lead a whore
to culture but I couldn't make him think...or something. :-)

� I see you can't show the data your link provided supports your
claim against conservatives.
So you substitute cheap insults. �Typical.
Still others want to know what you've done to
earn disrespect. �They clearly have their own blind spots.

It's not so much a blind spot as an aversion to your histrionics
whenever JA posts.

Boon

[Vinylanach]

On Sep 15, 1:14�pm, ScottW wrote:
On Sep 15, 7:05�am, Vinylanach wrote:





On Sep 14, 7:56 pm, ScottW wrote:

On Sep 13, 4:43 pm, John Atkinson wrote:

On Sep 13, 7:19 pm, ScottW wrote:

On Sep 13, 6:48 am, John Atkinson wrote:
On Sep 13, 2:04 am, ScottW wrote:
On Sep 12, 4:03 pm, John Atkinson wrote:
"Flowers for Algernon" is on the list of books
conservatives try to have banned. What's with that?

What that is, is just another broad brushed
smear...

Why is this a "broad-brushed smear"? This book
has long been on the conservatives' banned books
list.

Who are these conservatives which you, in your
typical intellectually laziness and general lack of devotion
to truth, imply they represent all conservatives?

AI agree that not all conservatives have tried to ban
all the books that are listed. But there does seem a
general correlation with wanting to have a book banned
and haolding to a conservative political point of view.
The American Library Association maintains an updated
list of books and the organizations that have banned or
have tried to ban them:http://www.ala.org.

Is this one of your random sites?
I search ban in their search window and what do I
find.

http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/curr.../2006abc/septe....

Hint for the link phobic.
This is the library banning religious groups from the library.

And please produce this list. I've never seen it.

Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised to learn that you
consider your having seen something as the test
of validity for something someone else has said,
ScottW. Here is a link to the list that includes
"Flowers for Algernon":http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedboo...mostfrequently...

and here's the breakdown of requests by initiator.

http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedboo...llengesbyiniti....

No mention of conservatives. Once again John assumes
conservatives must be behind all this.

The number of challenges is far and away dominated
by parents acting as parents do.
But the religious actions total 28 while administrators
total 207.

Atkinson data doesn't even support his own bigotted claims.

This is an exceptionally weak argument,

� Another obtuse declaration with no substantive support.

Actually, your post is referenced in detail for others to see. Of
course you could make us all look dumb by providing a list of liberal
organizations who like to burn books. You didn't...and I'm hoping you
see the irony.

In other words, it's not an obtuse declaration...I'm utterly astounded
that I have to point this **** out to you. I can only assume you're
playing Internet games. Or, as Arny likes to think, "it doesn't exist
if there isn't a URL."

Boon

[Clyde Slick]

On 15 Sep, 11:14, Vinylanach wrote:


No, it's the "you shouldn't call someone a name if you have to spell
it three different ways" debating trade trick. It's also known as the
Krueger Korrection.

Boon-

No, its the Krooger kurrection

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 15, 3:20*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Sep 15, 1:15*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Sep 15, 3:11*pm, ScottW wrote:

On Sep 14, 8:04*pm, Jenn wrote:
*ScottW wrote:
Hint for the link phobic.
This is the library banning religious groups from the library.

No, it's not.

"A federal appeals court ruled September 20 that government libraries
can bar religious groups from holding worship services in public
meeting rooms."

But I'll bet anarchists planning their protests are just fine.

Not if they're worshipping the religion of anarchy, imbecile. LoL.

There isn't a Constitutional separation between anarchists and
government, imbecile. LoL.

* I knew your oath to protect and defend was BS.

From your hypothetical, imaginary anarchists who are plotting
"protests" in public libraries?

Get a grip, 2pid: a "protest" is not something the Constitution needs
defending from. In fact, the Constitution ensure that we have a
*right* to protest. Anarchists plotting "protests" are well within the
law and well within their rights (as long as they pull a permit if
necessary LOL!).

