Question for Scottie Witlessmongrel

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Scooter, why do you resent "elitists"? You've used the word like an epithet
several times on RAO. Do you remember when Ludo pinned your ears back after
you yapped "elitism" in one of your dumb rant-posts? That was pretty funny.
All your life you've been clinging to your one-size-fits-all elixir of
stupidity, never realizing how ignorant you are. I'll bet you didn't realize
that nearly every scientific, artistic, and engineering breakthrough in human
history has been jeered as "elitist" by the stick-in-the-mud crowd. Do you
appreciate the workmanship of the ancient pyramids? They were built by slaves
in service of the massive egos of kings. How about Galileo and Martin Luther?
They were excoriated as elitists because the christian priests yapped that
ordinary people's lots were determined by "God" and self-determination was
sinful. Automobiles were hugely resented too, first as esurient indulgences of
yuppies, and later, when racing caught on big-time, as the handmaidens of
Satan. And I'm sure you know that up until the mid-1990s, cell phones were
derided as phoney status symbols by the backward-looking contingent (who then,
as now, made up the republican party).

So on the one hand, your anger and envy impel you to bitch about "elitism",
while on the other hand, you profit from the breakthroughs that once defined
it. This is called irony. (Yes, the Normals all know you're unacquainted with
the meaning of that word.)

[vinyl anachronist]

On Aug 10, 9:44�am, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Aug 9, 2:35�pm, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > Scooter, why do you resent "elitists"?
>
> �Actually I don't...if they're worthy. �It's pompous arrogant fools
> like you who want to play the elitist part, but don't have any basis
> for your elitism.
> In reality, they're foolish ignorant socialist dependent peasants
> whose front here on RAO is pure facade.

That's a bit paranoid, don't you think? RAO, like most discussion
forums, attracts like-minded people who want to discuss common
interests. Unfortunately this is the Internet, and these groups
attract individuals who want to agitate, troll and attack the others
for their beliefs and ideas. Which group do you think you belong to?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 10, 11:44*am, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Aug 9, 2:35*pm, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > Scooter, why do you resent "elitists"?
>
> *Actually I don't...if they're worthy.

LoL. Poor dumb elitist 2pid feels that he's worthy to judge. LoL.

>*It's pompous arrogant fools
> like you who want to play the elitist part, but don't have any basis
> for your elitism.
> In reality, they're foolish ignorant socialist dependent peasants
> whose front here on RAO is pure facade.

Your write, 2pid: Ive never commanded soldiers, and I am not a real
major.

Its' all a RAO facade. LoL.

Even so, you is a imbecile. LoL.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 10, 2:00*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Aug 10, 9:51*am, vinyl anachronist >
> wrote:

> > RAO, like most discussion
> > forums, attracts like-minded people
>
> LoL. * Which usenet have you been on all these years?

LoL. Ever notice that most people here can find some common ground?

Your the exception, 2pid. Your the one voted off the island. LoL.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Witless gets his lie on.

> > Scooter, why do you resent "elitists"? You've used the word like an epithet
> > several times on RAO. Do you remember when Ludo pinned your ears back after
> > you yapped "elitism" in one of your dumb rant-posts? That was pretty funny.
> > All your life you've been clinging to your one-size-fits-all elixir of
> > stupidity, never realizing how ignorant you are. I'll bet you didn't realize
> > that nearly every scientific, artistic, and engineering breakthrough in human
> > history has been jeered as "elitist" by the stick-in-the-mud crowd. Do you
> > appreciate the workmanship of the ancient pyramids? They were built by slaves
> > in service of the massive egos of kings. How about Galileo and Martin Luther?
> > They were excoriated as elitists because the christian priests yapped that
> > ordinary people's lots were determined by "God" and self-determination was
> > sinful. Automobiles were hugely resented too, first as esurient indulgences of
> > yuppies, and later, when racing caught on big-time, as the handmaidens of
> > Satan. And I'm sure you know that up until the mid-1990s, cell phones were
> > derided as phoney status symbols by the backward-looking contingent (who then,
> > as now, made up the republican party).

> > So on the one hand, your anger and envy impel you to bitch about "elitism",
> > while on the other hand, you profit from the breakthroughs that once defined
> > it. This is called irony. (Yes, the Normals all know you're unacquainted with
> > the meaning of that word.)

> Actually I don't...if they're worthy.

I snipped your gibbering for the sake of brevity. Now back to your tornado of
lies...

Here's a marble-y mouthful you yapped at Gregipus once:

> This reeks of some sort of RAO veterans elitist attitude.

Nobody understood your convoluted word smash then and nobody understands it
now. But there's one of your many uses of "elitist" as an imprecation. Here's
another, from one of your political woofdowns:

> You realize you are rationalizing an elitist attitude. It's ok to lie
> to the masses as the elitist know whats best when lives are at stake.

