75% support gays openly serving in the military [Archive]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

July 20th 08, 05:30 AM

On Jul 19, 7:51*pm, "BretLudwig" > wrote:
> *What, you support letting open gays serve in the military, or you are an
> openly gay currently serving in the military? Not sure how to interpret
> that. If the latter, I will give you this: you have guts if not the best
> judgment to post this, even under pseudonym!

Leave it to you and GOIA to intepret something out-of-context. Coupled
with the subject line, it is clear (to a sane mind) the intent is that
I support gays openly serving.

> *Now, let me add there are numerous instances of gay war heroes, of gays
> who completed 20, 30, or longer military careers without incident, and
> also it's universally agreed by all and sundry that lesbians form a secret
> corps of administrative effectiveness without which the military in
> practice would be seriously impacted so that leaving them alone is a
> near-necessity in purely pragmatic terms.

Yup, gay males can be "heroes" and lesbians can be "administratively
effective". LOL!

> I never administered an Article 15 (non-judicial punishment) that didn't
> include a charge and several specifications of Article 92.

I have. As a commander (Captain) I did several times. These were
"company-grade" article 15s. As a Major, I could administer "field-
grade" article 15s. It's a significant amount of power:

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

Arny Krueger

July 20th 08, 11:59 AM

"BretLudwig" > wrote in message
lkaboutaudio.com

> What, you support letting open gays serve in the
> military, or you are an openly gay currently serving in
> the military?

Note that ****R won't take responsibility for writing something that is
obviously vague. He's been screwing up like crazy lately, and far be it from
him to admit even a less-than-clear wording.

> Not sure how to interpret that. If the
> latter, I will give you this: you have guts if not the
> best judgment to post this, even under pseudonym!

Nahh, ****R posts under a nym because sockpuppets have no legal names. They
also have no SSNs.

Unlike the guy whose hand is up the butt of the ****R sockpuppet, I did
serve in the Army. Obviously there were gays in the Army way back then, but
as long as they did their job and kept their noses clean, where's the beef?

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

July 20th 08, 09:01 PM

On Jul 20, 5:59*am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "BretLudwig" > wrote in message
>
> lkaboutaudio.com
>
> > What, you support letting open gays serve in the
> > military, or you are an openly gay currently serving in
> > the military?
>
> Note that ****R won't take responsibility for writing something that is
> obviously vague. He's been screwing up like crazy lately, and far be it from
> him to admit even a less-than-clear wording.

Oh, I AM SO SORRY FOR WRITING SOMETHING THAT YOU AND BRATZI
MISINTERPERETED!!!!!!!!!!!!

IF MY WRITING WAS LESS-THAN-CLEAR TO YOU PLEASE FORGIVE ME!!!!!!!!!

THIS IS, LIKE, THE BIGGEST DEAL EVER!!!!

> > *Not sure how to interpret that. If the
> > latter, I will give you this: you have guts if not the
> > best judgment to post this, even under pseudonym!
>
> Nahh, ****R posts under a nym because sockpuppets have no legal names. They
> also have no SSNs.

LOL!

> Unlike the guy whose hand is up the butt of the ****R sockpuppet, I did
> serve in the Army. Obviously there were gays in the Army way back then, but
> as long as they did their job and kept their noses clean, where's the beef?

Juvenile attempt at reverse-psychology noted. You think you can goad
me into giving you any personal information.

Sorry, GOIA, it will not happen. Why not? Because as I've said many
times, I will not give it to you. LOL!

If you did a standard hitch, you were no higher than a specialist when
you got out. You, like 2pid, were not officer material.

Arny Krueger

July 21st 08, 11:49 AM

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message

> On Jul 20, 5:59 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "BretLudwig" > wrote in message
>>
>> lkaboutaudio.com
>>
>>> What, you support letting open gays serve in the
>>> military, or you are an openly gay currently serving in
>>> the military?
>>
>> Note that ****R won't take responsibility for writing
>> something that is obviously vague. He's been screwing up
>> like crazy lately, and far be it from him to admit even
>> a less-than-clear wording.
>
> Oh, I AM SO SORRY FOR WRITING SOMETHING THAT YOU AND
> BRATZI MISINTERPERETED!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> IF MY WRITING WAS LESS-THAN-CLEAR TO YOU PLEASE FORGIVE
> ME!!!!!!!!!

As usual ****R you've missed the point - probably intentionally. Less-than
clear is excusable, posting something that was less-than-clear and then
calling people insane when they point that out is sign of a pathology.

>>> Not sure how to interpret that. If the
>>> latter, I will give you this: you have guts if not the
>>> best judgment to post this, even under pseudonym!

>> Nahh, ****R posts under a nym because sockpuppets have
>> no legal names. They also have no SSNs.

> LOL!

Irrelevant.

>> Unlike the guy whose hand is up the butt of the ****R
>> sockpuppet, I did serve in the Army. Obviously there
>> were gays in the Army way back then, but as long as they
>> did their job and kept their noses clean, where's the
>> beef?

> Juvenile attempt at reverse-psychology noted. You think
> you can goad me into giving you any personal information.

Paranoid response noted. It takes a seriously disturbed person to interpret
a statement about gays in the military into an attempt to trick someone into
posting personal information. BTW, when did posting your legal name
constitute releasing sensitive personal information?

> Sorry, my lord and master, it will not happen. Why not? Because as I've
> said many times, I will not give it to you. LOL!

****R I'm quite sure you won't provide non-sensitive information like you
name because you fear being held accountable for your egregious behavior on
RAO. Also, being a sockpuppet, you have no personal information of any kind,
because you aren't a person. You're just a nym with a huge mouth and ego.

> If you did a standard hitch, you were no higher than a
> specialist when you got out.

Sue me for not take the OCS bait when it was offered.

>You, like 2pid, were not officer material.

At the time I would have done as good of a job of dying in Vietnam, as many
fine officers did. Of course, you don't know anything about the average
lifetime of a Lieutenant in a LZ, do you?

Clyde Slick

July 21st 08, 02:04 PM

On 21 Iul, 06:49, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>
> At the time I would have done as good of a job of dying in Vietnam, >

too bad you ****ed it up.

Arny Krueger

July 21st 08, 04:59 PM

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

> On 21 Iul, 06:49, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>> At the time I would have done as good of a job of dying
>> in Vietnam, >

> too bad you ****ed it up.

Never tried.

What part of Canada were did you move to?

Clyde Slick

July 21st 08, 07:15 PM

On 21 Iul, 11:59, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > On 21 Iul, 06:49, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> At the time I would have done as good of a job of dying
> >> in Vietnam, >
> > too bad you ****ed it up.
>
> Never tried.
>
> What part of Canada were did you move to?

There is no part were I did, Bubba

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

July 21st 08, 08:19 PM

On Jul 21, 5:49*am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> wrote in
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 20, 5:59 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >> "BretLudwig" > wrote in message
>
> lkaboutaudio.com
>
> >>> What, you support letting open gays serve in the
> >>> military, or you are an openly gay currently serving in
> >>> the military?
>
> >> Note that ****R won't take responsibility for writing
> >> something that is obviously vague. He's been screwing up
> >> like crazy lately, and far be it from him to admit even
> >> a less-than-clear wording.
>
> > Oh, I AM SO SORRY FOR WRITING SOMETHING THAT YOU AND
> > BRATZI MISINTERPERETED!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > IF MY WRITING WAS LESS-THAN-CLEAR TO YOU PLEASE FORGIVE
> > ME!!!!!!!!!
>
> As usual ****R you've missed the point - probably intentionally. Less-than
> clear is excusable, posting something that was less-than-clear and then
> calling people insane when they point that out is sign of a pathology.

Did you notice that you and Bratzi were the only two who weren't able
to make that leap? At least Bratzi asked. You did not. That's because
you are, in fact, insane. LOL!

I rest my case. ;-)

> >>> Not sure how to interpret that. If the
> >>> latter, I will give you this: you have guts if not the
> >>> best judgment to post this, even under pseudonym!
> >> Nahh, ****R posts under a nym because sockpuppets have
> >> no legal names. They also have no SSNs.
> > LOL!
>
> Irrelevant.

No, I'm laughing because of how hard you're trying to work it, GOIA.
First you try to bring up "you've never served" when even 2pid and
Clyde (the originators of that line) have dropped it.

Next up? I must be a "sockpuppet".

I find your 'logic' quite funny, but then again I find the insane
amusing.

LOL!

> >> Unlike the guy whose hand is up the butt of the ****R
> >> sockpuppet, I did serve in the Army. Obviously there
> >> were gays in the Army way back then, but as long as they
> >> did their job and kept their noses clean, where's the
> >> beef?
> > Juvenile attempt at reverse-psychology noted. You think
> > you can goad me into giving you any personal information.
>
> Paranoid response noted. It takes a seriously disturbed person to interpret
> a statement about gays in the military into an attempt to trick someone into
> posting personal information.

No, for that you brought out your sockpuppet saw.

> BTW, when did posting your legal name
> constitute releasing sensitive personal information?

When did posting a legal name constuitute "proof: somebody served in
the military?

> > Sorry, GOIA, it will not happen. Why not? Because as I've
> > said many times, I will not give it to you. LOL!
>
> ****R I'm quite sure you won't provide non-sensitive information like you
> name because you fear being held accountable for your egregious behavior on
> RAO. Also, being a sockpuppet, you have no personal information of any kind,
> because you aren't a person. You're just a nym with a huge mouth and ego.

See? LOL!

Work it, baby, work it.

> > If you did a standard hitch, you were no higher than a
> > specialist when you got out.
>
> Sue me for not take the OCS bait when it was offered.

Prove that it was offered. ;-)

> >You, like 2pid, were not officer material.
>
> At the time I would have done as good of a job of dying in Vietnam, as many
> fine officers did. Of course, you don't know anything about the average
> lifetime of a Lieutenant in a LZ, do you?

So you were airmobile?

Funny, I'd gotten the impression you were a REMF radar tech.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

July 21st 08, 08:47 PM

On Jul 21, 2:36*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Jul 21, 12:19*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > wrote:
> > On Jul 21, 5:49*am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> > > wrote in
>
> > No, I'm laughing because of how hard you're trying to work it, GOIA.
> > First you try to bring up "you've never served" when even 2pid and
> > Clyde (the originators of that line) have dropped it.
>
> *Since no one has any provable "_first-hand_" knowledge of your
> service it is irrelevant.
> Rules according to Atkinson.

Hundreds of people *do* have first-hand knowledge of my military
service.

I simply *choose* not to share it here.

A straight-up question: do you believe that sharing personal data
online is a good idea?

Arny Krueger

July 21st 08, 09:25 PM

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message

> On Jul 21, 5:49 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
>> wrote in
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 20, 5:59 am, "Arny Krueger" >
>>> wrote:
>>>> "BretLudwig" > wrote in message
>>
>>>> lkaboutaudio.com
>>
>>>>> What, you support letting open gays serve in the
>>>>> military, or you are an openly gay currently serving
>>>>> in the military?
>>
>>>> Note that ****R won't take responsibility for writing
>>>> something that is obviously vague. He's been screwing
>>>> up like crazy lately, and far be it from him to admit
>>>> even a less-than-clear wording.
>>
>>> Oh, I AM SO SORRY FOR WRITING SOMETHING THAT YOU AND
>>> BRATZI MISINTERPERETED!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>> IF MY WRITING WAS LESS-THAN-CLEAR TO YOU PLEASE FORGIVE
>>> ME!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> As usual ****R you've missed the point - probably
>> intentionally. Less-than
>> clear is excusable, posting something that was
>> less-than-clear and then
>> calling people insane when they point that out is sign
>> of a pathology.
>
> Did you notice that you and Bratzi were the only two who
> weren't able to make that leap?

Just goes to show how little you understand about logic and evidence, ****R.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

IOW just because we noticed your badly formed post, doesn't mean we were the
only ones. We were the only ones with time to waste in yet another futile
effort to get an intelligent response out of you ****R.

> At least Bratzi asked. You did not.
> That's because
> you are, in fact, insane. LOL!

It is kinda insane to expect you act like a mature adult, ****R.

> I rest my case. ;-)

You have no case ****R, except maybe a case of some kind of brain disease.
Untreated syph, or some such. :-(

Arny Krueger

July 21st 08, 09:27 PM

"ScottW" > wrote in message

> On Jul 21, 12:19 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > wrote:
>> On Jul 21, 5:49 am, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>>> >
>>> wrote in
>>>
>>
>>
>> No, I'm laughing because of how hard you're trying to
>> work it, GOIA. First you try to bring up "you've never
>> served" when even 2pid and Clyde (the originators of
>> that line) have dropped it.
>>
>
> Since no one has any provable "_first-hand_" knowledge
> of your
> service it is irrelevant.
> Rules according to Atkinson.

Trust me, ****R has zero first-hand military experience, except maybe with
whatever experience it would take to get rejected on the grounds of being
mentally unfit. In my day people like him never got past the induction
station.

Arny Krueger

July 21st 08, 09:27 PM

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message

> On Jul 21, 2:36 pm, ScottW > wrote:
>> On Jul 21, 12:19 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>>
>> > wrote:
>>> On Jul 21, 5:49 am, "Arny Krueger" >
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>>>> >
>>>> wrote in
>>>>
>>
>>> No, I'm laughing because of how hard you're trying to
>>> work it, GOIA. First you try to bring up "you've never
>>> served" when even 2pid and Clyde (the originators of
>>> that line) have dropped it.
>>
>> Since no one has any provable "_first-hand_" knowledge
>> of your service it is irrelevant.
>> Rules according to Atkinson.
>
> Hundreds of people *do* have first-hand knowledge of my
> military
> service.

Hmm, there were that many people at the recruiter's office when he threw you
out?

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

July 21st 08, 09:39 PM

On Jul 21, 3:27*pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> wrote in
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 21, 2:36 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> >> On Jul 21, 12:19 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> >> > wrote:
> >>> On Jul 21, 5:49 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> >>>> >
> >>>> wrote in
> >>>>
>
> >>> No, I'm laughing because of how hard you're trying to
> >>> work it, GOIA. First you try to bring up "you've never
> >>> served" when even 2pid and Clyde (the originators of
> >>> that line) have dropped it.
>
> >> Since no one has any provable "_first-hand_" knowledge
> >> of your service it is irrelevant.
> >> Rules according to Atkinson.
>
> > Hundreds of people *do* have first-hand knowledge of my
> > military
> > service.
>
> Hmm, there were that many people at the recruiter's office when he threw you
> out?

Yes, GOIA. That's it.

There, there. Everything will be OK.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

July 21st 08, 09:40 PM

On Jul 21, 3:27*pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 21, 12:19 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > wrote:
> >> On Jul 21, 5:49 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> >>> >
> >>> wrote in
> >>>
>
> >> No, I'm laughing because of how hard you're trying to
> >> work it, GOIA. First you try to bring up "you've never
> >> served" when even 2pid and Clyde (the originators of
> >> that line) have dropped it.
>
> > *Since no one has any provable "_first-hand_" knowledge
> > of your
> > service it is irrelevant.
> > Rules according to Atkinson.
>
> Trust me, ****R has zero first-hand military experience, except maybe with
> whatever experience it would take to get rejected on the grounds of being
> mentally unfit. In my day people like him never got past the induction
> station.

Why should anybody trust you, GOIA?

The fact that you think you should be trusted is evidence of your
insanity. LOL!

Arny Krueger

July 21st 08, 09:42 PM

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message

> On Jul 21, 3:27 pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 21, 12:19 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>>> > wrote:
>>>> On Jul 21, 5:49 am, "Arny Krueger" >
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>>>>> >
>>>>> wrote in
>>>>>
>>
>>>> No, I'm laughing because of how hard you're trying to
>>>> work it, GOIA. First you try to bring up "you've never
>>>> served" when even 2pid and Clyde (the originators of
>>>> that line) have dropped it.
>>
>>> Since no one has any provable "_first-hand_" knowledge
>>> of your
>>> service it is irrelevant.
>>> Rules according to Atkinson.
>>
>> Trust me, ****R has zero first-hand military experience,
>> except maybe with whatever experience it would take to
>> get rejected on the grounds of being mentally unfit. In
>> my day people like him never got past the induction
>> station.
>
> Why should anybody trust you, My master and commander?

Because I'm so much better than you, ****R.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

July 21st 08, 09:44 PM

On Jul 21, 3:25*pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> wrote in
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 21, 5:49 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> >> wrote in
> >>
>
> >>> On Jul 20, 5:59 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> "BretLudwig" > wrote in message
>
> lkaboutaudio.com
>
> >>>>> What, you support letting open gays serve in the
> >>>>> military, or you are an openly gay currently serving
> >>>>> in the military?
>
> >>>> Note that ****R won't take responsibility for writing
> >>>> something that is obviously vague. He's been screwing
> >>>> up like crazy lately, and far be it from him to admit
> >>>> even a less-than-clear wording.
>
> >>> Oh, I AM SO SORRY FOR WRITING SOMETHING THAT YOU AND
> >>> BRATZI MISINTERPERETED!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> >>> IF MY WRITING WAS LESS-THAN-CLEAR TO YOU PLEASE FORGIVE
> >>> ME!!!!!!!!!
>
> >> As usual ****R you've missed the point - probably
> >> intentionally. Less-than
> >> clear is excusable, posting something that was
> >> less-than-clear and then
> >> calling people insane when they point that out is sign
> >> of a pathology.
>
> > Did you notice that you and Bratzi were the only two who
> > weren't able *to make that leap?
>
> Just goes to show how little you understand about logic and evidence, ****R.
> "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
>
> IOW just because we noticed your badly formed post, doesn't mean we were the
> only ones. We were the only ones with time to waste in yet another futile
> effort to get an intelligent response out of you ****R.

Let's see: Bratzi asked. You jumped to a conclusion that the post
meant that I had not retired. That would indicate that I had served,
but lied for some reason about retiring. Now you jump to the
conclusion that I never served.

So what will your insane mind (or the voices in your head) tell you
next? LOL!

> > At least Bratzi asked. You did not.
> > That's because
> > you are, in fact, insane. LOL!
>
> It is kinda insane to expect you act like a mature adult, ****R.

Whatever, GOIA. To bring this back to the point: I will not give you
any personal information no matter how hard you apply your "dsebating
trade" techniques, no matter how much you wheedle, beg, distort, plead
or question.

As long as we're clear on that, by all means proceed.

> > I rest my case. ;-)
>
> You have no case ****R, except maybe a case of some kind of brain disease..
> Untreated syph, or some such. :-(

Didn't you just accuse me of doing this same thing?

LOL!