What an ignorant buffoon. LoL.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 15, 3:18*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,





*ScottW wrote:
On Sep 14, 8:04*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW wrote:
On Sep 13, 4:43*pm, John Atkinson wrote:
On Sep 13, 7:19 pm, ScottW wrote:

On Sep 13, 6:48 am, John Atkinson wrote:
On Sep 13, 2:04 am, ScottW wrote:
On Sep 12, 4:03 pm, John Atkinson
wrote:
"Flowers for Algernon" is on the list of books
conservatives try to have banned. What's with that?

What that is, is just another broad brushed
smear...

Why is this a "broad-brushed smear"? This book
has long been on the conservatives' banned books
list.

Who are these conservatives which you, in your
typical intellectually laziness and general lack of devotion
to truth, imply they represent all conservatives?

AI agree that not all conservatives have tried to ban
all the books that are listed. But there does seem a
general correlation with wanting to have a book banned
and haolding to a conservative political point of view.
The American Library Association maintains an updated
list of books and the organizations that have banned or
have tried to ban them:http://www.ala.org.

Is this one of your random sites?
I search ban in their search window and what do I
find.

http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/curr.../2006abc/septe...
/contracosta.cfm

Hint for the link phobic.
This is the library banning religious groups from the library.

No, it's not.

"A federal appeals court ruled September 20 that government libraries
can bar religious groups from holding worship services in public
meeting rooms."

You do understand that to "bar religious groups from holding worship
services" is not the same as "banning religious groups from the
library", don't you?

You're talking to 2pid. You'll have to go slower and enunciate.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 15, 3:18*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Sep 14, 8:43*pm, John Atkinson wrote:





On Sep 14, 3:31 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Sep 13, 6:19 pm, ScottW wrote:
On Sep 13, 6:48 am, John Atkinson wrote:
But if you read my 18-word statement and follow-up
question very carefully, you will will see that I
wasn't referring to Mrs. Palin but to conservatives
in general.

As usual, your knowledge of the facts are superficial at best.

Coming from a 'genius' like you, I'm sure that hurt. LoL.

To paraphrase Dorothy Parker, I tried to lead a whore
to culture but I couldn't make him think...or something. :-)

* I see you can't show the data your link provided supports your
claim against conservatives.
So you substitute cheap insults. *Typical.
Still others want to know what you've done to
earn disrespect. *They clearly have their own blind spots.

I've asked you which issues are likely for liberals to challenge books
on, 2pid.

I see that you're not man enough to do so, as you know you'll lose.

Run away, little man! LoL.

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Sep 15, 1:21*pm, Vinylanach wrote:
On Sep 15, 1:18 pm, ScottW wrote:





On Sep 14, 8:43 pm, John Atkinson wrote:

On Sep 14, 3:31 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Sep 13, 6:19 pm, ScottW wrote:
On Sep 13, 6:48 am, John Atkinson
wrote:
But if you read my 18-word statement and follow-up
question very carefully, you will will see that I
wasn't referring to Mrs. Palin but to conservatives
in general.

As usual, your knowledge of the facts are superficial at best.

Coming from a 'genius' like you, I'm sure that hurt. LoL.

To paraphrase Dorothy Parker, I tried to lead a whore
to culture but I couldn't make him think...or something. :-)

I see you can't show the data your link provided supports your
claim against conservatives.
So you substitute cheap insults. Typical.
Still others want to know what you've done to
earn disrespect. They clearly have their own blind spots.

It's not so much a blind spot as an aversion to your histrionics
whenever JA posts.

I see you make no attempt to support Atkinson's allegations.
Probably a smart move in light of the data provided.

Shhh! gave a good run-down on the ALA list. You rejected it out of hand,
but not convincingly.

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 15, 3:44*pm, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,





*ScottW wrote:
On Sep 15, 1:21*pm, Vinylanach wrote:
On Sep 15, 1:18 pm, ScottW wrote:

On Sep 14, 8:43 pm, John Atkinson wrote:

On Sep 14, 3:31 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Sep 13, 6:19 pm, ScottW wrote:
On Sep 13, 6:48 am, John Atkinson
wrote:
But if you read my 18-word statement and follow-up
question very carefully, you will will see that I
wasn't referring to Mrs. Palin but to conservatives
in general.

As usual, your knowledge of the facts are superficial at best..

Coming from a 'genius' like you, I'm sure that hurt. LoL.