As usual, you're caught attacking what you usually defend.
I recommend that Normals read the entire post.
<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/1b55cf99de596c8c?hl=en>

Now here's a fairly restrained example of your attacks on John Atkinson and
Stereophile:

> He caters to an elitist culture that has a bit of a chip that puts
> more value on the ear than the equipment.

I'm sure you're too dumb to see how your own biases color your opinions of
what constitutes "an elitist culture", but the rest of us can see it very
clearly.


If you have any more lies to post, please be good enough to send them directly
to a killfile.

--

" This one was highlighted by MM to draw attention while I think
it's not the most aggregious provision but it still has issues."

-- Scottie Witlessmongrel, self-described excellent writer, Feb. 22 2009

[vinyl anachronist]

On Aug 10, 12:00�pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Aug 10, 9:51�am, vinyl anachronist >
> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 10, 9:44 am, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 9, 2:35 pm, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > > > Scooter, why do you resent "elitists"?
>
> > > Actually I don't...if they're worthy. It's pompous arrogant fools
> > > like you who want to play the elitist part, but don't have any basis
> > > for your elitism.
> > > In reality, they're foolish ignorant socialist dependent peasants
> > > whose front here on RAO is pure facade.
>
> > That's a bit paranoid, don't you think?
>
> �Nope. You used to brag about your favorite scotch while in reality,
> you don't drink.
> �I guess that was in the interest of being "like-minded".

Hmmm...let's break this down. Not that I think "bragging" is the
correct verb, but there was a time when I enjoyed fine single malt
scotch. But I haven't had any alcoholic beverages in nearly two years.
Is there a reason behind it? No, not really. I just don't have any
compelling reason to go out and buy scotch right now. In my life I've
gone as long as five years without drinking alcohol. Again, it wasn't
for any particular reason. I really don't think about it much. If you
asked me if you could buy me a drink, I'd probably say yes.

Now, that seems to stretch beyond your rather narrow interpretation of
my drinking habits, doesn't it. I think this is a fantastic example of
your inability to parse even the simplest phrases.

>
> > RAO, like most discussion
> > forums, attracts like-minded people
>
> LoL. � Which usenet have you been on all these years?

So you're here to be an asshole. All righty then.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 10, 5:49*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Aug 10, 3:34*pm, vinyl anachronist >
> wrote:

> > So you're here to be an asshole. All righty then.
>
> If that means not conforming to your way of thinking, I guess so.

We all love you just as you are, 2pid. LoL.

What a buffoon.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 10, 5:34*pm, vinyl anachronist >
wrote:
> On Aug 10, 12:00 pm, ScottW2 > wrote:

> > LoL. Which usenet have you been on all these years?
>
> So you're here to be an asshole. All righty then.

Play nice. The proper phrase would be "You're here to disagree
regarless of the evidence presented". LoL.

[Clyde Slick]

On 10 aug., 12:51, vinyl anachronist >
wrote:
> On Aug 10, 9:44 am, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > On Aug 9, 2:35 pm, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > > Scooter, why do you resent "elitists"?
>
> > Actually I don't...if they're worthy. It's pompous arrogant fools
> > like you who want to play the elitist part, but don't have any basis
> > for your elitism.
> > In reality, they're foolish ignorant socialist dependent peasants
> > whose front here on RAO is pure facade.
>
> That's a bit paranoid, don't you think? RAO, like most discussion
> forums, attracts like-minded people who want to discuss common
> interests. Unfortunately this is the Internet, and these groups
> attract individuals who want to agitate, troll and attack the others
> for their beliefs and ideas. Which group do you think you belong to?

I see, conformity is good!
As long as I agree with you!!!

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

> > That's a bit paranoid, don't you think? RAO, like most discussion
> > forums, attracts like-minded people who want to discuss common
> > interests. Unfortunately this is the Internet, and these groups
> > attract individuals who want to agitate, troll and attack the others
> > for their beliefs and ideas. Which group do you think you belong to?
>
> I see, conformity is good!
> As long as I agree with you!!!

You're an idiot, but you're not in Scottie's class of idiot.

[vinyl anachronist]

On Aug 10, 4:49�pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 10 aug., 12:51, vinyl anachronist >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 10, 9:44 am, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 9, 2:35 pm, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > > > Scooter, why do you resent "elitists"?
>
> > > Actually I don't...if they're worthy. It's pompous arrogant fools
> > > like you who want to play the elitist part, but don't have any basis
> > > for your elitism.
> > > In reality, they're foolish ignorant socialist dependent peasants
> > > whose front here on RAO is pure facade.
>
> > That's a bit paranoid, don't you think? RAO, like most discussion
> > forums, attracts like-minded people who want to discuss common
> > interests. Unfortunately this is the Internet, and these groups
> > attract individuals who want to agitate, troll and attack the others
> > for their beliefs and ideas. Which group do you think you belong to?
>
> I see, conformity is good!
> As long as I agree with you!!!