Arny Krueger

July 21st 08, 09:46 PM

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message

> On Jul 21, 3:25 pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
>> wrote in
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 21, 5:49 am, "Arny Krueger" >
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>>>> > wrote in
>>>>
>>
>>>>> On Jul 20, 5:59 am, "Arny Krueger" >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> "BretLudwig" > wrote in message
>>
>>>>>> lkaboutaudio.com
>>
>>>>>>> What, you support letting open gays serve in the
>>>>>>> military, or you are an openly gay currently serving
>>>>>>> in the military?
>>
>>>>>> Note that ****R won't take responsibility for writing
>>>>>> something that is obviously vague. He's been screwing
>>>>>> up like crazy lately, and far be it from him to admit
>>>>>> even a less-than-clear wording.
>>
>>>>> Oh, I AM SO SORRY FOR WRITING SOMETHING THAT YOU AND
>>>>> BRATZI MISINTERPERETED!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>>>> IF MY WRITING WAS LESS-THAN-CLEAR TO YOU PLEASE
>>>>> FORGIVE ME!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>>> As usual ****R you've missed the point - probably
>>>> intentionally. Less-than
>>>> clear is excusable, posting something that was
>>>> less-than-clear and then
>>>> calling people insane when they point that out is sign
>>>> of a pathology.
>>
>>> Did you notice that you and Bratzi were the only two who
>>> weren't able to make that leap?
>>
>> Just goes to show how little you understand about logic
>> and evidence, ****R. "Absence of evidence is not
>> evidence of absence".
>>
>> IOW just because we noticed your badly formed post,
>> doesn't mean we were the
>> only ones. We were the only ones with time to waste in
>> yet another futile
>> effort to get an intelligent response out of you ****R.
>
> Let's see: Bratzi asked. You jumped to a conclusion that
> the post
> meant that I had not retired. That would indicate that I
> had served,
> but lied for some reason about retiring. Now you jump to
> the
> conclusion that I never served.
>
> So what will your insane mind (or the voices in your
> head) tell you
> next? LOL!
>
>>> At least Bratzi asked. You did not.
>>> That's because
>>> you are, in fact, insane. LOL!
>>
>> It is kinda insane to expect you act like a mature
>> adult, ****R.
>
> Whatever, GOIA. To bring this back to the point: I will
> not give you
> any personal information no matter how hard you apply
> your "dsebating
> trade" techniques, no matter how much you wheedle, beg,
> distort, plead
> or question.
>
> As long as we're clear on that, by all means proceed.
>
>>> I rest my case. ;-)
>>
>> You have no case ****R, except maybe a case of some kind
>> of brain disease.
>> Untreated syph, or some such. :-(
>
> Didn't you just accuse me of doing this same thing?

When I do it, it is justified by the fact that I'm a real person, while you
are nobody real.

Imaginary people have no rights at all, right?

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

July 21st 08, 09:52 PM

On Jul 21, 3:42*pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >

> > On Jul 21, 3:27 pm, "Arny Krueger" >

> >> Trust me, ****R has zero first-hand military experience,
> >> except maybe with whatever experience it would take to
> >> get rejected on the grounds of being mentally unfit. In
> >> my day people like him never got past the induction
> >> station.
>
> > Why should anybody trust you, GOIA?
>
> Because I know I'm inferior to you. We worship you every Sunday at my chruch.

I see.

I would never claim to be your personal god, GOIA. That's a call you
get to make.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

July 21st 08, 09:55 PM

On Jul 21, 3:46*pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >

> > So what will your insane mind (or the voices in your
> > head) tell you
> > next? LOL!

Tacit admission of insanity noted. Tacit admission of hearing voices
in your head noted.

> >> You have no case ****R, except maybe a case of some kind
> >> of brain disease.
> >> Untreated syph, or some such. :-(
>
> > Didn't you just accuse me of doing this same thing?
>
> When I do it, it is justified by the fact that I'm a real person, while you
> are nobody real.

Ah, I see. Why are you bothering to respond to somebody who is "not
real"? Does that sound a little, er, um, insane to you? LOL!

> Imaginary people have no rights at all, right?

I wouldn't know about that, GOIA. What does "Francis" say to you on
that matter?

LOL!

Clyde Slick

July 21st 08, 09:59 PM

On 21 Iul, 16:42, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> wrote in
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 21, 3:27 pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> >>> On Jul 21, 12:19 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>> On Jul 21, 5:49 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> wrote in
> >>>>>
>
> >>>> No, I'm laughing because of how hard you're trying to
> >>>> work it, GOIA. First you try to bring up "you've never
> >>>> served" when even 2pid and Clyde (the originators of
> >>>> that line) have dropped it.
>
> >>> Since no one has any provable "_first-hand_" knowledge
> >>> of your
> >>> service it is irrelevant.
> >>> Rules according to Atkinson.
>
> >> Trust me, ****R has zero first-hand military experience,
> >> except maybe with whatever experience it would take to
> >> get rejected on the grounds of being mentally unfit. In
> >> my day people like him never got past the induction
> >> station.
>
> > Why should anybody trust you, My master and commander?
>
> Because I'm so much better than you, ****R.- Ascunde citatul -
>
> - Afiºare text în citat -

Free pass #22

Jenn[_2_]

July 21st 08, 10:10 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> wrote in message
>
> > On Jul 21, 3:25 pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> >> wrote in
> >>
> >> m
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Jul 21, 5:49 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> >>>> > wrote in
> >>>>
> >>>> .com
> >>
> >>>>> On Jul 20, 5:59 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> "BretLudwig" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>>>>> lkaboutaudio.com
> >>
> >>>>>>> What, you support letting open gays serve in the
> >>>>>>> military, or you are an openly gay currently serving
> >>>>>>> in the military?
> >>
> >>>>>> Note that ****R won't take responsibility for writing
> >>>>>> something that is obviously vague. He's been screwing
> >>>>>> up like crazy lately, and far be it from him to admit
> >>>>>> even a less-than-clear wording.
> >>
> >>>>> Oh, I AM SO SORRY FOR WRITING SOMETHING THAT YOU AND
> >>>>> BRATZI MISINTERPERETED!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >>
> >>>>> IF MY WRITING WAS LESS-THAN-CLEAR TO YOU PLEASE
> >>>>> FORGIVE ME!!!!!!!!!
> >>
> >>>> As usual ****R you've missed the point - probably
> >>>> intentionally. Less-than
> >>>> clear is excusable, posting something that was
> >>>> less-than-clear and then
> >>>> calling people insane when they point that out is sign
> >>>> of a pathology.
> >>
> >>> Did you notice that you and Bratzi were the only two who
> >>> weren't able to make that leap?
> >>
> >> Just goes to show how little you understand about logic
> >> and evidence, ****R. "Absence of evidence is not
> >> evidence of absence".
> >>
> >> IOW just because we noticed your badly formed post,
> >> doesn't mean we were the
> >> only ones. We were the only ones with time to waste in
> >> yet another futile
> >> effort to get an intelligent response out of you ****R.
> >
> > Let's see: Bratzi asked. You jumped to a conclusion that
> > the post
> > meant that I had not retired. That would indicate that I
> > had served,
> > but lied for some reason about retiring. Now you jump to
> > the
> > conclusion that I never served.
> >
> > So what will your insane mind (or the voices in your
> > head) tell you
> > next? LOL!
> >
> >>> At least Bratzi asked. You did not.
> >>> That's because
> >>> you are, in fact, insane. LOL!
> >>
> >> It is kinda insane to expect you act like a mature
> >> adult, ****R.
> >
> > Whatever, GOIA. To bring this back to the point: I will
> > not give you
> > any personal information no matter how hard you apply
> > your "dsebating
> > trade" techniques, no matter how much you wheedle, beg,
> > distort, plead
> > or question.
> >
> > As long as we're clear on that, by all means proceed.
> >
> >>> I rest my case. ;-)
> >>
> >> You have no case ****R, except maybe a case of some kind
> >> of brain disease.
> >> Untreated syph, or some such. :-(
> >
> > Didn't you just accuse me of doing this same thing?
>
> When I do it, it is justified by the fact that I'm a real person, while you
> are nobody real.
>
> Imaginary people have no rights at all, right?

This is of interest to me, Arny. In what way is he an "imaginary
person"? Is it because he doesn't reveal his name? Does that make, say
"ScottW" an imaginary person as well?

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

July 21st 08, 10:23 PM

On Jul 21, 4:10*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> In article >,
> *"Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> > wrote in message
>
> > > On Jul 21, 3:25 pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> > > wrote:
> > >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> > >> wrote in
> > >>
> > >> m
>
> > >>> On Jul 21, 5:49 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > >>>> > wrote in
> > >>>>
> > >>>> .com
>
> > >>>>> On Jul 20, 5:59 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>> "BretLudwig" > wrote in message
>
> > lkaboutaudio.com
>
> > >>>>>>> What, you support letting open gays serve in the
> > >>>>>>> military, or you are an openly gay currently serving
> > >>>>>>> in the military?
>
> > >>>>>> Note that ****R won't take responsibility for writing
> > >>>>>> something that is obviously vague. He's been screwing
> > >>>>>> up like crazy lately, and far be it from him to admit
> > >>>>>> even a less-than-clear wording.
>
> > >>>>> Oh, I AM SO SORRY FOR WRITING SOMETHING THAT YOU AND
> > >>>>> BRATZI MISINTERPERETED!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > >>>>> IF MY WRITING WAS LESS-THAN-CLEAR TO YOU PLEASE
> > >>>>> FORGIVE ME!!!!!!!!!
>
> > >>>> As usual ****R you've missed the point - probably
> > >>>> intentionally. Less-than
> > >>>> clear is excusable, posting something that was
> > >>>> less-than-clear and then
> > >>>> calling people insane when they point that out is sign
> > >>>> of a pathology.
>
> > >>> Did you notice that you and Bratzi were the only two who
> > >>> weren't able to make that leap?
>
> > >> Just goes to show how little you understand about logic
> > >> and evidence, ****R. "Absence of evidence is not
> > >> evidence of absence".
>
> > >> IOW just because we noticed your badly formed post,
> > >> doesn't mean we were the
> > >> only ones. We were the only ones with time to waste in
> > >> yet another futile
> > >> effort to get an intelligent response out of you ****R.
>
> > > Let's see: Bratzi asked. You jumped to a conclusion that
> > > the post
> > > meant that I had not retired. That would indicate that I
> > > had served,
> > > but lied for some reason about retiring. Now you jump to
> > > the
> > > conclusion that I never served.
>
> > > So what will your insane mind (or the voices in your
> > > head) tell you
> > > next? LOL!
>
> > >>> At least Bratzi asked. You did not.
> > >>> That's because
> > >>> you are, in fact, insane. LOL!
>
> > >> It is kinda insane to expect you act like a mature
> > >> adult, ****R.
>
> > > Whatever, GOIA. To bring this back to the point: I will
> > > not give you
> > > any personal information no matter how hard you apply
> > > your "dsebating
> > > trade" techniques, no matter how much you wheedle, beg,
> > > distort, plead
> > > or question.
>
> > > As long as we're clear on that, by all means proceed.
>
> > >>> I rest my case. ;-)
>
> > >> You have no case ****R, except maybe a case of some kind
> > >> of brain disease.
> > >> Untreated syph, or some such. :-(
>
> > > Didn't you just accuse me of doing this same thing?
>
> > When I do it, it is justified by the fact that I'm a real person, while you
> > are nobody real.
>
> > Imaginary people have no rights at all, right?
>
> This is of interest to me, Arny. *In what way is he an "imaginary
> person"? *Is it because he doesn't reveal his name? *Does that make, say
> "ScottW" an imaginary person as well?

When somebody cannot attack the logic of an argument, all they can do
is attack the person making the argument.

GOIA believes that he can goad me into throwing up my hands and
crying, "No mas! You're "ripping my torso apart"! Here is my SSN, home
address, name, CV, and nine personal references!"

That will not happen, but it appears that's what he believes.

LOL!

George M. Middius[_4_]

July 21st 08, 10:26 PM

The Krooborg made a joke.

> Trust me

LOL! LMAO! Bwahahaha! Yuk-yuk-yuk!

Arnii said "Trust me". Can you beat that? LOL, ROOTLFMOO, harharhar!

Good one, Turdy. "Trust me" says Arnii Kroofeces. hahahahahaha. Ha.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

July 22nd 08, 12:51 AM

On Jul 21, 6:06*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Jul 21, 12:47*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

> > A straight-up question: do you believe that sharing personal data
> > online is a good idea?
>
> *About as good as trying to make lame posts stand on your
> credentials.

2pid, I think most people have seen by now that my "lame posts"
concerning military matters have handed your ass to you. I think most
people can agree that you blow things out of youe ass when it comes to
military matters. Do we really need to rehash how you called all the
ideas I put forth in the thread called "Is this how to fight an
insurgency?" "lame" or "stupid" or whatever? Do we need to go down
that list and see how many of those "dumb", "lame" ideas are current
policy under the current CG in Iraq? LOL!

Anyway, without avoiding the question again, how about it: would you
advise your children, or their children, to post private data online?
Do you think it's a good idea?

(Hint: that's a "yes" or "no" question.)

John Atkinson[_2_]

July 22nd 08, 03:12 AM

On Jul 21, 7:08 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Jul 21, 2:23 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > wrote:
> > On Jul 21, 4:10 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > This is of interest to me, Arny. In what way is he an "imaginary
> > > person"? Is it because he doesn't reveal his name? Does that
> > > make, say "ScottW" an imaginary person as well?
> >
> > When somebody cannot attack the logic of an argument, all they
> > can do is attack the person making the argument.
>
> You do have that in common with Atkinson.

That's dreadful, ScottW. How can you stand it?

Er, Google appears not ot be working correctly.
I am sure you are correct, of course, ScottW, but
when exactly was it that I attacked the person, not
the argument?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

July 22nd 08, 03:31 AM

On Jul 21, 6:08*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Jul 21, 2:23*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

> > When somebody cannot attack the logic of an argument, all they can do
> > is attack the person making the argument.
>
> * You do have that in common with Atkinson.

LOL!

Yes, 2pid, I've never torn apart one of your brainless 'arguments'.
I've never provided citations, nor spent the time explaining where you
are incorrect. And after all of that time and effort, you invariably
revert back to the position that has been shown to be erroneous.

That is the mark of an imbecile. When I call you an "imbecile" it is
not an attack. It is a statement of fact.

The fact that you cannot perceive when your arguments are in tatters
is entertaining to many of us.

LOL!

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

July 22nd 08, 06:12 AM

On Jul 21, 10:32*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> On Jul 21, 6:08 pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > On Jul 21, 2:23 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > When somebody cannot attack the logic of an argument, all they can do
> > > is attack the person making the argument.
>
> > You do have that in common with Atkinson.
>
> LOL!
>
> Yes, 2pid, I've never torn apart one of your brainless 'arguments'.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Only in your own delusions.

Others can form their own opinions, 2pid.

So far I count one in the 'deluded' column: you.

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> I've never provided citations, nor spent the time explaining where you
> are incorrect.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Funny, you were the one complaining that you weren't going
> to read my citations.

Funny, I actually quote what I am referring to. Others have mentioned
the same problem with your cites: it takes too much effort to try to
decipher what you meant. When somebody takes a guess, you call them
wrong. So why bother?

> Too many facts for you too handle.

I see. LOL!

> The rest of your BS is just more of the same.

Not quite. When it comes to the military it seems that senior leaders
always (as in "invariably") end up confirming what I've said. They
never (as in "never") seem to agree with you. Go figure.

Not bad for someone who is just "chest-thumping" (and who has never
served and doesn't actually exist), right? LOL!

> Unsubstantiated chest thumping from a very small
> man who is too dimwitted to realize the he can't claim
> authority from anonymity, he has to show it.

No, he doesn't. The expertise is all there, the knowledge is all
there.

Someone who is right is right regardless of whether or not you know
their name.

> All you show is immaturity.

I see.

LOL!

What a moron.

John Atkinson[_2_]

July 22nd 08, 12:00 PM

On Jul 21, 11:29 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Jul 21, 7:08 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> >> On Jul 21, 2:23 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> >> > wrote:
> >> > When somebody cannot attack the logic of an argument, all
> > > > they can do is attack the person making the argument.
> >>
> >> You do have that in common with Atkinson.
> >
> > That's dreadful, ScottW. How can you stand it?
> >
> > Er, Google appears not ot be working correctly.
> > I am sure you are correct, of course, ScottW, but
> > when exactly was it that I attacked the person, not
> > the argument?
>
> You are one dumb SOB.

I see. So, to sum up: You say that rather than address an
argument, I attack the person making the argument. I
correctly argue that google.groups doesn't find messages
containing examples of that behavior. In response, rather
than "attack the argument" I am making, you attack _me_.

Do you really not see the irony, ScottW?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Arny Krueger

July 22nd 08, 12:22 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>> When I do it, it is justified by the fact that I'm a
>> real person, while you are nobody real.

>> Imaginary people have no rights at all, right?

> This is of interest to me, Arny. In what way is he an
> "imaginary person"?

Where is conclusive or indicative proof that he is real?

> Is it because he doesn't reveal his name?

Real people have real names. They may or may not be their legal names, but
they have real names.

You Jenn, at least have what appears to be a real name.

Arny Krueger

July 22nd 08, 12:23 PM

"John Atkinson" > wrote in
message

> On Jul 21, 7:08 pm, ScottW > wrote:
>> On Jul 21, 2:23 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>> > wrote:
>>> On Jul 21, 4:10 pm, Jenn
>>> > wrote:
>>>> This is of interest to me, Arny. In what way is he an
>>>> "imaginary person"? Is it because he doesn't reveal
>>>> his name? Does that make, say "ScottW" an imaginary
>>>> person as well?
>>>
>>> When somebody cannot attack the logic of an argument,
>>> all they can do is attack the person making the
>>> argument.
>>
>> You do have that in common with Atkinson.
>
> That's dreadful, ScottW. How can you stand it?

Yes, John it is dreadful that a person's of your presumed status resorts to
so much name-calling.

Jenn[_2_]

July 22nd 08, 03:27 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> >> When I do it, it is justified by the fact that I'm a
> >> real person, while you are nobody real.
>
> >> Imaginary people have no rights at all, right?
>
> > This is of interest to me, Arny. In what way is he an
> > "imaginary person"?
>
> Where is conclusive or indicative proof that he is real?

His posts appear here. He wrote them.

>
> > Is it because he doesn't reveal his name?
>
> Real people have real names. They may or may not be their legal names, but
> they have real names.

He chooses not to reveal it. But obviously a real person writes the
posts.

>
> You Jenn, at least have what appears to be a real name.

So do you. We chose to reveal them. That doesn't make us any more
"real" than those who don't, like Shhhh, Scoot, et al.

Arny Krueger

July 22nd 08, 06:30 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>>>> When I do it, it is justified by the fact that I'm a
>>>> real person, while you are nobody real.
>>
>>>> Imaginary people have no rights at all, right?
>>
>>> This is of interest to me, Arny. In what way is he an
>>> "imaginary person"?
>>
>> Where is conclusive or indicative proof that he is real?
>
> His posts appear here. He wrote them.

Someone probably wrote them. Of course there might be an enhanced Eliza
program that spews the kinds of repetitive insults that he fills his posts
with. Maybe all of his posts were made that way.