To paraphrase Dorothy Parker, I tried to lead a whore
to culture but I couldn't make him think...or something. :-)

I see you can't show the data your link provided supports your
claim against conservatives.
So you substitute cheap insults. Typical.
Still others want to know what you've done to
earn disrespect. They clearly have their own blind spots.

It's not so much a blind spot as an aversion to your histrionics
whenever JA posts.

I see you make no attempt to support Atkinson's allegations.
Probably a smart move in light of the data provided.

Shhh! gave a good run-down on the ALA list. You rejected it out of hand,
but not convincingly.

But I must not have been polite enough for 2pid, which gives him a
valid 'reason' to reject it. LOL!

[Vinylanach]

On Sep 15, 1:34�pm, ScottW wrote:
On Sep 15, 1:21�pm, Vinylanach wrote:





On Sep 15, 1:18 pm, ScottW wrote:

On Sep 14, 8:43 pm, John Atkinson wrote:

On Sep 14, 3:31 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Sep 13, 6:19 pm, ScottW wrote:
On Sep 13, 6:48 am, John Atkinson wrote:
But if you read my 18-word statement and follow-up
question very carefully, you will will see that I
wasn't referring to Mrs. Palin but to conservatives
in general.

As usual, your knowledge of the facts are superficial at best.

Coming from a 'genius' like you, I'm sure that hurt. LoL.

To paraphrase Dorothy Parker, I tried to lead a whore
to culture but I couldn't make him think...or something. :-)

I see you can't show the data your link provided supports your
claim against conservatives.
So you substitute cheap insults. Typical.
Still others want to know what you've done to
earn disrespect. They clearly have their own blind spots.

It's not so much a blind spot as an aversion to your histrionics
whenever JA posts.

I see you make no attempt to support Atkinson's allegations.
Probably a smart move in light of the data provided.

Oh, ****...it's you, Arny! That explains everything!

Have you wondered why you're the only one who needs to have these
allegations supported? Here's a URL that should make it clear to you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense

Boon

[Clyde Slick]

On 15 Sep, 19:19, Vinylanach wrote:
On Sep 15, 1:34 pm, ScottW wrote:





On Sep 15, 1:21 pm, Vinylanach wrote:

On Sep 15, 1:18 pm, ScottW wrote:

On Sep 14, 8:43 pm, John Atkinson wrote:

On Sep 14, 3:31 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Sep 13, 6:19 pm, ScottW wrote:
On Sep 13, 6:48 am, John Atkinson wrote:
But if you read my 18-word statement and follow-up
question very carefully, you will will see that I
wasn't referring to Mrs. Palin but to conservatives
in general.

As usual, your knowledge of the facts are superficial at best..

Coming from a 'genius' like you, I'm sure that hurt. LoL.

To paraphrase Dorothy Parker, I tried to lead a whore
to culture but I couldn't make him think...or something. :-)

I see you can't show the data your link provided supports your
claim against conservatives.
So you substitute cheap insults. Typical.
Still others want to know what you've done to
earn disrespect. They clearly have their own blind spots.

It's not so much a blind spot as an aversion to your histrionics
whenever JA posts.

I see you make no attempt to support Atkinson's allegations.
Probably a smart move in light of the data provided.

Oh, ****...it's you, Arny! *That explains everything!

Have you wondered why you're the only one who needs to have these
allegations supported? *Here's a URL that should make it clear to you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense

Boon-

Wiki lacks an article on Krooligic.
Hmmm, you're a good writer, want to take a stab at it?

[Clyde Slick]

On 15 Sep, 19:19, Vinylanach wrote:
On Sep 15, 1:34 pm, ScottW wrote:





On Sep 15, 1:21 pm, Vinylanach wrote:

On Sep 15, 1:18 pm, ScottW wrote:

On Sep 14, 8:43 pm, John Atkinson wrote:

On Sep 14, 3:31 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Sep 13, 6:19 pm, ScottW wrote:
On Sep 13, 6:48 am, John Atkinson wrote:
But if you read my 18-word statement and follow-up
question very carefully, you will will see that I
wasn't referring to Mrs. Palin but to conservatives
in general.