So there's no middle ground between conformity and trolling? That's
pretty black and white, isn't it?

[vinyl anachronist]

On Aug 10, 4:55�pm, George M. Middius >
wrote:
> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > That's a bit paranoid, don't you think? RAO, like most discussion
> > > forums, attracts like-minded people who want to discuss common
> > > interests. Unfortunately this is the Internet, and these groups
> > > attract individuals who want to agitate, troll and attack the others
> > > for their beliefs and ideas. Which group do you think you belong to?
>
> > I see, conformity is good!
> > As long as I agree with you!!!
>
> You're an idiot, but you're not in Scottie's class of idiot.

I was surprised by his response as well.

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
vinyl anachronist > wrote:

> On Aug 10, 4:55?pm, George M. Middius >
> wrote:
> > Clyde Slick said:
> >
> > > > That's a bit paranoid, don't you think? RAO, like most discussion
> > > > forums, attracts like-minded people who want to discuss common
> > > > interests. Unfortunately this is the Internet, and these groups
> > > > attract individuals who want to agitate, troll and attack the others
> > > > for their beliefs and ideas. Which group do you think you belong to?
> >
> > > I see, conformity is good!
> > > As long as I agree with you!!!
> >
> > You're an idiot, but you're not in Scottie's class of idiot.
>
> I was surprised by his response as well.

I wasn't.

Stephen

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

MiNe 109 said:

> > > > > That's a bit paranoid, don't you think? RAO, like most discussion
> > > > > forums, attracts like-minded people who want to discuss common
> > > > > interests. Unfortunately this is the Internet, and these groups
> > > > > attract individuals who want to agitate, troll and attack the others
> > > > > for their beliefs and ideas. Which group do you think you belong to?
> > >
> > > > I see, conformity is good!
> > > > As long as I agree with you!!!
> > >
> > > You're an idiot, but you're not in Scottie's class of idiot.
> >
> > I was surprised by his response as well.
>
> I wasn't.

Sacky believes he's a wit. The truth would surprise him.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 10, 6:49*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 10 aug., 12:51, vinyl anachronist >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 10, 9:44 am, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 9, 2:35 pm, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > > > Scooter, why do you resent "elitists"?
>
> > > Actually I don't...if they're worthy. It's pompous arrogant fools
> > > like you who want to play the elitist part, but don't have any basis
> > > for your elitism.
> > > In reality, they're foolish ignorant socialist dependent peasants
> > > whose front here on RAO is pure facade.
>
> > That's a bit paranoid, don't you think? RAO, like most discussion
> > forums, attracts like-minded people who want to discuss common
> > interests. Unfortunately this is the Internet, and these groups
> > attract individuals who want to agitate, troll and attack the others
> > for their beliefs and ideas. Which group do you think you belong to?
>
> I see, conformity is good!
> As long as I agree with you!!!

Disagree all you want, but back it up rationally.

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
George M. Middius > wrote:

> MiNe 109 said:
>
> > > > > > That's a bit paranoid, don't you think? RAO, like most discussion
> > > > > > forums, attracts like-minded people who want to discuss common
> > > > > > interests. Unfortunately this is the Internet, and these groups
> > > > > > attract individuals who want to agitate, troll and attack the others
> > > > > > for their beliefs and ideas. Which group do you think you belong to?
> > > >
> > > > > I see, conformity is good!
> > > > > As long as I agree with you!!!
> > > >
> > > > You're an idiot, but you're not in Scottie's class of idiot.
> > >
> > > I was surprised by his response as well.
> >
> > I wasn't.
>
> Sacky believes he's a wit. The truth would surprise him.

I'll forego the obvious rejoinder.

Stephen

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
MiNe 109 > wrote:

> In article >,
> George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > MiNe 109 said:
> >
> > > > > > > That's a bit paranoid, don't you think? RAO, like most discussion
> > > > > > > forums, attracts like-minded people who want to discuss common
> > > > > > > interests. Unfortunately this is the Internet, and these groups
> > > > > > > attract individuals who want to agitate, troll and attack the
> > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > for their beliefs and ideas. Which group do you think you belong
> > > > > > > to?
> > > > >
> > > > > > I see, conformity is good!
> > > > > > As long as I agree with you!!!
> > > > >
> > > > > You're an idiot, but you're not in Scottie's class of idiot.
> > > >
> > > > I was surprised by his response as well.
> > >
> > > I wasn't.
> >
> > Sacky believes he's a wit. The truth would surprise him.
>
> I'll forego the obvious rejoinder.
>
> Stephen

That's half kind of you.