>>> Is it because he doesn't reveal his name?
>>
>> Real people have real names. They may or may not be
>> their legal names, but they have real names.

> He chooses not to reveal it. But obviously a real person
> writes the posts.

Not obvious at all. Of course it takes a certain lack of suspension of
disbelief to think that way.

>> You Jenn, at least have what appears to be a real name.

> So do you. We chose to reveal them. That doesn't make
> us any more "real" than those who don't, like Shhhh,
> Scoot, et al.

Sure it does. Speaks to your suspended disbelief, Jenn.

Jenn[_2_]

July 22nd 08, 07:52 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>
> >>>> When I do it, it is justified by the fact that I'm a
> >>>> real person, while you are nobody real.
> >>
> >>>> Imaginary people have no rights at all, right?
> >>
> >>> This is of interest to me, Arny. In what way is he an
> >>> "imaginary person"?
> >>
> >> Where is conclusive or indicative proof that he is real?
> >
> > His posts appear here. He wrote them.
>
> Someone probably wrote them. Of course there might be an enhanced Eliza
> program that spews the kinds of repetitive insults that he fills his posts
> with. Maybe all of his posts were made that way.

I see.

>
> >>> Is it because he doesn't reveal his name?
> >>
> >> Real people have real names. They may or may not be
> >> their legal names, but they have real names.
>
> > He chooses not to reveal it. But obviously a real person
> > writes the posts.
>
> Not obvious at all. Of course it takes a certain lack of suspension of
> disbelief to think that way.

What do you think that chances are that an Eliza program writes his
posts, Arny?

>
> >> You Jenn, at least have what appears to be a real name.
>
> > So do you. We chose to reveal them. That doesn't make
> > us any more "real" than those who don't, like Shhhh,
> > Scott, et al.
>
> Sure it does. Speaks to your suspended disbelief, Jenn.

lol Since the chances are overwhelming that an Eliza doesn't write the
posts, the person writing the posts is obviously real.

Arny Krueger

July 22nd 08, 08:04 PM

George M. Middius[_4_]

July 22nd 08, 08:09 PM

Jenn said:

> > > [Shhhh] chooses not to reveal it. But obviously a real person
> > > writes the posts.
> >
> > Not obvious at all. Of course it takes a certain lack of suspension of
> > disbelief to think that way.
>
> What do you think that chances are that an Eliza program writes his
> posts, Arny?

Well, put it like this:™ The Krooborg sincerely believes that "competing"
on Usenet is the ultimate proving ground for audio chops. (Witness the
hundreds of times Mr. **** has boasted of his "Usenet career".) We also
know Turdy believes that engineering for profit is sinful. So it's not
much of a stretch to see that Turdborg might also believe that a
frontier-busting AI program would appear first in the world on Usenet.

Jenn[_2_]

July 22nd 08, 08:17 PM

Arny Krueger

July 22nd 08, 08:53 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in message

>>> What do you think that chances are that an Eliza program
>>> writes his posts, Arny?

>> Far greater than zero. Even infinitely greater than zero.

> Infinitely greater than zero?

Yes.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

July 22nd 08, 09:04 PM

On Jul 22, 12:30*pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> Sure it does. Speaks to your suspended disbelief, Jenn.

You may call me Jim Smith is it helps your diseased mind process my
posts.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

July 22nd 08, 09:07 PM

On Jul 22, 2:17*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> In article >,
> *"Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > > In article >,
> > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >
> > >>> In article
> > >>> >, "Arny
> > >>> Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> > >>>> message
> >
> > >>>>> In article
> > >>>>> >, "Arny
> > >>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > >>>>>> When I do it, it is justified by the fact that I'm a
> > >>>>>> real person, while you are nobody real.
>
> > >>>>>> Imaginary people have no rights at all, right?
>
> > >>>>> This is of interest to me, Arny. *In what way is he an
> > >>>>> "imaginary person"?
>
> > >>>> Where is conclusive or indicative proof that he is
> > >>>> real?
>
> > >>> His posts appear here. *He wrote them.
>
> > >> Someone probably wrote them. Of course there might be an
> > >> enhanced Eliza program that spews the kinds of
> > >> repetitive insults that he fills his posts with. Maybe
> > >> all of his posts were made that way.
>
> > > I see.
>
> > >>>>> *Is it because he doesn't reveal his name?
>
> > >>>> Real people have real names. They may or may not be
> > >>>> their legal names, but they have real names.
>
> > >>> He chooses not to reveal it. *But obviously a real
> > >>> person writes the posts.
>
> > >> Not obvious at all. Of course it takes a certain lack of
> > >> suspension of disbelief to think that way.
>
> > > What do you think that chances are that an Eliza program
> > > writes his posts, Arny?
>
> > Far greater than zero. Even infinitely greater than zero.
>
> Infinitely greater than zero?

Maybe, like, a billion times zero. Maybe 100 billion times zero even!

I wonder if GOIA can see why I have a sincere belief that his mind is
addled. He's so crazy and paranoid that now he thinks I'm a computer
program. LOL!

Jenn[_2_]

July 22nd 08, 09:31 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
>
> >>> What do you think that chances are that an Eliza program
> >>> writes his posts, Arny?
>
> >> Far greater than zero. Even infinitely greater than zero.
>
> > Infinitely greater than zero?
>
> Yes.

That's a meaningless number. Arny, most people haven't even heard of
that program. Could you just admit that the overwhelming chances are
that a person, not a program, writes his posts?

George M. Middius[_4_]

July 22nd 08, 09:32 PM

Shhhh! said:
[i]
> > Sure it does. Speaks to your suspended disbelief, Jenn.
>
> You may call me Jim Smith it helps your diseased mind process my
> posts.

I'm George Middius and I don't really approve of this post. If you want
some of my precious approval charms, you need to include a suggestion that
Krooger off himself, or at least a reference to his 96+% fecal content.

George M. Middius[_4_]

July 22nd 08, 09:33 PM

Shhhh! said:

> I wonder if GOIA can see why I have a sincere belief that his mind is
> addled. He's so crazy and paranoid that now he thinks I'm a computer
> program. LOL!

I expect that in a couple of days, Turdy will boast that he laughed and
laughed as you "swallowed" his "bait".

Arny Krueger

July 22nd 08, 09:42 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>>>> What do you think that chances are that an Eliza
>>>>> program writes his posts, Arny?
>>
>>>> Far greater than zero. Even infinitely greater than
>>>> zero.
>>
>>> Infinitely greater than zero?
>>
>> Yes.
>
> That's a meaningless number.

Not necessarily.

> Arny, most people haven't even heard of that program.

So what?

> Could you just admit that
> the overwhelming chances are that a person, not a
> program, writes his posts?

It seems very important to you Jenn that I feel a certain way. Why do you
feel the need to impose yourself on me?

Jenn[_2_]

July 22nd 08, 09:46 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>
> >>>>> What do you think that chances are that an Eliza
> >>>>> program writes his posts, Arny?
> >>
> >>>> Far greater than zero. Even infinitely greater than
> >>>> zero.
> >>
> >>> Infinitely greater than zero?
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >
> > That's a meaningless number.
>
> Not necessarily.
>
> > Arny, most people haven't even heard of that program.
>
> So what?

So that fact greatly reduces the chances that Shhhh is actually a
computer program.

>
> > Could you just admit that
> > the overwhelming chances are that a person, not a
> > program, writes his posts?
>
> It seems very important to you Jenn that I feel a certain way. Why do you
> feel the need to impose yourself on me?

So the answer is no, you can't admit that.

Arny Krueger

July 22nd 08, 10:02 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> What do you think that chances are that an Eliza
>>>>>>> program writes his posts, Arny?
>>>>
>>>>>> Far greater than zero. Even infinitely greater than
>>>>>> zero.
>>>>
>>>>> Infinitely greater than zero?
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> That's a meaningless number.
>>
>> Not necessarily.
>>
>>> Arny, most people haven't even heard of that program.
>>
>> So what?
>
> So that fact greatly reduces the chances that Shhhh is
> actually a computer program.

Wow, what rotten logic. According to Jenn, the purported fact that most
people haven't heard of a certain program is absolute proof that it doesn't
exist.

>>> Could you just admit that
>>> the overwhelming chances are that a person, not a
>>> program, writes his posts?
>>
>> It seems very important to you Jenn that I feel a
>> certain way. Why do you feel the need to impose yourself
>> on me?

> So the answer is no, you can't admit that.

Given the absolutely ludicrous logic that you are using Jenn, I'm unsafe
agreeing with you about much of anything.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

July 22nd 08, 10:17 PM

On Jul 22, 3:42*pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Jenn" > wrote in message

> > *Could you just admit that
> > the overwhelming chances are that a person, not a
> > program, writes his posts?
>
> It seems very important to you Jenn that I feel a certain way. Why do you
> feel the need to impose yourself on me?

Sane people with a good heart seem to have a hard time just accepting
that there are insane people in the mix. Add to that a large dose of
"evil" and if you were good and sane like Jenn is you'd see why she
was trying to understand you.

It would be easier for Jenn if she just accepted that you're not a
good person and that you're "not all there".

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

July 22nd 08, 10:19 PM

On Jul 22, 3:33*pm, George M. Middius >
wrote:
> Shhhh! said:
>
> > I wonder if GOIA can see why I have a sincere belief that his mind is
> > addled. He's so crazy and paranoid that now he thinks I'm a computer
> > program. LOL!
>
> I expect that in a couple of days, Turdy will boast that he laughed and
> laughed as you "swallowed" his "bait".

I am very much enjoying watching him chase his tail.

I don't exist, but if I did, what is my name?

I won't give GOIA my name, so therefore I don't exist.

If I did exist, I must be a computer program.

And the best one of all, "Trust him". LOL!

George M. Middius[_4_]

July 22nd 08, 10:26 PM

Jenn said:

> > >>> What do you think that chances are that an Eliza program
> > >>> writes his posts, Arny?
> >
> > >> Far greater than zero. Even infinitely greater than zero.
> >
> > > Infinitely greater than zero?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> That's a meaningless number. Arny, most people haven't even heard of
> that program. Could you just admit that the overwhelming chances are
> that a person, not a program, writes his posts?

Sorry, Mistress, but such an admission would entail admitting Krooger lied
when he said "infinitely greater". And you know perfectly well that the
most crushing "debating trade" defeat imaginable is an admission of lying.

Jenn[_2_]

July 22nd 08, 10:31 PM

Eeyore

July 22nd 08, 10:38 PM

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

> I am one of them.

And why not ?

Does it really matter as long as they're not promoting their sexual preferences ? Gays have
served in the military since time immerorial.

Graham

Jenn[_2_]

July 22nd 08, 11:01 PM

In article >,
Eeyore > wrote:

> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:
>
> > I am one of them.
>
> And why not ?
>
> Does it really matter as long as they're not promoting their sexual
> preferences ? Gays have
> served in the military since time immerorial.
>
> Graham

From the halls of Montezuma
To the shores of Tripoli
I have fought my country's battles
I have faced every enemy
I ain't scared of no Iraqi missiles
I ain't scared of no Russian tanks
If I'm captured and tortured all they'll get
Is my serial number name and rank
You know I'd storm Baghdad to kick Saddam's butt
Swim to Havana bring home Castro's beard
For my buddies throw my body on a live grenade
I guess I just don't know the meaning of fear
But please
Please
Please please please please please
Don't make me shower with a fairy
Not a fairy--fairies scare me
Cause a fairy might look at my weewee
My weewee--it's so teeny

.... Fred Small

Eeyore

July 23rd 08, 12:12 AM

Jenn wrote:

> Eeyore > wrote:
> > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:
> >
> > > I am one of them.
> >
> > And why not ?
> >
> > Does it really matter as long as they're not promoting their sexual
> > preferences ? Gays have
> > served in the military since time immerorial.
> >
> > Graham
>
> From the halls of Montezuma
> To the shores of Tripoli
> I have fought my country's battles
> I have faced every enemy
> I ain't scared of no Iraqi missiles
> I ain't scared of no Russian tanks
> If I'm captured and tortured all they'll get
> Is my serial number name and rank
> You know I'd storm Baghdad to kick Saddam's butt
> Swim to Havana bring home Castro's beard
> For my buddies throw my body on a live grenade
> I guess I just don't know the meaning of fear
> But please
> Please
> Please please please please please
> Don't make me shower with a fairy
> Not a fairy--fairies scare me
> Cause a fairy might look at my weewee
> My weewee--it's so teeny
>
> ... Fred Small

Oh dear. Not sure if to laugh or cry.

Graham

Jenn[_2_]

July 23rd 08, 12:22 AM

In article >,
Eeyore > wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
>
> > Eeyore > wrote:
> > > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:
> > >
> > > > I am one of them.
> > >
> > > And why not ?
> > >
> > > Does it really matter as long as they're not promoting their sexual
> > > preferences ? Gays have
> > > served in the military since time immerorial.
> > >
> > > Graham
> >
> > From the halls of Montezuma
> > To the shores of Tripoli
> > I have fought my country's battles
> > I have faced every enemy
> > I ain't scared of no Iraqi missiles
> > I ain't scared of no Russian tanks
> > If I'm captured and tortured all they'll get
> > Is my serial number name and rank
> > You know I'd storm Baghdad to kick Saddam's butt
> > Swim to Havana bring home Castro's beard
> > For my buddies throw my body on a live grenade
> > I guess I just don't know the meaning of fear
> > But please
> > Please
> > Please please please please please
> > Don't make me shower with a fairy
> > Not a fairy--fairies scare me
> > Cause a fairy might look at my weewee
> > My weewee--it's so teeny
> >
> > ... Fred Small
>
> Oh dear. Not sure if to laugh or cry.
>
> Graham

Exactly ;-)

Jenn[_2_]

July 23rd 08, 03:26 AM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >>
> >> >>> In article
> >> >>> >, "Arny
> >> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> >>>> message
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> t
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>>>> What do you think that chances are that an Eliza
> >> >>>>>>> program writes his posts, Arny?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>>> Far greater than zero. Even infinitely greater than
> >> >>>>>> zero.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> Infinitely greater than zero?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Yes.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> That's a meaningless number.
> >> >>
> >> >> Not necessarily.
> >> >>
> >> >>> Arny, most people haven't even heard of that program.
> >> >>
> >> >> So what?
> >> >
> >> > So that fact greatly reduces the chances that Shhhh is
> >> > actually a computer program.
> >>
> >> Wow, what rotten logic. According to Jenn, the purported fact that most
> >> people haven't heard of a certain program is absolute proof that it
> >> doesn't
> >> exist.
> >
> > Why are you trying to start an argument with me with the above strawman,
> > Arny?
> >
> >>
> >> >>> Could you just admit that
> >> >>> the overwhelming chances are that a person, not a
> >> >>> program, writes his posts?
> >> >>
> >> >> It seems very important to you Jenn that I feel a
> >> >> certain way. Why do you feel the need to impose yourself
> >> >> on me?
> >
> > I'm not trying to make you feel anything, Arny. I'm trying to get you
> > to see that the overwhelming chances are that Shhhh's posts are posted
> > by an actual person. Clearly that is the case.
>
> An actual person who is probably not who they claim to be.
> People on usenet who make claims of credential from an
> anonymous position are rarely substantiated.
> They disappear just as quickly as they appear.
>
> ScottW

I don't know; AFAICT he has posted under that nym for about 2 1/2 years.

You're about half as anonymous, Scott. ;-)

Arny Krueger

July 23rd 08, 10:47 AM

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>>
>>>>> In article
>>>>> >, "Arny
>>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>>>> message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What do you think that chances are that an Eliza
>>>>>>>>> program writes his posts, Arny?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Far greater than zero. Even infinitely greater than
>>>>>>>> zero.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Infinitely greater than zero?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a meaningless number.
>>>>
>>>> Not necessarily.
>>>>
>>>>> Arny, most people haven't even heard of that program.
>>>>
>>>> So what?
>>>
>>> So that fact greatly reduces the chances that Shhhh is
>>> actually a computer program.

>> Wow, what rotten logic. According to Jenn, the purported
>> fact that most people haven't heard of a certain
>> program is absolute proof that it doesn't exist.

> Why are you trying to start an argument with me with the
> above strawman, Arny?

What straw man?

You made the argument.

This is no defense.

>>>>> Could you just admit that
>>>>> the overwhelming chances are that a person, not a
>>>>> program, writes his posts?
>>>>
>>>> It seems very important to you Jenn that I feel a
>>>> certain way. Why do you feel the need to impose
>>>> yourself on me?

> I'm not trying to make you feel anything, Arny.

Really?

Then you aren't really trying to communicate with me, and this whole
conversation must be some sort of a dream.

> I'm trying to get you to see that the overwhelming chances
> are that Shhhh's posts are posted by an actual person.

I agree that it is possible that a real human being, perhaps someone with
brain damage, could make posts that are as repetitive and idiotic as ****R's
posts are.

> Clearly that is the case.

So far Jenn you have failed to even make an interesting argument to support
that claim. What you have done is make some pretty ****-poor arguments that
were filled with posturing and really bad logic. Perhaps you have studied
Scientology?

John Atkinson[_2_]

July 23rd 08, 01:28 PM

On Jul 22, 6:33 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Jul 22, 4:00 am, John Atkinson > wrote:
> > On Jul 21, 11:29 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> > > "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > > On Jul 21, 7:08 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> > > >> On Jul 21, 2:23 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> > When somebody cannot attack the logic of an argument, all
> > > > > > they can do is attack the person making the argument.
> > > >>
> > > >> You do have that in common with Atkinson.
> > > >
> > > > That's dreadful, ScottW. How can you stand it?
> > > >
> > > > Er, Google appears not ot be working correctly.
> > > > I am sure you are correct, of course, ScottW, but
> > > > when exactly was it that I attacked the person, not
> > > > the argument?
> > >
> > > You are one dumb SOB.
> >
> > I see. So, to sum up: You say that rather than address an
> > argument, I attack the person making the argument. I
> > correctly argue that google.groups doesn't find messages
> > containing examples of that behavior.
>
> False premise.

Why is it a "false premise"? I try hard not to call people
names, with, I believe, just two lapses in 11 years when,
after much provocation, I called Arny Krueger "insane."

> > In response, rather than "attack the argument"
> > I am making, you attack _me_.
>
> You provided no argument. Just a bunch of
> obvious hogwash.

Why is it "obvious hogwash" for me to state,
correctly, that groups.google.com cannot retrieve
Usenet postings from me where I "attack the
person not the argument"? You made the
declaration about my behavior, ScottW; yet you
haven't provided any supporting evidence for that
declaration; then, in an apparent example of "do
what I say, not what I do," you called me names,
ie, "attacked me, not my argument."