As usual, your knowledge of the facts are superficial at best..

Coming from a 'genius' like you, I'm sure that hurt. LoL.

To paraphrase Dorothy Parker, I tried to lead a whore
to culture but I couldn't make him think...or something. :-)

I see you can't show the data your link provided supports your
claim against conservatives.
So you substitute cheap insults. Typical.
Still others want to know what you've done to
earn disrespect. They clearly have their own blind spots.

It's not so much a blind spot as an aversion to your histrionics
whenever JA posts.

I see you make no attempt to support Atkinson's allegations.
Probably a smart move in light of the data provided.

Oh, ****...it's you, Arny! *That explains everything!

Have you wondered why you're the only one who needs to have these
allegations supported? *Here's a URL that should make it clear to you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense

Boon-

nor does wiki have one for debating trade.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

nor does wiki have one for debating trade.

Wikipedia is for real-world subjects. What you're imagining hasn't been
invented yet -- a Usenet wiki. You should make that your golden years
retirement project instead of that double-dipping that just makes you
fatter and stupider.

[Vinylanach]

On Sep 15, 4:48�pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 15 Sep, 19:19, Vinylanach wrote:





On Sep 15, 1:34 pm, ScottW wrote:

On Sep 15, 1:21 pm, Vinylanach wrote:

On Sep 15, 1:18 pm, ScottW wrote:

On Sep 14, 8:43 pm, John Atkinson wrote:

On Sep 14, 3:31 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Sep 13, 6:19 pm, ScottW wrote:
On Sep 13, 6:48 am, John Atkinson wrote:
But if you read my 18-word statement and follow-up
question very carefully, you will will see that I
wasn't referring to Mrs. Palin but to conservatives
in general.

As usual, your knowledge of the facts are superficial at best.

Coming from a 'genius' like you, I'm sure that hurt. LoL.

To paraphrase Dorothy Parker, I tried to lead a whore
to culture but I couldn't make him think...or something. :-)

I see you can't show the data your link provided supports your
claim against conservatives.
So you substitute cheap insults. Typical.
Still others want to know what you've done to
earn disrespect. They clearly have their own blind spots.

It's not so much a blind spot as an aversion to your histrionics
whenever JA posts.

I see you make no attempt to support Atkinson's allegations.
Probably a smart move in light of the data provided.

Oh, ****...it's you, Arny! �That explains everything!

Have you wondered why you're the only one who needs to have these
allegations supported? �Here's a URL that should make it clear to you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense

Boon-

Wiki lacks an article on Krooligic.
Hmmm, you're a good writer, want to take a stab at it?-

I am a registered editor...

Boon

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article
,
Vinylanach wrote:

On Sep 15, 4:48?pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 15 Sep, 19:19, Vinylanach wrote:





On Sep 15, 1:34 pm, ScottW wrote:

On Sep 15, 1:21 pm, Vinylanach wrote:

On Sep 15, 1:18 pm, ScottW wrote:

On Sep 14, 8:43 pm, John Atkinson
wrote:

On Sep 14, 3:31 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Sep 13, 6:19 pm, ScottW wrote:
On Sep 13, 6:48 am, John Atkinson
wrote:
But if you read my 18-word statement and follow-up
question very carefully, you will will see that I
wasn't referring to Mrs. Palin but to conservatives
in general.

As usual, your knowledge of the facts are superficial at
best.

Coming from a 'genius' like you, I'm sure that hurt. LoL.

To paraphrase Dorothy Parker, I tried to lead a whore
to culture but I couldn't make him think...or something. :-)

I see you can't show the data your link provided supports your
claim against conservatives.
So you substitute cheap insults. Typical.
Still others want to know what you've done to
earn disrespect. They clearly have their own blind spots.

It's not so much a blind spot as an aversion to your histrionics
whenever JA posts.

I see you make no attempt to support Atkinson's allegations.
Probably a smart move in light of the data provided.

Oh, ****...it's you, Arny! ?That explains everything!

Have you wondered why you're the only one who needs to have these
allegations supported? ?Here's a URL that should make it clear to you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense

Boon-

Wiki lacks an article on Krooligic.
Hmmm, you're a good writer, want to take a stab at it?-

I am a registered editor...