[MiNe 109]

In article

>,
Jenn > wrote:

> In article >,
> MiNe 109 > wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > George M. Middius > wrote:

> > > Sacky believes he's a wit. The truth would surprise him.
> >
> > I'll forego the obvious rejoinder.
> >
> That's half kind of you.

You're welcome!

Stephen

[GeoSynch]

Buffoon needs a new prescription:

> Unfortunately this is the Internet, and these groups attract individuals who
> want to agitate, troll and attack the others for their beliefs and ideas.

Looked in a mirror lately? Time to remove that beam from your eye and perhaps
get an eye-exam to boot, not that it would help much since you can't envisage
your lack of self-awareness.

[GeoSynch]

ScottW2 wrote:

> The mere scent [of scotch] busted you into a cold sweat and you didn't drink a
> thimble.

> No big deal. I don't think diabetics should drink anyway.

So the Buffoon is a diabetic, eh?

Well, no wonder he so vehemently believes aspartame is not poisonous.

Otherwise his bleak life would be totally eclipsed by the Dark Side of The Moon
and the ensuing Brain Damage could no longer be Potemkined over. ;-(

[vinyl anachronist]

On Aug 10, 8:17�pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Aug 10, 5:01�pm, vinyl anachronist >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 10, 4:49 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > On 10 aug., 12:51, vinyl anachronist >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 10, 9:44 am, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 9, 2:35 pm, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > > > > > Scooter, why do you resent "elitists"?
>
> > > > > Actually I don't...if they're worthy. It's pompous arrogant fools
> > > > > like you who want to play the elitist part, but don't have any basis
> > > > > for your elitism.
> > > > > In reality, they're foolish ignorant socialist dependent peasants
> > > > > whose front here on RAO is pure facade.
>
> > > > That's a bit paranoid, don't you think? RAO, like most discussion
> > > > forums, attracts like-minded people who want to discuss common
> > > > interests. Unfortunately this is the Internet, and these groups
> > > > attract individuals who want to agitate, troll and attack the others
> > > > for their beliefs and ideas. Which group do you think you belong to?
>
> > > I see, conformity is good!
> > > As long as I agree with you!!!
>
> > So there's no middle ground between conformity and trolling?
>
> So the opposite of conformity is trolling IYO. LoL.

Nope. No one said that.

>
> > That's
> > pretty black and white, isn't it?
>
> �2 dimensional thinking is so flat.

If you say so.

[vinyl anachronist]

On Aug 10, 3:49�pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Aug 10, 3:34�pm, vinyl anachronist >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 10, 12:00 pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 10, 9:51 am, vinyl anachronist >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 10, 9:44 am, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 9, 2:35 pm, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > > > > > Scooter, why do you resent "elitists"?
>
> > > > > Actually I don't...if they're worthy. It's pompous arrogant fools
> > > > > like you who want to play the elitist part, but don't have any basis
> > > > > for your elitism.
> > > > > In reality, they're foolish ignorant socialist dependent peasants
> > > > > whose front here on RAO is pure facade.
>
> > > > That's a bit paranoid, don't you think?
>
> > > Nope. You used to brag about your favorite scotch while in reality,
> > > you don't drink.
> > > I guess that was in the interest of being "like-minded".
>
> > Hmmm...let's break this down.
> > Not that I think "bragging" is the
> > correct verb, but there was a time when I enjoyed fine single malt
> > scotch.
>
> That's what you said when you brought the rega down but
> it wasn't so. �The mere scent busted you into a cold sweat
> and you didn't drink a thimble.

Honestly I don't remember any of that.

> No big deal. I don't think diabetics should drink anyway.

You're right, they shouldn't. Low blood sugar can be disguised by
inebriation. But my A1C has been so consistently normal over the last
two years that I doubt it's an issue.
>
>
>
>
>
> >But I haven't had any alcoholic beverages in nearly two years.
> > Is there a reason behind it? �No, not really. I just don't have any
> > compelling reason to go out and buy scotch right now. In my life I've
> > gone as long as five years without drinking alcohol. Again, it wasn't
> > for any particular reason. I really don't think about it much. If you
> > asked me if you could buy me a drink, I'd probably say yes.
>
> > Now, that seems to stretch beyond your rather narrow interpretation of
> > my drinking habits, doesn't it. I think this is a fantastic example of
> > your inability to parse even the simplest phrases.
>
> > > > RAO, like most discussion
> > > > forums, attracts like-minded people
>
> > > LoL. Which usenet have you been on all these years?
>
> > So you're here to be an asshole. All righty then.
>
> If that means not conforming to your way of thinking, I guess so.