As I said, quite ironical. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Jenn[_2_]

July 23rd 08, 04:15 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >>>> message
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> >, "Arny
> >>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >>>>>> message
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> What do you think that chances are that an Eliza
> >>>>>>>>> program writes his posts, Arny?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Far greater than zero. Even infinitely greater than
> >>>>>>>> zero.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Infinitely greater than zero?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That's a meaningless number.
> >>>>
> >>>> Not necessarily.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Arny, most people haven't even heard of that program.
> >>>>
> >>>> So what?
> >>>
> >>> So that fact greatly reduces the chances that Shhhh is
> >>> actually a computer program.
>
> >> Wow, what rotten logic. According to Jenn, the purported
> >> fact that most people haven't heard of a certain
> >> program is absolute proof that it doesn't exist.
>
> > Why are you trying to start an argument with me with the
> > above strawman, Arny?
>
> What straw man?
>
> You made the argument.

I don't claim that the fact that most people haven't heard of the
program is absolute proof that it doesn't exist. That's a straw man.

>
> This is no defense.
>
> >>>>> Could you just admit that
> >>>>> the overwhelming chances are that a person, not a
> >>>>> program, writes his posts?
> >>>>
> >>>> It seems very important to you Jenn that I feel a
> >>>> certain way. Why do you feel the need to impose
> >>>> yourself on me?
>
> > I'm not trying to make you feel anything, Arny.
>
> Really?

Yes, really.

>
> Then you aren't really trying to communicate with me, and this whole
> conversation must be some sort of a dream.

I'm trying to get you to understand, not feel. Clearly, the chances of
his posts being written by a person is far, far great than the chances
of his posts being written by a program.

>
> > I'm trying to get you to see that the overwhelming chances
> > are that Shhhh's posts are posted by an actual person.
>
> I agree that it is possible that a real human being, perhaps someone with
> brain damage, could make posts that are as repetitive and idiotic as ****R's
> posts are.

Possible?

>
> > Clearly that is the case.
>
> So far Jenn you have failed to even make an interesting argument to support
> that claim. What you have done is make some pretty ****-poor arguments that
> were filled with posturing and really bad logic. Perhaps you have studied
> Scientology?

As usual, you have to attempt to insult. Oh well, I tried.

Jenn[_2_]

July 23rd 08, 04:31 PM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >>
> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> et
> >> >> >>> In article
> >> >> >>> >, "Arny
> >> >> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> >> >>>> message
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> .ne
> >> >> >>>> t
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>> What do you think that chances are that an Eliza
> >> >> >>>>>>> program writes his posts, Arny?
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>>> Far greater than zero. Even infinitely greater than
> >> >> >>>>>> zero.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>> Infinitely greater than zero?
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> Yes.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> That's a meaningless number.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Not necessarily.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> Arny, most people haven't even heard of that program.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> So what?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > So that fact greatly reduces the chances that Shhhh is
> >> >> > actually a computer program.
> >> >>
> >> >> Wow, what rotten logic. According to Jenn, the purported fact that most
> >> >> people haven't heard of a certain program is absolute proof that it
> >> >> doesn't
> >> >> exist.
> >> >
> >> > Why are you trying to start an argument with me with the above strawman,
> >> > Arny?
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >>> Could you just admit that
> >> >> >>> the overwhelming chances are that a person, not a
> >> >> >>> program, writes his posts?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> It seems very important to you Jenn that I feel a
> >> >> >> certain way. Why do you feel the need to impose yourself
> >> >> >> on me?
> >> >
> >> > I'm not trying to make you feel anything, Arny. I'm trying to get you
> >> > to see that the overwhelming chances are that Shhhh's posts are posted
> >> > by an actual person. Clearly that is the case.
> >>
> >> An actual person who is probably not who they claim to be.
> >> People on usenet who make claims of credential from an
> >> anonymous position are rarely substantiated.
> >> They disappear just as quickly as they appear.
> >>
> >> ScottW
> >
> > I don't know; AFAICT he has posted under that nym for about 2 1/2 years.
>
> How many years has middiot posted under his?

A long time. What's the point?
>
> >
> > You're about half as anonymous, Scott. ;-)
>
> And I don't make silly anonymous claims of credential
> unless someone demands them and then only for their
> ignorant benefit.
> There are worthless on usenet AFAIAC.
> You are only your posts. Not some trumped resume.
>
> ScottW

Jenn[_2_]

July 23rd 08, 04:51 PM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> >>
> >> >> ScottW
> >> >
> >> > I don't know; AFAICT he has posted under that nym for about 2 1/2 years.
> >>
> >> How many years has middiot posted under his?
> >
> > A long time. What's the point?
>
> A nym is not a person. Middiot is a persona,
> a made character.
> Even some "real" people are made characters here.
> Sander used to say he pondered every post of his very carefully
> to insure it met with the image he wished to have archived on
> google.
>
> This is not a real world of real people. It's RAO on usenet.
> I can't say if that is true of all usenet groups. Some pro groups
> have real people who know each other and just use it as a
> communication tool. RAO is not that.

But it's undoubtable that posts are written by actual people. That's my
point.

>
> You're not the same person on RAO as you are in the real world
> either as I'm sure you would not stand and endure Arny face to face
> for the length of time you pander to him here in some threads.

Depends. If he were a student and made the number of false assumptions
he makes, I would be very persistent in trying to help him. I'm a
stubborn person. ;-) But you're right; I would put up with his insults
or general manner.

Jenn[_2_]

July 23rd 08, 05:05 PM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> ScottW
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I don't know; AFAICT he has posted under that nym for about 2 1/2
> >> >> > years.
> >> >>
> >> >> How many years has middiot posted under his?
> >> >
> >> > A long time. What's the point?
> >>
> >> A nym is not a person. Middiot is a persona,
> >> a made character.
> >> Even some "real" people are made characters here.
> >> Sander used to say he pondered every post of his very carefully
> >> to insure it met with the image he wished to have archived on
> >> google.
> >>
> >> This is not a real world of real people. It's RAO on usenet.
> >> I can't say if that is true of all usenet groups. Some pro groups
> >> have real people who know each other and just use it as a
> >> communication tool. RAO is not that.
> >
> > But it's undoubtable that posts are written by actual people. That's my
> > point.
>
> Depends on how you define "actual people".
> To me, actual people are real people complete with their
> normal personalities. I don't think any truly exist on RAO.
> Some aren't even close.
> Arny admits he isn't the real world turd he is on RAO.
> Middiot can't be real, he has no life.
> Shhhtard won't go around childishly insulting
> everyone who has a different POV..I hope for his sake.
> Anyway, you see my point.
>
> >
> >>
> >> You're not the same person on RAO as you are in the real world
> >> either as I'm sure you would not stand and endure Arny face to face
> >> for the length of time you pander to him here in some threads.
> >
> > Depends. If he were a student and made the number of false assumptions
> > he makes, I would be very persistent in trying to help him.
> > I'm a
> > stubborn person. ;-) But you're right; I would (not) put up with his insults
> > or general manner. (corrected)
>
> So you're not yourself on RAO already. I told you it changes people.
>
> ScottW

In a trivial way, true.

John Atkinson[_2_]

July 23rd 08, 05:12 PM

On Jul 23, 11:37*am, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Jul 22, 6:33 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> >> On Jul 22, 4:00 am, John Atkinson > wrote:
> >> > On Jul 21, 11:29 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> > > "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> > > > On Jul 21, 7:08 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> >> > > >> On Jul 21, 2:23 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> >> > > >> > wrote:
> >> > > >> > When somebody cannot attack the logic of an argument, all
> >> > > > > > they can do is attack the person making the argument.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> * You do have that in common with Atkinson.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > That's dreadful, ScottW. How can you stand it?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Er, Google appears not ot be working correctly.
> >> > > > I am sure you are correct, of course, ScottW, but
> >> > > > when exactly was it that I attacked the person, not
> >> > > > the argument?
> >> > >
> >> > > *You are one dumb SOB.
> >> ?
> >> > I see. So, to sum up: You say that rather than address an
> >> > argument, I attack the person making the argument. I
> >> > correctly argue that google.groups doesn't find messages
> >> > containing examples of that behavior.
> >>
> >> *False premise.
> >
> > Why is it a "false premise"?
>
> You correctly argue nothing.

Excuse me? I am correctly pointing out that your statement
that I attack people rather than their arguments is not supported
by any postings I have made. Your statement is thus incorrect.
I don't see why it is a "false premise" to make that argument
in response to your statement.

> >> > In response, rather than "attack the argument"
> >> > I am making, you attack _me_.
> >>
> >> You provided no argument. *Just a bunch of
> >> obvious hogwash.
> >
> > Why *is it "obvious hogwash" for me to state,
> > correctly, that groups.google.com cannot retrieve
> > Usenet postings from me where I "attack the
> > person not the argument"?
>
> *Because you've done so repeatedly...

In which case, why is not possible for others to retrieve
such postings, ScottW? You have made an accusation
of poor public behavior on my part; I feel it appropriate
to ask you to provide some substantiation for your now
repeated statement.

> ...and you continue make this BS argument as total
> obfuscation of the fact that your claims regarding
> listener ability to more accurately identify different
> based on sound was absolute hogwash, and you
> knew it.

I neither "knew" that, ScottW, nor am I trying to obfuscate
anything. I am asking you to substantiate defamatory
statements that you threw out without any evidence that
they are true.

> > You made the declaration about my behavior, ScottW;
> > yet you haven't provided any supporting evidence for
> > that declaration;
>
> *Arguing with someone with as defective a memory
> as you bears little fruit. *What is obvious today is
> forgotten tomorrow.

But as you haven't yet provided _any_ substantiation
for what you say about my attacking people, ScottW,
there is nothing for me to forget or remember. So again,
_where_ have I attacked people rather than their arguments?
Certainly in this thrread I have not attacked you personally,
even though the opposite is sadly true.

> > then, in an apparent example of "do
> > what I say, not what I do," you called me names,
> > ie, "attacked me, not my argument."
>
>*Your argument is a strawman and remains an obfuscation.
> You made BS conclusions in *your rag and I believe
> you knew they were BS. *Either that or your "experience"
> is worthless. *You can choose.

There is a third alternative, that your unsupported opinions
are simply incorrect, ScottW. In which case, I don't see any
need to argue with you or give your opinions any weight.
After all, as you have repeatedly admitted you have no
experience of either taking part in or designing blind listening
tests of audio equipment.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Jenn[_2_]

July 23rd 08, 05:19 PM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> So you're not yourself on RAO already. I told you it changes people.
> >>
> >> ScottW
> >
> > In a trivial way, true.
>
> Kill it before it grows.
>
> ScottW

I'm thinking of doing just that. I have less time to waste here now,
and it's obviously not my style.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

July 23rd 08, 05:50 PM

On Jul 22, 8:45*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Jenn" > wrote in message

> > I'm not trying to make you feel anything, Arny. *I'm trying to get you
> > to see that the overwhelming chances are that Shhhh's posts are posted
> > by an actual person. *Clearly that is the case.
>
> An actual person who is probably not who they claim to be.
> People on usenet who make claims of credential from an
> anonymous position are rarely substantiated.
> They disappear just as quickly as they appear.

Yes, 2pid.

There, there. Everything will be OK. You have as much knowledge,
training, experience and expertise in military matters as I do. Your
opinion is just as 'valid'.

It's just sheer coincidence and luck that senior military officers
agree with my positions over yours.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

July 23rd 08, 05:51 PM

On Jul 23, 4:47*am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> I agree that it is possible that a real human being, perhaps someone with
> brain damage, could make posts that are as repetitive and idiotic as ****R's
> posts are.

LOL!

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

July 23rd 08, 06:41 PM

On Jul 23, 11:56*am, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Signal" > wrote in message
>
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >>> But it's undoubtable that posts are written by actual people. *That's my
> >>> point.
>
> >> Depends on how you define "actual people".
>
> > Well there's the normal interpretation of the words, or there's you
> > way..
>
> *and there's the middiot claim to normality
> or there's you way :).

Ah, bringing in some whacked-out reference in an attempt to defend the
indefensible.

"Actual people" is normally interpreted thus:

ac·tu·al (kch-l)
adj.
1. Existing and not merely potential or possible. See Synonyms at
real1.
2. Being, existing, or acting at the present moment; current.
3. Based on fact: an actual account of the accident.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/actual

peo·ple (ppl)
n. pl. people
1. Humans considered as a group or in indefinite numbers: People were
dancing in the street. I met all sorts of people.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/people

Only you know how you could define it differently.

George M. Middius[_4_]

July 23rd 08, 06:53 PM

Shhhh! said to duh-Scottie:

> "Actual people" is normally interpreted thus:
[snip]
> Only you know how you could define it differently.

Want a laugh? Ask Scottie what's the difference between an argument and a
logically tenable argument. It's a dead-bang certainty the only answer
you'll get is another spate of meaningless yapping.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

July 23rd 08, 10:57 PM

On Jul 23, 12:53*pm, George M. Middius >
wrote:
> Shhhh! said to duh-Scottie:

> > "Actual people" is normally interpreted thus:
> [snip]
> > Only you know how you could define it differently.
>
> Want a laugh? Ask Scottie what's the difference between an argument and a
> logically tenable argument. It's a dead-bang certainty the only answer
> you'll get is another spate of meaningless yapping.

I'd like to see 2pid's definition of an "actual workday". Then I'd
like to see him use the words "actual workday" and "integrity" in a
sentence. LOL!

John Atkinson[_2_]

July 24th 08, 01:07 AM

On Jul 23, 12:54 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > On Jul 22, 6:33 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> > >> On Jul 22, 4:00 am, John Atkinson > wrote:
> > >> > On Jul 21, 11:29 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> > >> > > "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> > >> > ...
> > >> > > > On Jul 21, 7:08 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> > >> > > >> On Jul 21, 2:23 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > >> > > >> > wrote:
> > >> > > >> >> When somebody cannot attack the logic of an argument, all
> > >> > > > >> > they can do is attack the person making the argument.
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> You do have that in common with Atkinson.
> >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > Er, Google appears not to be working correctly.
> > > >> > > > I am sure you are correct, of course, ScottW, but
> > > >> > > > when exactly was it that I attacked the person, not
> > > >> > > > the argument?
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > You are one dumb SOB.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I see. So, to sum up: You say that rather than address an
> > > >> > argument, I attack the person making the argument. I
> > > >> > correctly argue that google.groups doesn't find messages
> > > >> > containing examples of that behavior.
> > > >>
> > > >> False premise.
> > > >
> > > > Why is it a "false premise"?
> > >
> > > You correctly argue nothing.
> >
> > Excuse me? I am correctly pointing out that your statement
> > that I attack people rather than their arguments is not
> > supported by any postings I have made. Your statement is thus
> > incorrect. I don't see why it is a "false premise" to make
> > that argument in response to your statement.

No response from ScottW.

> >> >>> In response, rather than "attack the argument"
> >> >>> I am making, you attack _me_.
> > >>>
> > >>> You provided no argument. Just a bunch of
> > >>> obvious hogwash.
> > >>
> > >> Why is it "obvious hogwash" for me to state,
> > >> correctly, that groups.google.com cannot retrieve
> > >> Usenet postings from me where I "attack the
> > >> person not the argument"?
> > >
> > > Because you've done so repeatedly...
> >
> > In which case, why is not possible for others to retrieve
> > such postings, ScottW? You have made an accusation
> > of poor public behavior on my part; I feel it appropriate
> > to ask you to provide some substantiation for your now
> > repeated statement.

No response from ScottW. For someone who is so quick to
demand answers from others, he is curiously slow to respond
to legitimate questions asked of him.

> > > ...and you continue make this BS argument as total
> > > obfuscation of the fact that your claims regarding
> > > listener ability to more accurately identify different
> > > based on sound was absolute hogwash, and you knew it.
> >
> > I neither "knew" that, ScottW, nor am I trying to obfuscate
> > anything. I am asking you to substantiate defamatory
> > statements that you threw out without any evidence that
> > they are true.

Again, no substantiation from ScottW.

> > > > You made the declaration about my behavior, ScottW;
> > > > yet you haven't provided any supporting evidence for
> > > > that declaration;
> > .
> > > Arguing with someone with as defective a memory
> > > as you bears little fruit. What is obvious today is
> > > forgotten tomorrow.
> >
> > But as you haven't yet provided _any_ substantiation
> > for what you say about my attacking people, ScottW,
> > there is nothing for me to forget or remember. So again,
> > _where_ have I attacked people rather than their arguments?

No answer from ScottW.

> > Certainly in this thread I have not attacked you personally,
> > even though the opposite is sadly true.

It should remembered, ScottW, that you trolled me into
this thread by making a defamatory statement about me for
which you have failed to provide any substantiation, even
after being repeatedly and politely requested to do so.

> > > > then, in an apparent example of "do what I say, not
> > > > what I do," you called me names, ie, "attacked me,
> > > > not my argument."
> > >
> > > Your argument is a strawman and remains an obfuscation.
> > > You made BS conclusions in your rag and I believe
> > > you knew they were BS. Either that or your "experience"
> > > is worthless. You can choose.
> >
> > There is a third alternative, that your unsupported opinions
> > are simply incorrect, ScottW. In which case, I don't see any
> > need to argue with you or give your opinions any weight.
>
> Well lets [sic] discuss it just a bit before you jump to any
> conclusions.

Why do I have to discuss it, when so far you have refused
to answer any of _my_ requests that you substantiate your
defamatory statements?

> In the article in question you and Will Hammond claimed,
> "Well, first, the differences between ability to distinguish
> amp difference and ability to determine sameness were so great
> (for the statistically oriented, with such low p values and
> such large ns) that any caviling about test conditions can be
> promptly rejected (footnote 9). Second, the results reaffirm
> the general belief that it's easier to tell when there's a
> difference between things than it is to be sure they're the same. "
> http://www.stereophile.com//features/113/index4.html
> As I have said before this is a gross misuse of the statistics.

In your opinion, ScottW. And as I said, I see no reason to
argue with your opinion.

> I will note that one reader who obviously has more
> experience than John did note in his letter, "In short,
> the data from the Stereophile blind listening test are
> most likely to be due to biased guessing rather than
> audible differences between amplifiers."
> See Kevin Willoughby, letters part 3.

I wonder who selected that letter for publication?

Now please, ScottW, either substantiate or withdraw your
statements that I "attack people, not the arguments they
make." If you can't or won't substantiate them, then one
will be left wondering about your integrity, eh.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Jenn[_2_]

July 24th 08, 01:10 AM

In article
>,
John Atkinson > wrote:>
> Now please, (...), either substantiate or withdraw your
> statements that I (...) If you can't or won't substantiate them, then one
> will be left wondering about your integrity, eh.

Man, is THAT a familiar sounding paragraph! ;-)

George M. Middius[_4_]

July 24th 08, 01:25 AM

Jenn said:

> > Now please, (...), either substantiate or withdraw your
> > statements that I (...) If you can't or won't substantiate them, then one
> > will be left wondering about your integrity, eh.
>
> Man, is THAT a familiar sounding paragraph! ;-)

Scottie just admitted that he requires an "act of God" before he will do
what John asked.