Boon

Good writing is an overrated skill.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Jenn said:

Good writing is an overrated skill.

Lack of substance noted.

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article ,
George M. Middius wrote:

Jenn said:

Good writing is an overrated skill.

Lack of substance noted.

Well said.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Jenn said:

Good writing is an overrated skill.

Lack of substance noted.

Well said.

As usual, I said nothing. But thanks for noticing.

[Clyde Slick]

On 15 Sep, 20:36, George M. Middius wrote:
Clyde Slick said:

nor does wiki have one for debating trade.

Wikipedia is for real-world subjects. What you're imagining hasn't been
invented yet -- a Usenet wiki. You should make that your golden years
retirement project instead of that double-dipping that just makes you
fatter and stupider.

"At least" I can still work into my retirement years,
unlike someone we know who is too mentally incapacitated to hold
down a job.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

Wikipedia is for real-world subjects. What you're imagining hasn't been
invented yet -- a Usenet wiki. You should make that your golden years
retirement project instead of that double-dipping that just makes you
fatter and stupider.

"At least" I can still work into my retirement years,
unlike someone we know who is too mentally incapacitated to hold
down a job.

Scottie got fired again?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 15, 10:05*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

"At least" I can still work into my retirement years,
unlike someone we know who is too mentally incapacitated to hold
down a job.

You'll lose your friendship with 2pid if you keep slamming him like
this.

[Arny Krueger]

"Vinylanach" wrote in message


On Sep 15, 7:10?am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Vinylanach" wrote in message



On Sep 14, 7:56?pm, ScottW wrote:

and here's the breakdown of requests by initiator.

http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedboo...llengesbyiniti...

No mention of conservatives. ?Once again John assumes
conservatives must be behind all this.

The number of challenges is far and away dominated
by parents acting as parents do.
But the religious actions total 28 while administrators
total 207.

Atkinson data doesn't even support his own bigoted
claims.
This is an exceptionally weak argument,

Yes, being so relevant and well-documented.

and it's obvious
that your ?fervor is not directed at the words, but the
man.

Actually, the point is both well-taken and
well-documented. I've made the same point related to a
different issue, and all John did is run and hide.

Gee, didn't JA pay to fly you out to debate him at
HE2005?

That was then, this was much more recently.

In fact, this is how everyone else in the audio world
sees it...

Baseless assertion....

Again.

[Vinylanach]

On Sep 17, 12:16�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Vinylanach" wrote in message







On Sep 15, 7:10?am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Vinylanach" wrote in message

On Sep 14, 7:56?pm, ScottW wrote:
and here's the breakdown of requests by initiator.

http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedboo...llengesbyiniti....

No mention of conservatives. ?Once again John assumes
conservatives must be behind all this.

The number of challenges is far and away dominated
by parents acting as parents do.
But the religious actions total 28 while administrators
total 207.

Atkinson data doesn't even support his own bigoted
claims.
This is an exceptionally weak argument,

Yes, being so relevant and well-documented.

and it's obvious
that your ?fervor is not directed at the words, but the
man.

Actually, the point is both well-taken and
well-documented. I've made the same point related to a
different issue, and all John did is run and hide.

Gee, didn't JA pay to fly you out to debate him at
HE2005?

That was then, this was much more recently.

Well, I'm going to assume that JA gave you a definitive chance to
prove your point, you failed colossally, and now he just isn't going
to waste any more time on you. Do you see the pattern here? People
just don't give a **** about you anymore. They're bored. Internet
assholes are so 1998.


In fact, this is how everyone else in the audio world
sees it...

Baseless assertion....

I don't know...I'm in the audio world, and no one seems to know who
you are.

Boon

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Vinylanach said:

Well, I'm going to assume that JA gave you a definitive chance to
prove your point, you failed colossally, and now he just isn't going
to waste any more time on you.

Mister Krooger certainly "failed" to repeat any of the slurs and slanders
he's so free with on Usenet. Personally, I think Turdy was intimidated by
the glimpse he caught of himself in the mirror. That stylish '70s leisure
suit is very likely to scare the crap out of a mentally defective nerd
like Krooger.