No...it just means you're here to misbehave. I don't have a problem
with that as long as you're entertaining. Some people obviously think
that you are. I just have a problem with reconciling the person I've
met in person with the one who posts here. But some people have said
the same about me.

[Clyde Slick]

On 10 aug., 19:55, George M. Middius > wrote:
> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > That's a bit paranoid, don't you think? RAO, like most discussion
> > > forums, attracts like-minded people who want to discuss common
> > > interests. Unfortunately this is the Internet, and these groups
> > > attract individuals who want to agitate, troll and attack the others
> > > for their beliefs and ideas. Which group do you think you belong to?
>
> > I see, conformity is good!
> > As long as I agree with you!!!
>
> You're an idiot, but you're not in Scottie's class of idiot.

your definition of an idiot is anyoidy who disagrees with you.
It is sad, so sad!

[Clyde Slick]

On 10 aug., 20:01, vinyl anachronist >
wrote:
> On Aug 10, 4:49 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 10 aug., 12:51, vinyl anachronist >
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 10, 9:44 am, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 9, 2:35 pm, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > > > > Scooter, why do you resent "elitists"?
>
> > > > Actually I don't...if they're worthy. It's pompous arrogant fools
> > > > like you who want to play the elitist part, but don't have any basis
> > > > for your elitism.
> > > > In reality, they're foolish ignorant socialist dependent peasants
> > > > whose front here on RAO is pure facade.
>
> > > That's a bit paranoid, don't you think? RAO, like most discussion
> > > forums, attracts like-minded people who want to discuss common
> > > interests. Unfortunately this is the Internet, and these groups
> > > attract individuals who want to agitate, troll and attack the others
> > > for their beliefs and ideas. Which group do you think you belong to?
>
> > I see, conformity is good!
> > As long as I agree with you!!!
>
> So there's no middle ground between conformity and trolling? That's
> pretty black and white, isn't it?-

What I got out of your post is that it is YOU that is defining that
way.

[Clyde Slick]

On 10 aug., 20:04, vinyl anachronist >
wrote:
> On Aug 10, 4:55 pm, George M. Middius >
> wrote:
>
> > Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > > That's a bit paranoid, don't you think? RAO, like most discussion
> > > > forums, attracts like-minded people who want to discuss common
> > > > interests. Unfortunately this is the Internet, and these groups
> > > > attract individuals who want to agitate, troll and attack the others
> > > > for their beliefs and ideas. Which group do you think you belong to?
>
> > > I see, conformity is good!
> > > As long as I agree with you!!!
>
> > You're an idiot, but you're not in Scottie's class of idiot.
>
> I was surprised by his response as well.

surpise! I didn't conform.

[Clyde Slick]

On 10 aug., 20:44, George M. Middius > wrote:
> MiNe 109 said:
>
> > > > > > That's a bit paranoid, don't you think? RAO, like most discussion
> > > > > > forums, attracts like-minded people who want to discuss common
> > > > > > interests. Unfortunately this is the Internet, and these groups
> > > > > > attract individuals who want to agitate, troll and attack the others
> > > > > > for their beliefs and ideas. Which group do you think you belong to?
>
> > > > > I see, conformity is good!
> > > > > As long as I agree with you!!!
>
> > > > You're an idiot, but you're not in Scottie's class of idiot.
>
> > > I was surprised by his response as well.
>
> > I wasn't.
>

> Sacky believes he's a wit. The truth would surprise him.

Being that you are a half-wit, I am "At least" a three quarter-wit.

[Clyde Slick]

On 11 aug., 01:13, "GeoSynch" > wrote:
> ScottW2 wrote:
> > The mere scent [of scotch] busted you into a cold sweat and you didn't drink a
> > thimble.
> > No big deal. I don't think diabetics should drink anyway.
>
> So the Buffoon is a diabetic, eh?
>
> Well, no wonder he so vehemently believes aspartame is not poisonous.
>
> Otherwise his bleak life would be totally eclipsed by the Dark Side of The Moon
> and the ensuing Brain Damage could no longer be Potemkined over. ;-(

I like the way you "verbed" Potemkin, LOL!

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

vinyl anachronist said:

> > > So you're here to be an asshole. All righty then.
> >
> > If that means not conforming to your way of thinking, I guess so.
>
> No...it just means you're here to misbehave. I don't have a problem
> with that as long as you're entertaining. Some people obviously think
> that you are.

No way! Even Sacky doesn't think that.

Witless does provide entertainment, but that's not quite the same thing, is
it.

> I just have a problem with reconciling the person I've
> met in person with the one who posts here. But some people have said
> the same about me.