George M. Middius[_4_]

July 24th 08, 02:15 AM

The Idiot commits yet another act of irreligious apostasy.

JA:
> > But also pure conjecture on your part, due to your lack of
> > first-hand experience or knowledge of your subject."

Witlessmongrel:
> You could not refute the claim directly so you attack me by
> claiming I lack knowledge of the subject.

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

You consider that an "attack"? You're pretty darn sensitive for somebody
who accuses others of lying, fraud, and deception without the slightest
trace of evidence. You should have "Integrity Challenged" engraved on your
tombstone.

> How can you know the extent of mine or anyone else's
> knowledge on any subject?
> You cannot.

Unless you've been lying, we all know you have zero experience in DBTs.
Have you been lying, Scooter? Do you even know what lying is?

Time to top off your "integrity" tank, methinks. ;-)

George M. Middius[_4_]

July 24th 08, 02:16 AM

More inchoate yapping from the backyard.

> > Scottie just admitted that he requires an "act of God" before he will do
> > what John asked.

> An BARK-BARK-BARK act of yapyapyapyap God WOOF! GROWF! GRRRRRRRRR!!!

Somebody please give the mutt a bone. Its incessant yapping is getting
tedious.

John Atkinson[_2_]

July 24th 08, 02:45 AM

On Jul 23, 8:50 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> > Now please, ScottW, either substantiate or withdraw your
> > statements that I "attack people, not the arguments they
> > make." If you can't or won't substantiate them, then one
> > will be left wondering about your integrity, eh.
>
> Here you go.http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/5eb346d3a94eff14...
> "But also pure conjecture on your part, due to your lack of
> first-hand experience or knowledge of your subject."
>
> You could not refute the claim directly so you attack me
> by claiming I lack knowledge of the subject.

A "lack of first-hand experience or knowledge" is the exact
phrase I chose to use, ScottW. You are taking offense at
something I didn't actually say. I ma sure you are not totally
without knowledge of the subject, but that knowledge is
not the result of direct experience, something I
certainly consider relevant to the discussion.

And why is this an "attack"? By your own admission, you
have no first-hand experience or knowledge of double-blind
testing in audio. All I did was agree with your prior admission,
ScottW. If _that_ is what you consider a personal attack, then
with all due respect, you are extraordinarily thin-skinned.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

July 24th 08, 02:54 AM

On Jul 23, 7:07*pm, John Atkinson > wrote:
> On Jul 23, 12:54 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:

> > Well lets [sic] discuss it just a bit before you jump to any
> > conclusions.
>
> Why do I have to discuss it, when so far you have refused
> to answer any of _my_ requests that you substantiate your
> defamatory statements?

He meant 'discuss'. When 2pid 'discusses' something, it apparently
means that he can fart out any old thing and then demand answers.

He farts military stuff out all of the time. I once (early on, before
I had learned what a true imbecile he is) went through the military
planning process with him from top-to-bottom, with appropriate cites,
references to Army FMs (field manuals) and so on. If you ask him, I'll
bet you that he would still claim theat he "won" the 'discussion'.

> Now please, ScottW, either substantiate or withdraw your
> statements that I "attack people, not the arguments they
> make." If you can't or won't substantiate them, then one
> will be left wondering about your integrity, eh.

What would you do with an employee who spent over half of his working
day screwing off on the Internet?

If 2pid has "integrity" he'll give most of his check back to his
employer.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

July 24th 08, 02:55 AM

On Jul 23, 8:15*pm, George M. Middius >
wrote:
> The Idiot commits yet another act of irreligious apostasy.
>
> JA:
>
> > > But also pure conjecture on your part, due to your lack of
> > > first-hand experience or knowledge of your subject."
>
> Witlessmongrel:
>
> > You could not refute the claim directly so you attack me by
> > claiming I lack knowledge of the subject.
>
> BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
>
> You consider that an "attack"? You're pretty darn sensitive for somebody
> who accuses others of lying, fraud, and deception without the slightest
> trace of evidence. You should have "Integrity Challenged" engraved on your
> tombstone.

It may not have been an "attack". It may have been a "smear".

LOL!

MiNe 109

July 24th 08, 03:22 AM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

>
> "But also pure conjecture on
> your part, due to your lack of first-hand experience or
> knowledge of your subject."

Try reading it as "lack of first hand experience or [first hand]
knowledge."

Stephen

George M. Middius[_4_]

July 24th 08, 04:06 AM

Witless yapped:

> >> "But also pure conjecture on
> >> your part, due to your lack of first-hand experience or
> >> knowledge of your subject."
> >
> > Try reading it as "lack of first hand experience or [first hand]
> > knowledge."
>
> Illegitimate exclusion.

LOL! This is just like when the Krooborg "declares it irrelevant".

> aggregious

Yap! Woofy-woofy-woof! Barkety-barkety-bark! GROWL!

MiNe 109

July 24th 08, 04:38 AM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "But also pure conjecture on
> >> your part, due to your lack of first-hand experience or
> >> knowledge of your subject."
> >
> > Try reading it as "lack of first hand experience or [first hand]
> > knowledge."
>
> Illegitimate exclusion.

Of what?

> My issue is not with the listening
> trials as conducted, but with the aggregious interpretation of the
> results.
>
> I would also note that few if any of the letters Atkinson chose
> to publish on the subject indicate the writer had first hand experience
> with DBTs. It appears the bar has been moved.
> No matter.

What bar?

> Atkinson has shown himself to not be a credible statistician
> nor a person able to admit a mistake.

I followed the link and I don't see what you're talking about.

Stephen

MiNe 109

July 24th 08, 05:29 AM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> "But also pure conjecture on
> >> >> your part, due to your lack of first-hand experience or
> >> >> knowledge of your subject."
> >> >
> >> > Try reading it as "lack of first hand experience or [first hand]
> >> > knowledge."
> >>
> >> Illegitimate exclusion.
> >
> > Of what?
>
> first hand kowledge.
>
> What do you know about first hand knowledge anyway?
> How did you acquire first hand knowledge about first hand
> knowledge? I suppose it was about the first time you **** your
> diaper and decided you like the squishy warm feeling.

Lord. It's like trying to staple jello.

He's taking you at your word that you don't have first hand knowledge of
running or taking a dbt.

> >> My issue is not with the listening
> >> trials as conducted, but with the aggregious interpretation of the
> >> results.
> >>
> >> I would also note that few if any of the letters Atkinson chose
> >> to publish on the subject indicate the writer had first hand experience
> >> with DBTs. It appears the bar has been moved.
> >> No matter.
> >
> > What bar?
> >
> >> Atkinson has shown himself to not be a credible statistician
> >> nor a person able to admit a mistake.
> >
> > I followed the link and I don't see what you're talking about.
>
> Because you lack knowledge, first hand or otherwise.
> Read the letters. Some of them have more knowledge
> than the editor.

Looks like interpreting statistics. IIRC, there was a follow-up letter
in a later article.

Stephen

Arny Krueger

July 24th 08, 02:00 PM

"John Atkinson" > wrote in
message

> But as you haven't yet provided _any_ substantiation
> for what you say about my attacking people, ScottW,
> there is nothing for me to forget or remember. So again,
> _where_ have I attacked people rather than their
> arguments?

Well, John just lately abused me personally on the grounds that I didn't
trust quotes from the NYT. I went back and found that the NYT article he
cited was a book review and the quote come from the book being reviewed, not
the NYT itself. .

So far nobody has found the quote in question directly quoted in the
editorial content of the NYT.

So John obviously didn't know where he read the quote, but that didn't keep
him from abusing me.

There are some well-known quotes in google where John repeatedly called me
insane for disagreeing with him.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/2874d1ae24a1ed78

John Atkinson wrote:

"Insane. Or at least delusional."

"Insane. Or at least someone who believes he can read minds."

"Insane."

"Insane, Or at least paranoid"

"Perhaps dangerously paranoid."

"And finally, Mr. Krueger plays the envy card. As I said, insane."

Bottom line, John's claims to be a choirboy are seriously in doubt. ;-)

I think that ****R is just trying to emulate John. ;-)

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

July 24th 08, 08:29 PM

On Jul 24, 8:00*am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in
>
>
> > But as you haven't yet provided _any_ substantiation
> > for what you say about my attacking people, ScottW,
> > there is nothing for me to forget or remember. So again,
> > _where_ have I attacked people rather than their
> > arguments?
>
> Well, John just lately abused me personally on the grounds that I didn't
> trust quotes from the NYT. I went back and found that the NYT article he
> cited was a book review and the quote come from the book being reviewed, not
> the NYT itself. .
>
> So far nobody has found the quote in question directly quoted in the
> editorial content of the NYT.
>
> So John obviously didn't know where he read the quote, but that didn't keep
> him from abusing me.
>
> There are some well-known quotes in google where John repeatedly called me
> insane for disagreeing with him.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/2874d1ae24a1ed78
>
> John Atkinson wrote:
>
> "Insane. Or at least delusional."
>
> "Insane. Or at least someone who believes he can read minds."
>
> "Insane."
>
> "Insane, Or at least paranoid"
>
> "Perhaps dangerously paranoid."
>
> "And finally, Mr. Krueger plays the envy card. As I said, insane."
>
> Bottom line, John's claims to be a choirboy are seriously in doubt. * ;-)
>
> I think that ****R is just trying to emulate John. ;-)

Just because we apparently agree that you're not "all there"?

You provide that evidence yourself, GOIA.

PS: I've never been in a choir. I don't go to church.

Clyde Slick

July 24th 08, 11:45 PM

On 22 Iul, 17:38, Eeyore >
wrote:

>
> Does it really matter as long as they're not promoting their sexual preferences ? Gays have
> served in the military since time immerorial.
>
>
LOL!!!
Did you mean to say time "immoral"?

Jenn[_2_]

July 24th 08, 11:49 PM

In article
>,
Clyde Slick > wrote:

> On 22 Iul, 17:38, Eeyore >
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Does it really matter as long as they're not promoting their sexual
> > preferences ? Gays have
> > served in the military since time immerorial.
> >
> >
> LOL!!!
> Did you mean to say time "immoral"?

On the topic: I just learned that the first casualty in Iraq was a
Marine who is gay. He lost a leg and ruined an arm. He sounds like an
interesting man.

Clyde Slick

July 25th 08, 12:02 AM

On 24 Iul, 18:49, Jenn > wrote:

> On the topic: *I just learned that the first casualty in Iraq was a
> Marine who is gay. *He lost a leg and ruined an arm. *He sounds like an
> interesting man.

Why?
In my opinion none of those categories would mark him as any more or
less
intrinsicly intersting than anyone else. though i do respect
his sacrifice.

Jenn[_2_]

July 25th 08, 12:06 AM

In article
>,
Clyde Slick > wrote:

> On 24 Iul, 18:49, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > On the topic: *I just learned that the first casualty in Iraq was a
> > Marine who is gay. *He lost a leg and ruined an arm. *He sounds like an
> > interesting man.
>
>
>
> Why?
> In my opinion none of those categories would mark him as any more or
> less
> intrinsicly intersting than anyone else. though i do respect
> his sacrifice.

His whole life story is interesting; too long and off topic for here.
One interesting point IRT to DADT, is that he was highly respected in
his unit for his work and his personal qualities. His sexual
orientation didn't seem to cause any problems. He's the Godfather to
the kids of 5 men that he served with.

George M. Middius[_4_]

July 25th 08, 12:25 AM

Jenn said:

> On the topic: I just learned that the first casualty in Iraq was a
> Marine who is gay. He lost a leg and ruined an arm. He sounds like an
> interesting man.

I used to ask Gay vets why on earth they'd want to sign up and work in such
a hostile environment as the U.S. military. Most of them had the same reason
as straights -- the opportunity to get trained in something marketable. Navy
men had an additional reason.

George M. Middius[_4_]

July 25th 08, 12:26 AM

Jenn said:

> One interesting point IRT to DADT, is that he was highly respected in
> his unit for his work and his personal qualities. His sexual
> orientation didn't seem to cause any problems. He's the Godfather to
> the kids of 5 men that he served with.

Nowadays, the strongest resistance to an integrated service corps comes from
the generals. Homophobia is on the wane among the under 30s, don't you
think?

Jenn[_2_]

July 25th 08, 12:29 AM

In article >,
George M. Middius > wrote:

> Jenn said:
>
> > One interesting point IRT to DADT, is that he was highly respected in
> > his unit for his work and his personal qualities. His sexual
> > orientation didn't seem to cause any problems. He's the Godfather to
> > the kids of 5 men that he served with.
>
> Nowadays, the strongest resistance to an integrated service corps comes from
> the generals. Homophobia is on the wane among the under 30s, don't you
> think?

Yep.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

July 25th 08, 12:32 AM

On Jul 24, 6:29*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> In article >,
> *George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > Jenn said:
>
> > > One interesting point IRT to DADT, is that he was highly respected in
> > > his unit for his work and his personal qualities. *His sexual
> > > orientation didn't seem to cause any problems. *He's the Godfather to
> > > the kids of 5 men that he served with.
>
> > Nowadays, the strongest resistance to an integrated service corps comes from
> > the generals. Homophobia is on the wane among the under 30s, don't you
> > think?
>
> Yep.

Agreed. It's the fossils like Clyde and 2pid who are the problem.

Jenn[_2_]

July 25th 08, 12:37 AM

In article
>,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:

> On Jul 24, 6:29*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > *George M. Middius > wrote:
> >
> > > Jenn said:
> >
> > > > One interesting point IRT to DADT, is that he was highly respected in
> > > > his unit for his work and his personal qualities. *His sexual
> > > > orientation didn't seem to cause any problems. *He's the Godfather to
> > > > the kids of 5 men that he served with.
> >
> > > Nowadays, the strongest resistance to an integrated service corps comes
> > > from
> > > the generals. Homophobia is on the wane among the under 30s, don't you
> > > think?
> >
> > Yep.
>
> Agreed.

I think that among the over 30 crowd, tolerance is on the rise as well,
partially due to more people (family, friends, colleagues, et al) coming
out. It just happens more slowly, naturally.

Clyde Slick

July 25th 08, 11:25 AM

On 24 Iul, 19:25, George M. Middius > wrote:
> Jenn said:
>
> > On the topic: *I just learned that the first casualty in Iraq was a
> > Marine who is gay. *He lost a leg and ruined an arm. *He sounds like an
> > interesting man.
>
> I used to ask Gay vets why on earth they'd want to sign up and work in such
> a hostile environment as the U.S. military. Most of them had the same reason
> as straights -- the opportunity to get trained in something marketable. Navy
> men had an additional reason.

Shore leave n Bangkok.

Clyde Slick

July 25th 08, 11:30 AM

On 24 Iul, 19:32, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Jul 24, 6:29*pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > *George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > > Jenn said:
>
> > > > One interesting point IRT to DADT, is that he was highly respected in
> > > > his unit for his work and his personal qualities. *His sexual
> > > > orientation didn't seem to cause any problems. *He's the Godfather to
> > > > the kids of 5 men that he served with.
>
> > > Nowadays, the strongest resistance to an integrated service corps comes from
> > > the generals. Homophobia is on the wane among the under 30s, don't you
> > > think?
>
> > Yep.
>
> Agreed. It's the fossils like Clyde and 2pid who are the problem.

What?
I am not opposed to gays in the military.
If it does not impede the mission, what's the problem.
I don't know whether or not having gays in the military
would necessarily have that much of a negative effect. I am not
an expert in military life.
so, i am neutral.

George M. Middius[_4_]

July 25th 08, 05:06 PM

Clyde Slick said:

> > I used to ask Gay vets why on earth they'd want to sign up and work in such
> > a hostile environment as the U.S. military. Most of them had the same reason
> > as straights -- the opportunity to get trained in something marketable. Navy
> > men had an additional reason.
>
> Shore leave n Bangkok.

Yeah, right, sure.

George M. Middius[_4_]

July 25th 08, 05:07 PM

Clyde Slick said:

> > > > Nowadays, the strongest resistance to an integrated service corps comes from
> > > > the generals. Homophobia is on the wane among the under 30s, don't you
> > > > think?
> >
> > > Yep.
> >
> > Agreed. It's the fossils like Clyde and 2pid who are the problem.
>
> What?
> I am not opposed to gays in the military.
> If it does not impede the mission, what's the problem.
> I don't know whether or not having gays in the military
> would necessarily have that much of a negative effect. I am not
> an expert in military life.
> so, i am neutral.

Shhh hit the nail on the head. You're a fossil steeped in homophobia.

Eeyore

July 25th 08, 06:49 PM

Clyde Slick wrote:

> On 22 Iul, 17:38, Eeyore >
> wrote:
> >
> > Does it really matter as long as they're not promoting their sexual preferences ? Gays > have
> served in the military since time immerorial.
> >
> LOL!!!
> Did you mean to say time "immoral"?

LOL, I glanced t it and thought doesn't quite look right bur clicjed sne anyway.

I like the alternative take on it.

I was told at school that in Roman baths, it was quite common for slaves/staff to offer oral sex
to the patrons.

Graham

Eeyore

July 25th 08, 06:50 PM

Clyde Slick wrote:

> On 24 Iul, 18:49, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > On the topic: I just learned that the first casualty in Iraq was a
> > Marine who is gay. He lost a leg and ruined an arm. He sounds like an
> > interesting man.
>
> Why?
> In my opinion none of those categories would mark him as any more or
> less intrinsicly intersting than anyone else. though i do respect
> his sacrifice.

Shame there had to be any sacrifice of that nature.

Graham

Eeyore

July 25th 08, 07:01 PM

Jenn wrote:

> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:
> > On Jul 24, 6:29 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > In article >,
> > > George M. Middius > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Jenn said:
> > >
> > > > > One interesting point IRT to DADT, is that he was highly respected in
> > > > > his unit for his work and his personal qualities. His sexual
> > > > > orientation didn't seem to cause any problems. He's the Godfather to
> > > > > the kids of 5 men that he served with.
> > >
> > > > Nowadays, the strongest resistance to an integrated service corps comes
> > > > from the generals. Homophobia is on the wane among the under 30s, don't
> you
> > > > think?
> > >
> > > Yep.
> >
> > Agreed.
>
> I think that among the over 30 crowd, tolerance is on the rise as well,
> partially due to more people (family, friends, colleagues, et al) coming
> out. It just happens more slowly, naturally.

I'd say bisexuality is on the increase esp among girls too. I known several (in
the biblical and other sense). One (a French girl) ha an issue with guys I think
because she hinted that a friend of her father's had molested her in some way but
she happily chatted me up at a party and later told me a kinda cute tale about
seducing an English girl living in France. She was onviously very proud of her
success. I only caught a very slight glance aat it but it looked like she had
some really dirty explicit printed porno too, slightly cartoon style stuff.

Graham

George M. Middius[_4_]

July 25th 08, 07:18 PM

Poofie brushes the cookie crumbs from his beard and staggers over to the
window.

> I'd say bisexuality is on the increase esp among girls too. I known several (in
> the biblical and other sense).