Do you see the pattern here? People
just don't give a **** about you anymore. They're bored. Internet
assholes are so 1998.

JEE-zus loves you even if you don't love him.

[Arny Krueger]

"Vinylanach" wrote in message

On Sep 17, 12:16?pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Vinylanach" wrote in message







On Sep 15, 7:10?am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Vinylanach" wrote in message

On Sep 14, 7:56?pm, ScottW
wrote:
and here's the breakdown of requests by initiator.

http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedboo...llengesbyiniti...

No mention of conservatives. ?Once again John assumes
conservatives must be behind all this.

The number of challenges is far and away dominated
by parents acting as parents do.
But the religious actions total 28 while
administrators total 207.

Atkinson data doesn't even support his own bigoted
claims.
This is an exceptionally weak argument,

Yes, being so relevant and well-documented.

and it's obvious
that your ?fervor is not directed at the words, but
the man.

Actually, the point is both well-taken and
well-documented. I've made the same point related to a
different issue, and all John did is run and hide.

Gee, didn't JA pay to fly you out to debate him at
HE2005?

That was then, this was much more recently.

Well, I'm going to assume...

A baseless assumption, which is only a little different than a baseless
assertion.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Vinylanach" wrote in message

On Sep 17, 12:16?pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Vinylanach" wrote in message







On Sep 15, 7:10?am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Vinylanach" wrote in message

On Sep 14, 7:56?pm, ScottW
wrote:
and here's the breakdown of requests by initiator.

http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedboo...llengesbyiniti..
.

No mention of conservatives. ?Once again John assumes
conservatives must be behind all this.

The number of challenges is far and away dominated
by parents acting as parents do.
But the religious actions total 28 while
administrators total 207.

Atkinson data doesn't even support his own bigoted
claims.
This is an exceptionally weak argument,

Yes, being so relevant and well-documented.

and it's obvious
that your ?fervor is not directed at the words, but
the man.

Actually, the point is both well-taken and
well-documented. I've made the same point related to a
different issue, and all John did is run and hide.

Gee, didn't JA pay to fly you out to debate him at
HE2005?

That was then, this was much more recently.

Well, I'm going to assume...

A baseless assumption, which is only a little different than a baseless
assertion.

Hey Arny, why do you use others' names in the subject headers of posts,
when you are critical of others doing that?

[Vinylanach]

On Sep 17, 1:21�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Vinylanach" wrote in message







On Sep 17, 12:16?pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Vinylanach" wrote in message



On Sep 15, 7:10?am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Vinylanach" wrote in message

On Sep 14, 7:56?pm, ScottW
wrote:
and here's the breakdown of requests by initiator.

http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedboo...llengesbyiniti...

No mention of conservatives. ?Once again John assumes
conservatives must be behind all this.

The number of challenges is far and away dominated
by parents acting as parents do.
But the religious actions total 28 while
administrators total 207.

Atkinson data doesn't even support his own bigoted
claims.
This is an exceptionally weak argument,

Yes, being so relevant and well-documented.

and it's obvious
that your ?fervor is not directed at the words, but
the man.

Actually, the point is both well-taken and
well-documented. I've made the same point related to a
different issue, and all John did is run and hide.

Gee, didn't JA pay to fly you out to debate him at
HE2005?

That was then, this was much more recently.
Well, I'm going to assume...

A baseless assumption, which is only a little different than a baseless
assertion.-

We all know your life is meaningless without URLs.

LOL!

Boon

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Jenn said:

Hey Arny, why do you use others' names in the subject headers of posts,
when you are critical of others doing that?

Hypocrisy is not proscribed by any of the ten kroomandments.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Vinylanach" wrote in message

On Sep 17, 12:16?pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Vinylanach" wrote in message







On Sep 15, 7:10?am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Vinylanach" wrote in message

On Sep 14, 7:56?pm, ScottW
wrote:
and here's the breakdown of requests by initiator.

http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedboo...llengesbyiniti..
.

No mention of conservatives. ?Once again John
assumes conservatives must be behind all this.

The number of challenges is far and away dominated
by parents acting as parents do.
But the religious actions total 28 while
administrators total 207.