I once had an email exchange with Phoebe Johnston, who had actually met the
Krooborg in "person". Phoebe claimed emphatically that Turdborg was not
insane. I guess it's fair to say that distinguishing the truth by comparing
real-life personas with online ones is not always straightforward.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

> > > > That's a bit paranoid, don't you think? RAO, like most discussion
> > > > forums, attracts like-minded people who want to discuss common
> > > > interests. Unfortunately this is the Internet, and these groups
> > > > attract individuals who want to agitate, troll and attack the others
> > > > for their beliefs and ideas. Which group do you think you belong to?
> >
> > > I see, conformity is good!
> > > As long as I agree with you!!!
> >
> > You're an idiot, but you're not in Scottie's class of idiot.
>
> your definition of an idiot is anyoidy who disagrees with you.

Your poor reading comprehension ability is one of your main qualifications for
being in the Idiots' Club.

> It is sad, so sad!

Thank you. Irony not detected.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

> > Sacky believes he's a wit. The truth would surprise him.
>
> Being that you are a half-wit, I am "At least" a three quarter-wit.

Shall we take a vote on that?

[vinyl anachronist]

On Aug 10, 10:49�pm, George M. Middius >
wrote:
> vinyl anachronist said:
>
> > > > So you're here to be an asshole. All righty then.
>
> > > If that means not conforming to your way of thinking, I guess so.
>
> > No...it just means you're here to misbehave. I don't have a problem
> > with that as long as you're entertaining. Some people obviously think
> > that you are.
>
> No way! Even Sacky doesn't think that.
>
> Witless does provide entertainment, but that's not quite the same thing, is
> it.

Well, train wrecks are very entertaining.

>
> > I just have a problem with reconciling the person I've
> > met in person with the one who posts here. But some people have said
> > the same about me.
>
> I once had an email exchange with Phoebe Johnston, who had actually met the
> Krooborg in "person". Phoebe claimed emphatically that Turdborg was not
> insane. I guess it's fair to say that distinguishing the truth by comparing
> real-life personas with online ones is not always straightforward.

Agreed. I was always intrigued by the notion that Howard was just
putting on a big act here.

[vinyl anachronist]

On Aug 10, 10:40�pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 10 aug., 20:01, vinyl anachronist >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 10, 4:49 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > On 10 aug., 12:51, vinyl anachronist >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 10, 9:44 am, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 9, 2:35 pm, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > > > > > Scooter, why do you resent "elitists"?
>
> > > > > Actually I don't...if they're worthy. It's pompous arrogant fools
> > > > > like you who want to play the elitist part, but don't have any basis
> > > > > for your elitism.
> > > > > In reality, they're foolish ignorant socialist dependent peasants
> > > > > whose front here on RAO is pure facade.
>
> > > > That's a bit paranoid, don't you think? RAO, like most discussion
> > > > forums, attracts like-minded people who want to discuss common
> > > > interests. Unfortunately this is the Internet, and these groups
> > > > attract individuals who want to agitate, troll and attack the others
> > > > for their beliefs and ideas. Which group do you think you belong to?
>
> > > I see, conformity is good!
> > > As long as I agree with you!!!
>
> > So there's no middle ground between conformity and trolling? That's
> > pretty black and white, isn't it?-
>
> What I got out of your post is that it is YOU that is defining that
> way.

That would make me a hypocrite, wouldn't it.

[vinyl anachronist]

On Aug 10, 10:40�pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 10 aug., 20:04, vinyl anachronist >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 10, 4:55 pm, George M. Middius >
> > wrote:
>
> > > Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > > > That's a bit paranoid, don't you think? RAO, like most discussion
> > > > > forums, attracts like-minded people who want to discuss common
> > > > > interests. Unfortunately this is the Internet, and these groups
> > > > > attract individuals who want to agitate, troll and attack the others
> > > > > for their beliefs and ideas. Which group do you think you belong to?
>
> > > > I see, conformity is good!
> > > > As long as I agree with you!!!
>
> > > You're an idiot, but you're not in Scottie's class of idiot.
>
> > I was surprised by his response as well.
>
> surpise! I didn't conform.

I was surprised by the fact you conformed to Scott's rather paranoid
assertion about the politics of the people here.

[Clyde Slick]

On 11 aug., 02:43, vinyl anachronist >
wrote:
> On Aug 10, 10:40 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 10 aug., 20:04, vinyl anachronist >
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 10, 4:55 pm, George M. Middius >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > > > > That's a bit paranoid, don't you think? RAO, like most discussion
> > > > > > forums, attracts like-minded people who want to discuss common
> > > > > > interests. Unfortunately this is the Internet, and these groups
> > > > > > attract individuals who want to agitate, troll and attack the others
> > > > > > for their beliefs and ideas. Which group do you think you belong to?
>
> > > > > I see, conformity is good!
> > > > > As long as I agree with you!!!
>
> > > > You're an idiot, but you're not in Scottie's class of idiot.
>
> > > I was surprised by his response as well.
>
> > surpise! I didn't conform.
>
> I was surprised by the fact you conformed to Scott's rather paranoid
> assertion about the politics of the people here.-

?? what paranoid assertion about the politics of
the people here??