<groan>

Here we go again. Tell us about the nubile young groupies who are always
flinging themselves at you, Mr. Bear.

Clyde Slick

July 25th 08, 08:48 PM

On 25 Iul, 12:07, George M. Middius > wrote:
> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > > > Nowadays, the strongest resistance to an integrated service corps comes from
> > > > > the generals. Homophobia is on the wane among the under 30s, don't you
> > > > > think?
>
> > > > Yep.
>
> > > Agreed. It's the fossils like Clyde and 2pid who are the problem.
>
> > What?
> > I am not opposed to gays in the military.
> > If it does not impede the mission, what's the problem.
> > I don't know whether or not *having gays in the military
> > would necessarily have that much of a negative effect. I am not
> > an expert in military life.
> > so, i am neutral.
>
> Shhh hit the nail on the head. You're a fossil steeped in homophobia.

for what, that it is ok as long as the military functions well?
I guess a disfunctional military would be just fine with you.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

July 25th 08, 08:55 PM

On Jul 25, 5:30*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 24 Iul, 19:32, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Jul 24, 6:29*pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > In article >,
> > > *George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > > > Jenn said:
>
> > > > > One interesting point IRT to DADT, is that he was highly respected in
> > > > > his unit for his work and his personal qualities. *His sexual
> > > > > orientation didn't seem to cause any problems. *He's the Godfather to
> > > > > the kids of 5 men that he served with.
>
> > > > Nowadays, the strongest resistance to an integrated service corps comes from
> > > > the generals. Homophobia is on the wane among the under 30s, don't you
> > > > think?
>
> > > Yep.
>
> > Agreed. It's the fossils like Clyde and 2pid who are the problem.
>
> What?
> I am not opposed to gays in the military.
> If it does not impede the mission, what's the problem.

Many so-called "experts" back in the 1930s and 1940s were against the
negative effects having blacks serve with whites would've caused.

This is no different.

> I don't know whether or not *having gays in the military
> would necessarily have that much of a negative effect. I am not
> an expert in military life.
> so, i am neutral.

I was more referring to your stance on marriage (which isn't based on
religious, but biological, arguments. LOL!)

I also noted your "time immoral" 'joke' about gays serving.

Clyde Slick

July 25th 08, 09:09 PM

On 25 Iul, 15:55, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Jul 25, 5:30*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 24 Iul, 19:32, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > On Jul 24, 6:29*pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > > In article >,
> > > > *George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > > > > Jenn said:
>
> > > > > > One interesting point IRT to DADT, is that he was highly respected in
> > > > > > his unit for his work and his personal qualities. *His sexual
> > > > > > orientation didn't seem to cause any problems. *He's the Godfather to
> > > > > > the kids of 5 men that he served with.
>
> > > > > Nowadays, the strongest resistance to an integrated service corps comes from
> > > > > the generals. Homophobia is on the wane among the under 30s, don't you
> > > > > think?
>
> > > > Yep.
>
> > > Agreed. It's the fossils like Clyde and 2pid who are the problem.
>
> > What?
> > I am not opposed to gays in the military.
> > If it does not impede the mission, what's the problem.
>
> Many so-called "experts" back in the 1930s and 1940s were against the
> negative effects having blacks serve with whites would've caused.
>
> This is no different.
>
> > I don't know whether or not *having gays in the military
> > would necessarily have that much of a negative effect. I am not
> > an expert in military life.
> > so, i am neutral.
>
> I was more referring to your stance on marriage (which isn't based on
> religious, but biological, arguments. LOL!)
>
> I also noted your "time immoral" 'joke' about gays serving.-

yep, it was a joke.

Arny Krueger

July 25th 08, 09:11 PM

"Eeyore" > wrote in
message

> I'd say bisexuality is on the increase esp among girls
> too. I known several (in the biblical and other sense).
> One (a French girl) ha an issue with guys I think because
> she hinted that a friend of her father's had molested her
> in some way but she happily chatted me up at a party and
> later told me a kinda cute tale about seducing an English
> girl living in France. She was onviously very proud of
> her success. I only caught a very slight glance at it
> but it looked like she had some really dirty explicit
> printed porno too, slightly cartoon style stuff.

In the old days some guys would chat up girls and drop hints that they were
gay, hoping that the girls would see them as a missionary project and try to
convert them over to heterosexuality with some great sex. Maybe this is just
another way that girls are trying to reverse roles with guys.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

July 25th 08, 09:34 PM

On Jul 25, 12:49*pm, Eeyore >
wrote:

> I was told at school that in Roman baths, it was quite common for slaves/staff to offer oral sex
> to the patrons.

While I've heard in England nubile young ladies prefer older men.

Both are probably myths.

George M. Middius[_4_]

July 25th 08, 09:43 PM

Clyde Slick said:

> > > > Agreed. It's the fossils like Clyde and 2pid who are the problem.
> >
> > > What?
> > > I am not opposed to gays in the military.
> > > If it does not impede the mission, what's the problem.
> > > I don't know whether or not *having gays in the military
> > > would necessarily have that much of a negative effect. I am not
> > > an expert in military life.
> > > so, i am neutral.
> >
> > Shhh hit the nail on the head. You're a fossil steeped in homophobia.
>
> for what, that it is ok as long as the military functions well?

For your view that sometimes discrimination is OK. In this case,
presumably because you feel there's some value in catering to
homophobia.

> I guess a disfunctional military would be just fine with you.

Good "logic" there, Sacky. Did you accidentally ingest a "debating
trade" potion?

Clyde Slick

July 25th 08, 09:48 PM

On 25 Iul, 16:43, George M. Middius > wrote:
> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > > > Agreed. It's the fossils like Clyde and 2pid who are the problem.
>
> > > > What?
> > > > I am not opposed to gays in the military.
> > > > If it does not impede the mission, what's the problem.
> > > > I don't know whether or not *having gays in the military
> > > > would necessarily have that much of a negative effect. I am not
> > > > an expert in military life.
> > > > so, i am neutral.
>
> > > Shhh hit the nail on the head. You're a fossil steeped in homophobia.
>
> > for what, that it is ok as long as the military functions well?
>
> For your view that sometimes discrimination is OK. In this case,
> presumably because you feel there's some value in catering to
> homophobia.
>

A very horrible apressumption

> > I guess a disfunctional military would be just fine with you.
>
> Good "logic" there, Sacky. Did you accidentally ingest a "debating
> trade" potion?

Eeyore

July 25th 08, 10:14 PM

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> Poofie brushes the cookie crumbs from his beard

No beard actually. Sorry to disappoint. I don't think girls are so keen on them 'down
there'. In the same way a nice shave in their triangle makes it more fun for us.

> and staggers over to the window.
>
> > I'd say bisexuality is on the increase esp among girls too. I known several (in
> > the biblical and other sense).
>
> <groan>
>
> Here we go again. Tell us about the nubile young groupies who are always
> flinging themselves at you, Mr. Bear.

Got a nice hug today.

Graham

George M. Middius[_4_]

July 25th 08, 10:22 PM

duh-Sacky yammered:

> > > > > If it does not impede the mission, what's the problem.
> > > > > I don't know whether or not *having gays in the military
> > > > > would necessarily have that much of a negative effect. I am not
> > > > > an expert in military life.
> > > > > so, i am neutral.
> >
> > > > Shhh hit the nail on the head. You're a fossil steeped in homophobia.
> >
> > > for what, that it is ok as long as the military functions well?
> >
> > For your view that sometimes discrimination is OK. In this case,
> > presumably because you feel there's some value in catering to
> > homophobia.

> A very horrible apressumption

All I did was paraphrase your own words. Commonplace human logic isn't an
exotic tool now that you've absconded to the backward life of Transylvania,
is it?

> > > I guess a disfunctional military would be just fine with you.

> > Good "logic" there, Sacky. Did you accidentally ingest a "debating
> > trade" potion?

Tsk, tsk. Can't you even summon a single word of explanation?

I don't know what it would take to get you to understand that you're a
bigot. You can claim you don't "hate" anybody, but you've said you can
tolerate discrimination against others. How would you feel if the government
said Jews can only bequeath 10% of their wealth to their families? How about
if we had laws against hispanic people riding the subway? See if you can
connect the dots. (I'm not optimistic that you can.)

Eeyore

July 25th 08, 10:36 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Eeyore" > wrote
>
> > I'd say bisexuality is on the increase esp among girls
> > too. I known several (in the biblical and other sense).
> > One (a French girl) ha an issue with guys I think because
> > she hinted that a friend of her father's had molested her
> > in some way but she happily chatted me up at a party and
> > later told me a kinda cute tale about seducing an English
> > girl living in France. She was onviously very proud of
> > her success. I only caught a very slight glance at it
> > but it looked like she had some really dirty explicit
> > printed porno too, slightly cartoon style stuff.
>
> In the old days some guys would chat up girls and drop hints that they were
> gay, hoping that the girls would see them as a missionary project and try to
> convert them over to heterosexuality with some great sex. Maybe this is just
> another way that girls are trying to reverse roles with guys.

Who knows ?

A girl I was sure I ought to know better because I'd once tried to get
'friendly' with her (also female) house mate once asked me if I was gay.
Actually the 2 of us were friendly but it just didn't actually get *that* far.

I was nearly in stitches.

I could only assume that I was talking openly and honestly to these 3 girls and
they're more used to guys just trying 'chat-up lines'. Very curious. She's a
babe too. She can 'convert me' if that's what she thinks I need ANY day !

Graham

Clyde Slick

July 25th 08, 10:56 PM

On 25 Iul, 17:22, George M. Middius > wrote:
> duh-Sacky yammered:
>
> > > > > > If it does not impede the mission, what's the problem.
> > > > > > I don't know whether or not *having gays in the military
> > > > > > would necessarily have that much of a negative effect. I am not
> > > > > > an expert in military life.
> > > > > > so, i am neutral.
>
> > > > > Shhh hit the nail on the head. You're a fossil steeped in homophobia.
>
> > > > for what, that it is ok as long as the military functions well?
>
> > > For your view that sometimes discrimination is OK. In this case,
> > > presumably because you feel there's some value in catering to
> > > homophobia.
> > A very horrible apressumption
>
> All I did was paraphrase your own words. Commonplace human logic isn't an
> exotic tool now that you've absconded to the backward life of Transylvania,
> is it?
>
> > > > I guess a disfunctional military would be just fine with you.
> > > Good "logic" there, Sacky. Did you accidentally ingest a "debating
> > > trade" potion?
>
> Tsk, tsk. Can't you even summon a single word of explanation?
>
> I don't know what it would take to get you to understand that you're a
> bigot. You can claim you don't "hate" anybody, but you've said you can
> tolerate discrimination against others. How would you feel if the government
> said Jews can only bequeath 10% of their wealth to their families? How about
> if we had laws against hispanic people riding the subway? See if you can
> connect the dots. (I'm not optimistic that you can.)

Duh,,, the military is different. It also discriminates
against disabled people, and the not so smart.
Intellectually impaired people can clean up a kitchen
in McDonalds, but not in a military mess, as a soldier.

AFA gays, having them serve in the military is fine with me,
as long as it doesn't have any negative effects on military
effectiveness. I don't know if it does
or does not have any such effect. If it does not,
fine, gays should be able to serve their country
and reap whetever benefits can be had from military service.

George M. Middius[_4_]

July 25th 08, 11:20 PM

Clyde Slick said:

> > I don't know what it would take to get you to understand that you're a
> > bigot. You can claim you don't "hate" anybody, but you've said you can
> > tolerate discrimination against others. How would you feel if the government
> > said Jews can only bequeath 10% of their wealth to their families? How about
> > if we had laws against hispanic people riding the subway? See if you can
> > connect the dots. (I'm not optimistic that you can.)
>
> Duh,,, the military is different.

Yes, in that they condone and support homophobia. The only reason anybody
has ever suggested that mixing gays with homophobes is bad is that the
'phobes are afraid to be around the gays.

> It also discriminates
> against disabled people, and the not so smart.

Yeah, good point. I'm disgusted at your disingenuousness.

A quick reply, and then you can move on to your next disgusting
rationalization for bigotry: Sexual orientation has no effect on the ability
to do soldier work, whereas the other groups you doofily tried to compare us
to are unable to do the work at the desired standard of performance.

> AFA gays, having them serve in the military is fine with me,
> as long as it doesn't have any negative effects on military
> effectiveness.

What kind of "negative effect" are you fantasizing about? I don't usually
resort to triteness, but since when is bigotry justified by itself? That's
what you're advocating. You want to indulge the hatred and fear of the
bigots at the expense of those who are hated or feared.

I know you can't see what I'm getting at. I'm also sure you can't articulate
a reason why the bigots should be indulged. I fully expect another vague
excuse about "negative effects".

Jenn[_2_]

July 25th 08, 11:55 PM

In article >,
George M. Middius > wrote:

> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > I don't know what it would take to get you to understand that you're a
> > > bigot. You can claim you don't "hate" anybody, but you've said you can
> > > tolerate discrimination against others. How would you feel if the
> > > government
> > > said Jews can only bequeath 10% of their wealth to their families? How
> > > about
> > > if we had laws against hispanic people riding the subway? See if you can
> > > connect the dots. (I'm not optimistic that you can.)
> >
> > Duh,,, the military is different.
>
> Yes, in that they condone and support homophobia. The only reason anybody
> has ever suggested that mixing gays with homophobes is bad is that the
> 'phobes are afraid to be around the gays.
>
> > It also discriminates
> > against disabled people, and the not so smart.
>
> Yeah, good point. I'm disgusted at your disingenuousness.
>
> A quick reply, and then you can move on to your next disgusting
> rationalization for bigotry: Sexual orientation has no effect on the ability
> to do soldier work, whereas the other groups you doofily tried to compare us
> to are unable to do the work at the desired standard of performance.
>
> > AFA gays, having them serve in the military is fine with me,
> > as long as it doesn't have any negative effects on military
> > effectiveness.
>
> What kind of "negative effect" are you fantasizing about? I don't usually
> resort to triteness, but since when is bigotry justified by itself? That's
> what you're advocating. You want to indulge the hatred and fear of the
> bigots at the expense of those who are hated or feared.
>
> I know you can't see what I'm getting at. I'm also sure you can't articulate
> a reason why the bigots should be indulged. I fully expect another vague
> excuse about "negative effects".

George, I agree with some of your points here, and I agree with some of
Art's. There is absolutely NO reason given against gays serving that
doesn't boil down to "some find gay people to be icky". Well, too bad.
They are presumably strong men and women; they can quickly learn to get
over it. I think that it's the same with SSM. It always boils down to
either religious objections, which in my view is totally beside the
point, or "opposite sex marriage is the way it has always been,
therefore it should remain that way".

Where I disagree with you is that I don't think it's always about
homophobia per se.

Just my $0.02

George M. Middius[_4_]

July 26th 08, 12:15 AM

Jenn said:

> > I know you can't see what I'm getting at. I'm also sure you can't articulate
> > a reason why the bigots should be indulged. I fully expect another vague
> > excuse about "negative effects".
>
> George, I agree with some of your points here, and I agree with some of
> Art's. There is absolutely NO reason given against gays serving that
> doesn't boil down to "some find gay people to be icky". Well, too bad.
> They are presumably strong men and women; they can quickly learn to get
> over it. I think that it's the same with SSM. It always boils down to
> either religious objections, which in my view is totally beside the
> point, or "opposite sex marriage is the way it has always been,
> therefore it should remain that way".
>
> Where I disagree with you is that I don't think it's always about
> homophobia per se.

What's the difference between homophobia and the "icky" thing?

George M. Middius[_4_]

July 26th 08, 12:31 AM

Yappity-yappity-yap.

> Does a straight person have the right to not cohabitate (shower etc)
> with someone who might find them sexually attractive?

Wow. Turns out neanderthals kept pet dogs. Who knew?

Clyde Slick

July 26th 08, 12:53 AM

On 25 Iul, 18:20, George M. Middius > wrote:
> Clyde Slick said:
>
>
> A quick reply, and then you can move on to your next disgusting
> rationalization for bigotry: Sexual orientation has no effect on the ability
> to do soldier work, whereas the other groups you doofily tried to compare us
> to are unable to do the work at the desired standard of performance.
>

Read my lips, if there is no affect on the ability of the military to
perform its functions, I have not one problem with gays serving
openly.

> > AFA gays, having them serve in the military is fine with me,
> > as long as it doesn't have any negative effects on military
> > effectiveness.
>
> What kind of "negative effect" are you fantasizing about? I don't usually
> resort to triteness, but since when is bigotry justified by itself? That's
> what you're advocating. You want to indulge the hatred and fear of the
> bigots at the expense of those who are hated or feared.
>

I don't know if there are, or are not, negative effects

> I know you can't see what I'm getting at. I'm also sure you can't articulate
> a reason why the bigots should be indulged. I fully expect another vague
> excuse about "negative effects".

the only vagueness on my part, is that I don't know if there are, or
are not,
negative effects

Clyde Slick

July 26th 08, 12:55 AM

On 25 Iul, 19:10, ScottW > wrote:
> On Jul 25, 3:55*pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article >,
> > *George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > > Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > > > I don't know what it would take to get you to understand that you're a
> > > > > bigot. You can claim you don't "hate" anybody, but you've said you can
> > > > > tolerate discrimination against others. How would you feel if the
> > > > > government
> > > > > said Jews can only bequeath 10% of their wealth to their families? How
> > > > > about
> > > > > if we had laws against hispanic people riding the subway? See if you can
> > > > > connect the dots. (I'm not optimistic that you can.)
>
> > > > Duh,,, the military is different.
>
> > > Yes, in that they condone and support homophobia. The only reason anybody
> > > has ever suggested that mixing gays with homophobes is bad is that the
> > > 'phobes are afraid to be around the gays.
>
> > > > It also discriminates
> > > > against disabled people, and the not so smart.
>
> > > Yeah, good point. I'm disgusted at your disingenuousness.
>
> > > A quick reply, and then you can move on to your next disgusting
> > > rationalization for bigotry: Sexual orientation has no effect on the ability
> > > to do soldier work, whereas the other groups you doofily tried to compare us
> > > to are unable to do the work at the desired standard of performance.
>
> > > > AFA gays, having them serve in the military is fine with me,
> > > > as long as it doesn't have any negative effects on military
> > > > effectiveness.
>
> > > What kind of "negative effect" are you fantasizing about? I don't usually
> > > resort to triteness, but since when is bigotry justified by itself? That's
> > > what you're advocating. You want to indulge the hatred and fear of the
> > > bigots at the expense of those who are hated or feared.
>
> > > I know you can't see what I'm getting at. I'm also sure you can't articulate
> > > a reason why the bigots should be indulged. I fully expect another vague
> > > excuse about "negative effects".
>
> > George, I agree with some of your points here, and I agree with some of
> > Art's. *There is absolutely NO reason given against gays serving that
> > doesn't boil down to "some find gay people to be icky".
>
> *It's Eddie Murhpy's fault. "Don't be looking at my ass.".
> *Which raises the question, do the reasons for separating men
> and women apply to gays and straights?
> *Does a straight person have the right to not cohabitate (shower etc)
> with someone who might find them sexually attractive?
> If not, why have separate facilities for men and women?
>
> You pansies needed an assist getting to the core of the
> matter instead of all this fluffy PC stuff.
>
> ScottW-

OTOH, we graciously allow gays in prison.