Atkinson data doesn't even support his own bigoted
claims.
This is an exceptionally weak argument,

Yes, being so relevant and well-documented.

and it's obvious
that your ?fervor is not directed at the words, but
the man.

Actually, the point is both well-taken and
well-documented. I've made the same point related to
a different issue, and all John did is run and hide.

Gee, didn't JA pay to fly you out to debate him at
HE2005?

That was then, this was much more recently.

Well, I'm going to assume...

A baseless assumption, which is only a little different
than a baseless assertion.

Hey Arny, why do you use others' names in the subject
headers of posts, when you are critical of others doing
that?

Jenn, I'll answer that question when you start critcizing the Middiot every
time he does it.

[Vinylanach]

On Sep 18, 4:32�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message







In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Vinylanach" wrote in message

On Sep 17, 12:16?pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Vinylanach" wrote in message



On Sep 15, 7:10?am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Vinylanach" wrote in message

On Sep 14, 7:56?pm, ScottW
wrote:
and here's the breakdown of requests by initiator.

http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedboo...llengesbyiniti..
.

No mention of conservatives. ?Once again John
assumes conservatives must be behind all this.

The number of challenges is far and away dominated
by parents acting as parents do.
But the religious actions total 28 while
administrators total 207.

Atkinson data doesn't even support his own bigoted
claims.
This is an exceptionally weak argument,

Yes, being so relevant and well-documented.

and it's obvious
that your ?fervor is not directed at the words, but
the man.

Actually, the point is both well-taken and
well-documented. I've made the same point related to
a different issue, and all John did is run and hide.

Gee, didn't JA pay to fly you out to debate him at
HE2005?

That was then, this was much more recently.

Well, I'm going to assume...

A baseless assumption, which is only a little different
than a baseless assertion.

Hey Arny, why do you use others' names in the subject
headers of posts, when you are critical of others doing
that?

Jenn, I'll answer that question when you start critcizing the Middiot every
time he does it.

But George isn't critical of others doing it. That was her point.
You didn't get it. Stop the presses.

Boon

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Vinylanach" wrote in message

On Sep 17, 12:16?pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Vinylanach" wrote in message







On Sep 15, 7:10?am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Vinylanach" wrote in message

On Sep 14, 7:56?pm, ScottW
wrote:
and here's the breakdown of requests by initiator.

http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedboo...llengesbyiniti
..
.

No mention of conservatives. ?Once again John
assumes conservatives must be behind all this.

The number of challenges is far and away dominated
by parents acting as parents do.
But the religious actions total 28 while
administrators total 207.

Atkinson data doesn't even support his own bigoted
claims.
This is an exceptionally weak argument,

Yes, being so relevant and well-documented.

and it's obvious
that your ?fervor is not directed at the words, but
the man.

Actually, the point is both well-taken and
well-documented. I've made the same point related to
a different issue, and all John did is run and hide.

Gee, didn't JA pay to fly you out to debate him at
HE2005?

That was then, this was much more recently.

Well, I'm going to assume...

A baseless assumption, which is only a little different
than a baseless assertion.

Hey Arny, why do you use others' names in the subject
headers of posts, when you are critical of others doing
that?

Jenn, I'll answer that question when you start critcizing the Middiot every
time he does it.

It's YOU who are critical of others doing it, not George. So it's YOU
who are hypocritical on this issue.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Arnii "****-for-Dinner" Kroofeces whines to Mistress Jenn.

Hey Arny, why do you use others' names in the subject
headers of posts, when you are critical of others doing
that?

Jenn, I'll answer that question when you start critcizing [my supreme master]
every time he does it.

Arnii, be a good turd and point out where I complained about anybody doing
it. What are you saying now? You can't find a single instance of me
complaining about attack subjects? But Arnii, that would make you a
hypocrite. You're a hypocrite, Turdy. God hates hypocrites. (So do human
beings, but of course that has no importance to the likes of you.)

Mistress isn't going to rescue you from the fetid sump of your vile
hypocrisy, Mr. ****. You're going to moulder and rot in a pit of stinking
feces for all eternity. That's how the Devil will punish you for being a
**** during your wasted days on earth.