[vinyl anachronist]

On Aug 11, 5:36�am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 11 aug., 02:43, vinyl anachronist >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 10, 10:40 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > On 10 aug., 20:04, vinyl anachronist >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 10, 4:55 pm, George M. Middius >
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > > > > > That's a bit paranoid, don't you think? RAO, like most discussion
> > > > > > > forums, attracts like-minded people who want to discuss common
> > > > > > > interests. Unfortunately this is the Internet, and these groups
> > > > > > > attract individuals who want to agitate, troll and attack the others
> > > > > > > for their beliefs and ideas. Which group do you think you belong to?
>
> > > > > > I see, conformity is good!
> > > > > > As long as I agree with you!!!
>
> > > > > You're an idiot, but you're not in Scottie's class of idiot.
>
> > > > I was surprised by his response as well.
>
> > > surpise! I didn't conform.
>
> > I was surprised by the fact you conformed to Scott's rather paranoid
> > assertion about the politics of the people here.-
>
> ?? what paranoid assertion about the politics of
> the people here??

You do realize that this is about something Scott said, right?

[Clyde Slick]

On 11 aug., 10:35, vinyl anachronist >
wrote:
> On Aug 11, 5:36 am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 11 aug., 02:43, vinyl anachronist >
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 10, 10:40 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > On 10 aug., 20:04, vinyl anachronist >
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 10, 4:55 pm, George M. Middius >
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > > > > > > That's a bit paranoid, don't you think? RAO, like most discussion
> > > > > > > > forums, attracts like-minded people who want to discuss common
> > > > > > > > interests. Unfortunately this is the Internet, and these groups
> > > > > > > > attract individuals who want to agitate, troll and attack the others
> > > > > > > > for their beliefs and ideas. Which group do you think you belong to?
>
> > > > > > > I see, conformity is good!
> > > > > > > As long as I agree with you!!!
>
> > > > > > You're an idiot, but you're not in Scottie's class of idiot.
>
> > > > > I was surprised by his response as well.
>
> > > > surpise! I didn't conform.
>
> > > I was surprised by the fact you conformed to Scott's rather paranoid
> > > assertion about the politics of the people here.-
>
> > ?? what paranoid assertion about the politics of
> > the people here??
>
> You do realize that this is about something Scott said, right?


(about resenting elitists)
"Actually I don't...if they're worthy. It's pompous arrogant fools
like you(George) who want to play the elitist part, but don't have any
basis
for your elitism.
In reality, they're foolish ignorant socialist dependent peasants
whose front here on RAO is pure facade."

George pretty much IS a socialist.
I disagree with Scott inpart, as I feel that George IS and elitist
and likes to order the proles about..

[Clyde Slick]

On 11 aug., 10:35, vinyl anachronist >
wrote:
> On Aug 11, 5:36 am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 11 aug., 02:43, vinyl anachronist >
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 10, 10:40 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > On 10 aug., 20:04, vinyl anachronist >
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 10, 4:55 pm, George M. Middius >
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > > > > > > That's a bit paranoid, don't you think? RAO, like most discussion
> > > > > > > > forums, attracts like-minded people who want to discuss common
> > > > > > > > interests. Unfortunately this is the Internet, and these groups
> > > > > > > > attract individuals who want to agitate, troll and attack the others
> > > > > > > > for their beliefs and ideas. Which group do you think you belong to?
>
> > > > > > > I see, conformity is good!
> > > > > > > As long as I agree with you!!!
>
> > > > > > You're an idiot, but you're not in Scottie's class of idiot.
>
> > > > > I was surprised by his response as well.
>
> > > > surpise! I didn't conform.
>
> > > I was surprised by the fact you conformed to Scott's rather paranoid
> > > assertion about the politics of the people here.-
>
> > ?? what paranoid assertion about the politics of
> > the people here??
>
> You do realize that this is about something Scott said, right?

BTW, I will reconsider my opposition to Obama care when
Congress decides to have themselves and their families covered under
the public option.
But it appears that some piggies are just more equal than other ones.

[vinyl anachronist]

On Aug 11, 9:16�am, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Aug 10, 10:36�pm, vinyl anachronist >
> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 10, 3:49 pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > > So you're here to be an asshole. All righty then.
>
> > > If that means not conforming to your way of thinking, I guess so.
>
> > No...it just means you're here to misbehave. I don't have a problem
> > with that as long as you're entertaining.
>
> �And there it is. �Misbehaving is ok as long as you find it amusing.