Jenn[_2_]

July 26th 08, 01:02 AM

In article >,
George M. Middius > wrote:

> Jenn said:
>
> > > I know you can't see what I'm getting at. I'm also sure you can't
> > > articulate
> > > a reason why the bigots should be indulged. I fully expect another vague
> > > excuse about "negative effects".
> >
> > George, I agree with some of your points here, and I agree with some of
> > Art's. There is absolutely NO reason given against gays serving that
> > doesn't boil down to "some find gay people to be icky". Well, too bad.
> > They are presumably strong men and women; they can quickly learn to get
> > over it. I think that it's the same with SSM. It always boils down to
> > either religious objections, which in my view is totally beside the
> > point, or "opposite sex marriage is the way it has always been,
> > therefore it should remain that way".
> >
> > Where I disagree with you is that I don't think it's always about
> > homophobia per se.
>
> What's the difference between homophobia and the "icky" thing?

Well, that's a good point. Sometimes, though, "homophobia" is used as a
substitute for "hatred". I don't think that it's hate based in all
cases.

Jenn[_2_]

July 26th 08, 01:06 AM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Jul 25, 3:55*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > *George M. Middius > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Clyde Slick said:
> >
> > > > > I don't know what it would take to get you to understand that you're
> > > > > a
> > > > > bigot. You can claim you don't "hate" anybody, but you've said you
> > > > > can
> > > > > tolerate discrimination against others. How would you feel if the
> > > > > government
> > > > > said Jews can only bequeath 10% of their wealth to their families?
> > > > > How
> > > > > about
> > > > > if we had laws against hispanic people riding the subway? See if you
> > > > > can
> > > > > connect the dots. (I'm not optimistic that you can.)
> >
> > > > Duh,,, the military is different.
> >
> > > Yes, in that they condone and support homophobia. The only reason anybody
> > > has ever suggested that mixing gays with homophobes is bad is that the
> > > 'phobes are afraid to be around the gays.
> >
> > > > It also discriminates
> > > > against disabled people, and the not so smart.
> >
> > > Yeah, good point. I'm disgusted at your disingenuousness.
> >
> > > A quick reply, and then you can move on to your next disgusting
> > > rationalization for bigotry: Sexual orientation has no effect on the
> > > ability
> > > to do soldier work, whereas the other groups you doofily tried to compare
> > > us
> > > to are unable to do the work at the desired standard of performance.
> >
> > > > AFA gays, having them serve in the military is fine with me,
> > > > as long as it doesn't have any negative effects on military
> > > > effectiveness.
> >
> > > What kind of "negative effect" are you fantasizing about? I don't usually
> > > resort to triteness, but since when is bigotry justified by itself?
> > > That's
> > > what you're advocating. You want to indulge the hatred and fear of the
> > > bigots at the expense of those who are hated or feared.
> >
> > > I know you can't see what I'm getting at. I'm also sure you can't
> > > articulate
> > > a reason why the bigots should be indulged. I fully expect another vague
> > > excuse about "negative effects".
> >
> > George, I agree with some of your points here, and I agree with some of
> > Art's. *There is absolutely NO reason given against gays serving that
> > doesn't boil down to "some find gay people to be icky".
>
> It's Eddie Murhpy's fault. "Don't be looking at my ass.".
> Which raises the question, do the reasons for separating men
> and women apply to gays and straights?
> Does a straight person have the right to not cohabitate (shower etc)
> with someone who might find them sexually attractive?
> If not, why have separate facilities for men and women?

Good point, and I don't know the answer. I don't, however, believe that
there is a "right" to privacy in the military.

George M. Middius[_4_]

July 26th 08, 01:22 AM

Jenn said:

> > > Where I disagree with you is that I don't think it's always about
> > > homophobia per se.
> >
> > What's the difference between homophobia and the "icky" thing?
>
> Well, that's a good point. Sometimes, though, "homophobia" is used as a
> substitute for "hatred". I don't think that it's hate based in all
> cases.

What's the difference between hatred and the "icky" thing?

Jenn[_2_]

July 26th 08, 01:23 AM

In article >,
George M. Middius > wrote:

> Jenn said:
>
> > > > Where I disagree with you is that I don't think it's always about
> > > > homophobia per se.
> > >
> > > What's the difference between homophobia and the "icky" thing?
> >
> > Well, that's a good point. Sometimes, though, "homophobia" is used as a
> > substitute for "hatred". I don't think that it's hate based in all
> > cases.
>
> What's the difference between hatred and the "icky" thing?

I think the difference is pretty clear: I find peas icky, but I don't
hate them as vegetables.

George M. Middius[_4_]

July 26th 08, 01:25 AM

Jenn said:

> > Does a straight person have the right to not cohabitate (shower etc)
> > with someone who might find them sexually attractive?
>
> Good point, and I don't know the answer.

No, it's a terrible "point". It's simply an expression of bigotry. Who cares
about the depraved fantasies of bigots? Why should the right of citizens to
serve their country be subordinate to some yutz's irrational fear of gays?
(That's rhetorical.)

The only reason there's segregation between the sexes is tradition. We
should be beyond that now. I'm sure a lot of women agree.

Jenn[_2_]

July 26th 08, 01:27 AM

In article >,
George M. Middius > wrote:

> Jenn said:
>
> > > Does a straight person have the right to not cohabitate (shower etc)
> > > with someone who might find them sexually attractive?
> >
> > Good point, and I don't know the answer.
>
> No, it's a terrible "point". It's simply an expression of bigotry. Who cares
> about the depraved fantasies of bigots? Why should the right of citizens to
> serve their country be subordinate to some yutz's irrational fear of gays?
> (That's rhetorical.)

They shouldn't be. But I don't think that it's about bigotry. I think
that it's more about ignorance.

>
> The only reason there's segregation between the sexes is tradition. We
> should be beyond that now. I'm sure a lot of women agree.

George M. Middius[_4_]

July 26th 08, 01:29 AM

Jenn said:

> > > > > Where I disagree with you is that I don't think it's always about
> > > > > homophobia per se.
> > > >
> > > > What's the difference between homophobia and the "icky" thing?
> > >
> > > Well, that's a good point. Sometimes, though, "homophobia" is used as a
> > > substitute for "hatred". I don't think that it's hate based in all
> > > cases.
> >
> > What's the difference between hatred and the "icky" thing?
>
> I think the difference is pretty clear: I find peas icky, but I don't
> hate them as vegetables.

I don't think that's a valid analogy. First off, you're using "icky" in two
different contexts. The peas are "icky" presumably because you don't like
the taste or the texture. The bigots say Gays are "icky" because they are
..... ahem... averse to sex acts between us.

Second, the peas don't care if you find them "icky". Peas don't have a place
in society.

Try this on: If somebody refused to serve alongside Pakistanis because he
finds them "icky", would you laugh it off?

George M. Middius[_4_]

July 26th 08, 01:33 AM

Clyde Slick said:

> > A quick reply, and then you can move on to your next disgusting
> > rationalization for bigotry: Sexual orientation has no effect on the ability
> > to do soldier work, whereas the other groups you doofily tried to compare us
> > to are unable to do the work at the desired standard of performance.

> Read my lips, if there is no affect[sic] on the ability of the military to
> perform its functions, I have not one problem with gays serving
> openly.

God, you're dense.

The "effect" you're fixated on is that the bigots are uncomfortable. You're
condoning discrimination because some bigots are uncomfortable. Get it now?

> > > AFA gays, having them serve in the military is fine with me,
> > > as long as it doesn't have any negative effects on military
> > > effectiveness.

> > What kind of "negative effect" are you fantasizing about? I don't usually
> > resort to triteness, but since when is bigotry justified by itself? That's
> > what you're advocating. You want to indulge the hatred and fear of the
> > bigots at the expense of those who are hated or feared.

> I don't know if there are, or are not, negative effects

Your argument is pathetic. I suppose I shouldn't expect more from somebody
whose fear of gays getting married is based on something as empty as
instutionalized bigotry.

> > I know you can't see what I'm getting at. I'm also sure you can't articulate
> > a reason why the bigots should be indulged. I fully expect another vague
> > excuse about "negative effects".
>
> the only vagueness on my part, is that I don't know if there are, or
> are not,
> negative effects

What a dolt you can be.

George M. Middius[_4_]

July 26th 08, 01:37 AM

Jenn said:

> > No, it's a terrible "point". It's simply an expression of bigotry. Who cares
> > about the depraved fantasies of bigots? Why should the right of citizens to
> > serve their country be subordinate to some yutz's irrational fear of gays?
> > (That's rhetorical.)
>
> They shouldn't be. But I don't think that it's about bigotry. I think
> that it's more about ignorance.

Do you mean ignorance of the fact that people are people regardless of
orientation? I still laugh about Ross Perot claiming he didn't know a single
gay person.

Ignorance might lie underneath the bigotry, but when somebody says he's
afraid/discomfited/disgusted/whatever by being around gays, that's bigotry.
It might be curable by education, but it's still bigotry.

Jenn[_2_]

July 26th 08, 03:47 AM

In article >,
George M. Middius > wrote:

> Jenn said:
>
> > > > > > Where I disagree with you is that I don't think it's always about
> > > > > > homophobia per se.
> > > > >
> > > > > What's the difference between homophobia and the "icky" thing?
> > > >
> > > > Well, that's a good point. Sometimes, though, "homophobia" is used as
> > > > a
> > > > substitute for "hatred". I don't think that it's hate based in all
> > > > cases.
> > >
> > > What's the difference between hatred and the "icky" thing?
> >
> > I think the difference is pretty clear: I find peas icky, but I don't
> > hate them as vegetables.
>
> I don't think that's a valid analogy. First off, you're using "icky" in two
> different contexts. The peas are "icky" presumably because you don't like
> the taste or the texture. The bigots say Gays are "icky" because they are
> .... ahem... averse to sex acts between us.
>
> Second, the peas don't care if you find them "icky". Peas don't have a place
> in society.

But I think that one of the reasons that I find peas icky is that we
never ate them in my house as a kid. My mom and dad both said they were
no good. Similarly, some people don't think that they know or have
known any gay people. They only "know" what they've been told. Maybe
I'm naive, but I truly think that some people don't like us or they
don't think that it's important that we have equal rights, not because
they are bad people, but because they been taught. As Mr. Sondheim
said, "Careful the things you say, children will listen." He also said,
"You've got to be taught before it's too late, before you are six or
seven or eight, to hate all the people your relatives hate. You've got
to be carefully taught".

(somebody STOP ME! lol)

Jenn[_2_]

July 26th 08, 03:54 AM

In article >,
George M. Middius > wrote:

> Jenn said:
>
> > > No, it's a terrible "point". It's simply an expression of bigotry. Who
> > > cares
> > > about the depraved fantasies of bigots? Why should the right of citizens
> > > to
> > > serve their country be subordinate to some yutz's irrational fear of
> > > gays?
> > > (That's rhetorical.)
> >
> > They shouldn't be. But I don't think that it's about bigotry. I think
> > that it's more about ignorance.
>
> Do you mean ignorance of the fact that people are people regardless of
> orientation?

Sometimes. SOmetimes they've bought into the propaganda...

> I still laugh about Ross Perot claiming he didn't know a single
> gay person.

No kidding. There are no gay people in Iran either.

>
> Ignorance might lie underneath the bigotry, but when somebody says he's
> afraid/discomfited/disgusted/whatever by being around gays, that's bigotry.
> It might be curable by education, but it's still bigotry.

Jenn[_2_]

July 26th 08, 03:56 AM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > George M. Middius > wrote:
> >
> >> Jenn said:
> >>
> >> > > Does a straight person have the right to not cohabitate (shower etc)
> >> > > with someone who might find them sexually attractive?
> >> >
> >> > Good point, and I don't know the answer.
> >>
> >> No, it's a terrible "point". It's simply an expression of bigotry. Who
> >> cares
> >> about the depraved fantasies of bigots? Why should the right of citizens
> >> to
> >> serve their country be subordinate to some yutz's irrational fear of gays?
> >> (That's rhetorical.)
> >
> > They shouldn't be. But I don't think that it's about bigotry. I think
> > that it's more about ignorance.
>
> I know you're not sexually attracted to men, but do you want
> to shower and bunk with 'em?

In combat, I don't think it would matter to me.

> I suspect Arny is seriously sprung by now but let's ignore that.

Good idea.

> And George you ignore Arny....
> Jeez...this is gonna be tough.
> >
> >>
> >> The only reason there's segregation between the sexes is tradition. We
> >> should be beyond that now. I'm sure a lot of women agree.
>
> Did you take a pass on this?

Just don't want to tackle it at this moment...too big a topic.

George M. Middius[_4_]

July 26th 08, 04:45 AM

Yap! Woof! woof? BARKBARKBARK!

> > What's the difference between hatred and the "icky" thing?
>
> I get the same icky feeling

Scottie, please be aware that I have a "No 'discussions' with twerpy morons"
policy. So if you're yapping at me in hopes of a reasoned response, forget
it. You're a twerpy moron, and I don't 'discuss' things with twerpy morons.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

July 26th 08, 06:15 PM

On Jul 25, 9:14*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

> OTOH, we graciously allow gays *in prison.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Do prisoners have the same rights as
> a GI?

Against rape or whatever else your 'mind' tells you is a danger?

Yes.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

July 26th 08, 06:20 PM

On Jul 25, 9:21*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:

> *I know you're not sexually attracted to men, but do you want
> to shower and bunk with 'em?

I didn't "shower and bunk" with enlisted personnel. When I was
deployed with the British Army, the NCOs didn't eat with either
officers or lower-enlisted. There was no "mixing" allowed.

It had nothing to do with sexual attraction.

PS: "'em" makes you sound lazy and stupid. Just an FYI.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

July 26th 08, 06:21 PM

On Jul 25, 10:01*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Jenn" > wrote in message

> > "ScottW" > wrote:

> >> *I know you're not sexually attracted to men, but do you want
> >> to shower and bunk with 'em?
>
> > In combat, I don't think it would matter to me.
>
> *How about the base? Boot camp? etc.

Newsflash, 2pid: men are bathing, eating, and bunking with gay
soldiers right now. Yes, in the US military.

Duh.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

July 26th 08, 06:24 PM

On Jul 25, 9:18*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "George M. Middius" > wrote in messagenews:3irk84hsg37f4bu02m9ofdjk7n54fp43o3@4ax .com...
>
>
>
> > Jenn said:
>
> >> > *Does a straight person have the right to not cohabitate (shower etc)
> >> > with someone who might find them sexually attractive?
>
> >> Good point, and I don't know the answer.
>
> > No, it's a terrible "point". It's simply an expression of bigotry. Who cares
> > about the depraved fantasies of bigots?
>
> We're talking about you're depraved fantasies and what they might
> do to a fighting teams moral if you can't control yourself.

Like raping female soldiers wouldn't damage morale (god are you
stupid. "aggregiously" so.) The rules against harrassment are already
in place, 2pid. Soldiers are not allowed to harrass other soldiers.
Period.

> So far the odds on you exhibiting some control are slim and none.

Good one, 2pid! Take the general down to an individual to make your
weak-assed 'point'.

BTW, I wasn't aware that George had been hitting on you. Was this via
email?

And what was your response?

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

July 26th 08, 06:32 PM

On Jul 25, 6:53*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 25 Iul, 18:20, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > Clyde Slick said:
>
> > A quick reply, and then you can move on to your next disgusting
> > rationalization for bigotry: Sexual orientation has no effect on the ability
> > to do soldier work, whereas the other groups you doofily tried to compare us
> > to are unable to do the work at the desired standard of performance.
>
> Read my lips, if there is no affect on the ability of the military to
> perform its functions, I have not one problem with gays serving
> openly.

How would gays serving in the military have any effect whatsoever on
the ability of the military to perform its mission, given that there
are gays currently serving in the military and it can presumably
perform its mission now?

> > > AFA gays, having them serve in the military is fine with me,
> > > as long as it doesn't have any negative effects on military
> > > effectiveness.
>
> > What kind of "negative effect" are you fantasizing about? I don't usually
> > resort to triteness, but since when is bigotry justified by itself? That's
> > what you're advocating. You want to indulge the hatred and fear of the
> > bigots at the expense of those who are hated or feared.
>
> I don't know if there are, or are not, negative effects

Give some examples of what you might consider "negative effects".
Please be specific (IOW, not "inability to perform its mission" but an
example of WHY or HOW having gays serve would inhibit proper mission
accomplishment).

> > I know you can't see what I'm getting at. I'm also sure you can't articulate
> > a reason why the bigots should be indulged. I fully expect another vague
> > excuse about "negative effects".
>
> the only vagueness on my part, is that I don't know if there are, or
> are not,
> negative effects

Again, please list some "negative effects". You can clearly sense
something here or you wouldn't keep bringing it up.

Here, let me help you:

"Gays openly serving would inhibit mission accomplishment in the US
military because...(that's you cue to fill in the blank)"

If you're having trouble coming up with examples, you may want to
look at the British Army, or the armies of many (if not most) other
allied nations. They already allow gays to openly serve.

George M. Middius[_4_]

July 26th 08, 06:45 PM

Shhhh! said:

> > *I know you're not sexually attracted to men, but do you want
> > to shower and bunk with 'em?
>
> I didn't "shower and bunk" with enlisted personnel. When I was
> deployed with the British Army, the NCOs didn't eat with either
> officers or lower-enlisted. There was no "mixing" allowed.
> It had nothing to do with sexual attraction.

Scottie is terrified of finding himself naked around gay men. "How did this
happen?" he'd shriek. And then he'd swallow....

> PS: "'em" makes you sound lazy and stupid. Just an FYI.

Woof!

George M. Middius[_4_]

July 26th 08, 06:46 PM

Shhhh! said:

> > *How about the base? Boot camp? etc.
>
> Newsflash, 2pid: men are bathing, eating, and bunking with gay
> soldiers right now. Yes, in the US military.

Careful or you'll titillate Scottie into an orgasm.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

July 26th 08, 07:49 PM

On Jul 26, 10:35*am, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "George M. Middius" > wrote in messagenews:vb7l84pd0ss6rhdc8vsc1q1koqjbrpgi17@4ax .com...
>
>
>
> > Yap! Woof! woof? BARKBARKBARK!
>
> >> > What's the difference between hatred and the "icky" thing?
>
> >> I get the same icky feeling
>
> > Scottie, please be aware that I have a "No 'discussions' with twerpy morons"
> > policy. So if you're yapping at me in hopes of a reasoned response, forget
> > it. You're a twerpy moron, and I don't 'discuss' things with twerpy morons.
>
> A good thing. I'm glad you know your limitations.
> Discussion is just beyond them.

***************************8
I know you're not sexually attracted to men, but do you want
to shower and bunk with 'em?
I suspect Arny is seriously sprung by now but let's ignore that.
And George you ignore Arny....
Jeez...this is gonna be tough.

I know some. They're not icky at all unless they're
making out any that's not any ickier than my
mom and dad making out.

I get the same icky feeling about an old man and a fat old lady
getting all tongue tied and gropy as I do about you
and Arny tongue lashing each other.
It's icky.
******************************************

2pid, thank you for your recent attempts at 'discussion'. We all know
intelligent thought poses a severe challenge to you and we do very
much appreciate the effort.

We no longer need your 'discussion' services, as the intelligent are
tackling issues that are well beyond your comprehension. If this
should change in the future, we will contact you.

Once again, thank you for your attempted efforts to keep up.

Arny Krueger

July 26th 08, 08:41 PM

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message

> On Jul 25, 10:01 pm, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
>>> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>>>> I know you're not sexually attracted to men, but do
>>>> you want to shower and bunk with 'em?

That's what you do in any number of contexts in real life.

>>> In combat, I don't think it would matter to me.

Yes, you've got bigger fish to fry. Like staying alive.

>> How about the base? Boot camp? etc.

I fear more for the welfare of the gay men. There's a lot of guys in any
context who want to bust gay chops. The context need not be anything in
particular - look at all the instances of gays being mistreated for simply
being gay.

> Newsflash, Scott: men are bathing, eating, and bunking
> with gay soldiers right now. Yes, in the US military.

And yes, for the entire history of the US military.

George M. Middius[_4_]

July 26th 08, 09:14 PM

HomoBorg reflects on its wonderful experience as an Army grunt.

> There's a lot of guys in any context who want to bust gay chops.

This from the dork who was always first to volunteer for Firehose Inspector.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

July 26th 08, 09:16 PM

On Jul 26, 2:41*pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
>
> > On Jul 25, 10:01 pm, "ScottW" >
> > wrote:
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> >>> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >>>> I know you're not sexually attracted to men, but do
> >>>> you want to shower and bunk with 'em?
>
> That's what you do in any number of contexts in real life.
>
> >>> In combat, I don't think it would matter to me.
>
> Yes, you've got bigger fish to fry. Like staying alive.
>
> >> How about the base? Boot camp? etc.
>
> I fear more for the welfare of the gay men. There's a lot of guys in any
> context who want to bust gay chops. The context need not be anything in
> particular - look at all the instances of gays being mistreated for simply
> being gay.

This becomes a leadership challenge not unlike when blacks were first
integrated. If leadership "turns a blind eye" and tolerates
harrassment or maltreatment, it will be a far larger problem. After a
while it ceases to be an issue. I'd be surprised if realtions with
blacks or other minorities is a very large issue anywhere in the US
military these days, although I'm sure some problems still exist.

I was deployed with the Brits and the Dutch. Both allow gays to openly
serve in their militaries. Everybody knew who was gay. Nobody cared as
long as they did their job. I don't believe the gay soldiers cared who
was straight as long as we did ours.

I flew night missions through the mountains with this RAF officer. She
was a very professional and competent pilot who always had my trust:

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

The only people who seemed to have a problem with her were the guys
back on the US base. "Wasn't it weird flying with 'her'?" they'd ask.
I'd tell them that the fact I was standing intact before them should
answer that question.

> > Newsflash, Scott: men are bathing, eating, and bunking
> > with gay soldiers right now. Yes, in the US military.
>
> And yes, for the entire history of the US military.

It would appear that we can agree on some things.

Clyde Slick

July 26th 08, 09:20 PM

On 26 Iul, 13:32, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Jul 25, 6:53*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > On 25 Iul, 18:20, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > > Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > A quick reply, and then you can move on to your next disgusting
> > > rationalization for bigotry: Sexual orientation has no effect on the ability
> > > to do soldier work, whereas the other groups you doofily tried to compare us
> > > to are unable to do the work at the desired standard of performance.
>
> > Read my lips, if there is no affect on the ability of the military to
> > perform its functions, I have not one problem with gays serving
> > openly.
>
> How would gays serving in the military have any effect whatsoever on
> the ability of the military to perform its mission, given that there
> are gays currently serving in the military and it can presumably
> perform its mission now?
>

Read my lips
I don't know

> > > > AFA gays, having them serve in the military is fine with me,
> > > > as long as it doesn't have any negative effects on military
> > > > effectiveness.
>
> > > What kind of "negative effect" are you fantasizing about? I don't usually
> > > resort to triteness, but since when is bigotry justified by itself? That's
> > > what you're advocating. You want to indulge the hatred and fear of the
> > > bigots at the expense of those who are hated or feared.
>
> > I don't know if there are, or are not, negative effects
>
> Give some examples of what you might consider "negative effects".
> Please be specific (IOW, not "inability to perform its mission" but an
> example of WHY or HOW having gays serve would inhibit proper mission
> accomplishment).
>

Read my lips
I don't know

> > > I know you can't see what I'm getting at. I'm also sure you can't articulate
> > > a reason why the bigots should be indulged. I fully expect another vague
> > > excuse about "negative effects".
>
> > the only vagueness on my part, is that I don't know if there are, or
> > are not,
> > negative effects
>
> Again, please list some "negative effects". You can clearly sense
> something here or you wouldn't keep bringing it up.
>

I said, and read my lips. I don't
know.

> Here, let me help you:
>
> "Gays openly serving would inhibit mission accomplishment in the US
> military because...(that's you cue to fill in the blank)"
>

I don't know, never said I did.

> If you're *having trouble coming up with examples, you may want to
> look at the British Army, or the armies of many (if not most) other
> allied nations. They already allow gays to openly serve.

That's nice.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

July 26th 08, 09:38 PM

On Jul 26, 3:14*pm, George M. Middius >
wrote:
> HomoBorg reflects on its wonderful experience as an Army grunt.
>
> > There's a lot of guys in any context who want to bust gay chops.
>
> This from the dork who was always first to volunteer for Firehose Inspector.

Here's a first. I'm siding with Arny on this one.

There are, and I believe would be, "queer bashers" when (not if) gays
are finally allowed to openly serve. As a former commander of a unit
that had maybe 20% female soldiers and 15-20% minority soldiers, I
think that I understand harrassment issues in military units as well
as anybody.

The leadership climate is very, very important. The command element
would have to make it very clear to the unit (at every level from DA
on down) that there would be no tolerance for harrassment, and make it
equally clear that the commander's door was always open to discuss any
issues without fear of reprimand or reprisal. Those were my policies
and I believe they allowed me to shut down problems early on. (I
always told them to follow their chain of command, but if they didn't
feel like they were being listened to they could always come directly
to me.)

I recall as a young second lieutenant I had a First Sergeant who would
say "I have a Jones flush" ("Jones" being a black soldier) when we had
poker games. The 1SG had, of course, a spade flush. Ha ha ha. "Just
kidding, Jones!"

I also recall one former commander of mine discussing harrassment
issues with this statement, made in front of the entire unit:

"As an example, this means no telling fag jokes in front of fags."

This same commander also once said that we shouldn't be afraid to
"step on our dicks" once in a while, and that he stepped on his once
in a while because he had "the longest dick in the unit". We were all
in camoflage and he apparently didn't notice the female medic in
attendance.

These would be examples of setting a poor command climate. That
officer, BTW, was eventually chased home by CID after going AWOL from
a deployment. I never could find out anybody who knew exactly what
happened, but one rumor was that this (married) officer was playing
around with a superior officer's wife. For some reason I didn't find
that too hard to believe. :-)

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

July 26th 08, 09:42 PM

On Jul 26, 3:20*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 26 Iul, 13:32, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Jul 25, 6:53*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > On 25 Iul, 18:20, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > > > Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > > A quick reply, and then you can move on to your next disgusting
> > > > rationalization for bigotry: Sexual orientation has no effect on the ability
> > > > to do soldier work, whereas the other groups you doofily tried to compare us
> > > > to are unable to do the work at the desired standard of performance..
>
> > > Read my lips, if there is no affect on the ability of the military to
> > > perform its functions, I have not one problem with gays serving
> > > openly.
>
> > How would gays serving in the military have any effect whatsoever on
> > the ability of the military to perform its mission, given that there
> > are gays currently serving in the military and it can presumably
> > perform its mission now?
>
> Read my lips
> I don't know

Well, how about this instead:

"Some of the possible negative effects of integrating blacks into the
military are..."

This would allow you to go read historical documents. Since this has
already happened, and since many (if not most) of the opposing
arguments were the same, it may help you to see the position you are
in a sense defending.

Clyde Slick

July 26th 08, 09:52 PM

On 26 Iul, 16:42, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Jul 26, 3:20*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 26 Iul, 13:32, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > On Jul 25, 6:53*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > On 25 Iul, 18:20, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > > > > Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > > > A quick reply, and then you can move on to your next disgusting
> > > > > rationalization for bigotry: Sexual orientation has no effect on the ability
> > > > > to do soldier work, whereas the other groups you doofily tried to compare us
> > > > > to are unable to do the work at the desired standard of performance.
>
> > > > Read my lips, if there is no affect on the ability of the military to
> > > > perform its functions, I have not one problem with gays serving
> > > > openly.
>
> > > How would gays serving in the military have any effect whatsoever on
> > > the ability of the military to perform its mission, given that there
> > > are gays currently serving in the military and it can presumably
> > > perform its mission now?
>
> > Read my lips
> > I don't know
>
> Well, how about this instead:
>
> "Some of the possible negative effects of integrating blacks into the
> military are..."
>
> This would allow you to go read historical documents. Since this has
> already happened, and since many (if not most) of the opposing
> arguments were the same, it may help you to see the position you are
> in a sense defending.-

Did thier sexuality present any problems?

Clyde Slick

July 26th 08, 10:28 PM

On 26 Iul, 17:15, Signal > wrote:
> Clyde Slick > wrote:
> >> Give some examples of what you might consider "negative effects".
> >> Please be specific (IOW, not "inability to perform its mission" but an
> >> example of WHY or HOW having gays serve would inhibit proper mission
> >> accomplishment).
>
> >Read my lips
> >I don't know
>
> They might be applying blusher when they should be concentrating on
> battle.
>

They would never do anything that might
clash with their camoflage.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

July 26th 08, 10:38 PM

On Jul 26, 3:52*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 26 Iul, 16:42, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Jul 26, 3:20*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > On 26 Iul, 13:32, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > On Jul 25, 6:53*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > On 25 Iul, 18:20, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > > > > > Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > > > > A quick reply, and then you can move on to your next disgusting
> > > > > > rationalization for bigotry: Sexual orientation has no effect on the ability
> > > > > > to do soldier work, whereas the other groups you doofily tried to compare us
> > > > > > to are unable to do the work at the desired standard of performance.
>
> > > > > Read my lips, if there is no affect on the ability of the military to
> > > > > perform its functions, I have not one problem with gays serving
> > > > > openly.
>
> > > > How would gays serving in the military have any effect whatsoever on
> > > > the ability of the military to perform its mission, given that there
> > > > are gays currently serving in the military and it can presumably
> > > > perform its mission now?
>
> > > Read my lips
> > > I don't know
>
> > Well, how about this instead:
>
> > "Some of the possible negative effects of integrating blacks into the
> > military are..."
>
> > This would allow you to go read historical documents. Since this has
> > already happened, and since many (if not most) of the opposing
> > arguments were the same, it may help you to see the position you are
> > in a sense defending.-
>
> Did thier sexuality present any problems?

Do you think it would here?

You said, "Read my lips: I don't know." Suddenly, you are stating that
sexuality would be a potential problem. It isn't in any of the other
militaries that I've personally (yes, 2pid, "have first-hand
experience" with) served with that allow gays to openly serve.

George M. Middius[_4_]

July 26th 08, 10:45 PM

Shhhh! said:

> > Did thier sexuality present any problems?
>
> Do you think it would here?
> You said, "Read my lips: I don't know." Suddenly, you are stating that
> sexuality would be a potential problem.

Sacky should never have opened his mouth. He wants to pretend he didn't
imply that bigots should be indulged if they have a "problem" with gay
soldiers. But he did imply it, and just parroting "I don't know" over and
over is a cowardly copout.

George M. Middius[_4_]

July 26th 08, 10:45 PM

Shhhh! said:

> The US has more problems with minorities than any other place I've
> personally experienced.

I don't think you said that right.

Clyde Slick

July 26th 08, 11:04 PM

On 26 Iul, 17:45, George M. Middius > wrote:
> Shhhh! said:
>
> > > Did thier sexuality present any problems?
>
> > Do you think it would here?
> > You said, "Read my lips: I don't know." Suddenly, you are stating that
> > sexuality would be a potential problem.
>
> Sacky should never have opened his mouth. He wants to pretend he didn't
> imply that bigots should be indulged if they have a "problem" with gay
> soldiers. But he did imply it, and just parroting "I don't know" over and
> over is a cowardly copout.

i didn't imply that. i never said nor implied that
all i said is that gays should be allowed to serve openly, as long
as it didn't have a negative effect on the military's ability to
perform its role.
I also said I did not know whether there would be, or
would not be any negative affect, being that I am not
an expert on matters of military readiness.
I don't know of any negative affects, and I don't
know whether the experience of our allies in this regard
presented such a problem.
I sincerely hope that there would be no such problems
so that gays could serve.

Clyde Slick

July 26th 08, 11:07 PM

On 26 Iul, 17:45, George M. Middius > wrote:
> Shhhh! said:
>
> > The US has more problems with minorities than any other place I've
> > personally experienced.
>
> I don't think you said that right.

as far as treatment of minorities, I have been to two
countries that are worse than the US, Israel and Great Britain.

George M. Middius[_4_]

July 26th 08, 11:56 PM

Signal said:

> >Ignorance might lie underneath the bigotry, but when somebody says he's
> >afraid/discomfited/disgusted/whatever by being around gays, that's bigotry.
>
> "..around gays" perhaps... but there's nothing bigoted about finding
> gay 'activity', shall we say, unappealing to one's eye.

Funny, that's how we feel at the sight of a mixed couple doing it. Yucko!

I'm sure you meant to say that what's "appealing" or "unappealing" is purely
subjective. Right?

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

July 27th 08, 03:33 AM

On Jul 26, 4:45*pm, George M. Middius >
wrote:
> Shhhh! said:
>
> > The US has more problems with minorities than any other place I've
> > personally experienced.
>
> I don't think you said that right.

LOL!

You're right. I hope you know what I meant.

George M. Middius[_4_]

July 27th 08, 03:49 AM

Shhhh! said:

> > > The US has more problems with minorities than any other place I've
> > > personally experienced.
> >
> > I don't think you said that right.
>
> LOL!
> You're right. I hope you know what I meant.

I assume it was a new encoding of the "Scottie is a moron" mantra?

George M. Middius[_4_]

July 27th 08, 06:13 PM

Jenn said:

> > > > What's the difference between hatred and the "icky" thing?
> > >
> > > I think the difference is pretty clear: I find peas icky, but I don't
> > > hate them as vegetables.
> >
> > I don't think that's a valid analogy. First off, you're using "icky" in two
> > different contexts. The peas are "icky" presumably because you don't like
> > the taste or the texture. The bigots say Gays are "icky" because they are
> > .... ahem... averse to sex acts between us.
> >
> > Second, the peas don't care if you find them "icky". Peas don't have a place
> > in society.

> But I think that one of the reasons that I find peas icky is that we
> never ate them in my house as a kid. My mom and dad both said they were
> no good. Similarly, some people don't think that they know or have
> known any gay people. They only "know" what they've been told. Maybe
> I'm naive, but I truly think that some people don't like us or they
> don't think that it's important that we have equal rights, not because
> they are bad people, but because they been taught. As Mr. Sondheim
> said, "Careful the things you say, children will listen." He also said,
> "You've got to be taught before it's too late, before you are six or
> seven or eight, to hate all the people your relatives hate. You've got
> to be carefully taught".

You're describing what amounts to bigotry without malice. "I was just
following orders...."

> (somebody STOP ME! lol)

Consider yourself stopped. However, the topic at hand isn't the root cause
of bigotry or how malevolent its practitioners are. Don't we all have a
little bigotry in us? If we're enlightened, we try to rise above personal
prejudices and not cause others to suffer because of them.

When it comes to concrete issues like who's allowed to get married or who's
allowed to join the military, shouldn't bigotry and prejudice be brushed
aside? Back when the focus of civil rights was racial, I'm sure a great many
complacent (and ignorant) white people were astonished to see huge crowds of
black people marching and demanding "equality". Just because the favored
class has never considered the problems of the downtrodden doesn't mean
those problems aren't real and pressing.

Jenn[_2_]

July 27th 08, 06:47 PM

In article >,
George M. Middius > wrote:

> Jenn said:
>
>
> > > > > What's the difference between hatred and the "icky" thing?
> > > >
> > > > I think the difference is pretty clear: I find peas icky, but I don't
> > > > hate them as vegetables.
> > >
> > > I don't think that's a valid analogy. First off, you're using "icky" in
> > > two
> > > different contexts. The peas are "icky" presumably because you don't like
> > > the taste or the texture. The bigots say Gays are "icky" because they are
> > > .... ahem... averse to sex acts between us.
> > >
> > > Second, the peas don't care if you find them "icky". Peas don't have a
> > > place
> > > in society.
>
> > But I think that one of the reasons that I find peas icky is that we
> > never ate them in my house as a kid. My mom and dad both said they were
> > no good. Similarly, some people don't think that they know or have
> > known any gay people. They only "know" what they've been told. Maybe
> > I'm naive, but I truly think that some people don't like us or they
> > don't think that it's important that we have equal rights, not because
> > they are bad people, but because they been taught. As Mr. Sondheim
> > said, "Careful the things you say, children will listen." He also said,
> > "You've got to be taught before it's too late, before you are six or
> > seven or eight, to hate all the people your relatives hate. You've got
> > to be carefully taught".
>
> You're describing what amounts to bigotry without malice. "I was just
> following orders...."
>
> > (somebody STOP ME! lol)
>
> Consider yourself stopped. However, the topic at hand isn't the root cause
> of bigotry or how malevolent its practitioners are. Don't we all have a
> little bigotry in us? If we're enlightened, we try to rise above personal
> prejudices and not cause others to suffer because of them.

Of course.

>
> When it comes to concrete issues like who's allowed to get married or who's
> allowed to join the military, shouldn't bigotry and prejudice be brushed
> aside? Back when the focus of civil rights was racial, I'm sure a great many
> complacent (and ignorant) white people were astonished to see huge crowds of
> black people marching and demanding "equality". Just because the favored
> class has never considered the problems of the downtrodden doesn't mean
> those problems aren't real and pressing.

I totally agree. I'm simply saying that not everyone who holds
different views are bad people. Society evolves too slowly for you and
me, but it does evolve.