Misbehaving is okay as long as you take it in the right spirit. If you
take it personally, then you probably should stay away from Usenet.

> �I don't find childish immaturity entertaining so are you going to
> stop?

You mean, am I going to bow to your every whim and desire? No.

>
> > �Some people obviously think
> > that you are.
>
> �The difference is I don't care what some people think, particularly
> those who indulge in immaturity for their own amusement.

Then why don't you avoid them? Why do you constantly engage them?

> �I prefer to discuss current political events.

That's nice, but there are forums designed for that.

> �You prefer donut holes and T-shirts.

To what, your excessive OT posting?

> �I don't find donut holes and T-shirts any more entertaining than the
> childish ridicule and unsubstantiated insults but it is more tolerable

It doesn't matter what you think about donut holes and T-shirts. I had
a nice, friendly conversation with at least two other people here on a
subject we all found interesting. Evidently you are against nice,
friendly conversations or else you would have more of them.

[vinyl anachronist]

On Aug 11, 10:00�am, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Aug 11, 9:37�am, vinyl anachronist >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 11, 9:16 am, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 10, 10:36 pm, vinyl anachronist >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 10, 3:49 pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > > > > So you're here to be an asshole. All righty then.
>
> > > > > If that means not conforming to your way of thinking, I guess so.
>
> > > > No...it just means you're here to misbehave. I don't have a problem
> > > > with that as long as you're entertaining.
>
> > > And there it is. Misbehaving is ok as long as you find it amusing.
>
> > Misbehaving is okay as long as you take it in the right spirit. If you
> > take it personally, then you probably should stay away from Usenet.
>
> > > I don't find childish immaturity entertaining so are you going to
> > > stop?
>
> > You mean, am I going to bow to your every whim and desire? No.
>
> > > > Some people obviously think
> > > > that you are.
>
> > > The difference is I don't care what some people think, particularly
> > > those who indulge in immaturity for their own amusement.
>
> > Then why don't you avoid them? Why do you constantly engage them?
>
> �Most of the time I do. �I see your little peanut gallery snipes.
> They usually lack substance and aren't worthy of a response.

That would be your opinion. I look at your excessive OT threads and
feel they also lack substance, especially when derived from such
blatantly biased people as Michelle Malkin.

> You think wit can make up for lack of substance and knowledge.

Now you know what I think? LoL. No, I think wit can make a discussion
forum a much more interesting place to be. But exchanging information
should be a primary goal.

> �I don't.
>
>
>
> > > I prefer to discuss current political events.
>
> > That's nice, but there are forums designed for that.
>
> � This forum has little to no audio discussion.

I participated in one yesterday.

> Yet with Arny gone there is no one that is going to disrupt
> anything the comes up on-topic.

The right people have to come back. You and Bratzi aren't enough to
attract them.

> Meanwhile, everyone here engages in off-topic discussion.
> Midiot does his silly sniping.
> Jenn rants against Fox.
> You get sprung over Palin.
> Everyone here has started off-topic threads.
> You've just decided you don't like the topics I raise
> because they don't spawn nice friendly donut hole like
> discussions. �Too bad.

It has nothing to do with OT discussions. Most of us have known each
other for many years, and it's perfectly natural to talk about other
topics. Excessively spamming the group with right-wing and nationalist
links is another story, It violates the Usenet charter.

Do you see the difference, or is your world still black and white?
>
>
>
> > > You prefer donut holes and T-shirts.
>
> > To what, your excessive OT posting?
>
> �LoL. �You're off-topic as much as anyone.
> You just want to decide what is acceptably entertaining
> to you and what isn't.

It's called an opinion. Hence, rec.audio.opinion. And my opinion that
excessive OT spamming hurts the group.

> �Your complaints are hypocritical.

You're failing to understand my complaints, so your point is moot.

>
>
>
> > > I don't find donut holes and T-shirts any more entertaining than the
> > > childish ridicule and unsubstantiated insults but it is more tolerable
>
> > It doesn't matter what you think about donut holes and T-shirts. I had
> > a nice, friendly conversation with at least two other people here on a
> > subject we all found interesting.
>
> �And I didn't interfere nor do I complain about it beyond pointing
> out the hypocrisy of your complaints.

That's interfering. It also makes YOU the hypocrite, not me. (That's
not a IKYABWAI but simple logic.)

>
> > Evidently you are against nice,
> > friendly conversations or else you would have more of them.
>
> That's a matter of perspective.

Who other than you thinks you have nice friendly conversations here?
Name one person. In other words, we're talking about YOUR prespective,
right?

> You certainly aren't nice in a couple peoples perspective.

You mean people who tell lies about my family or write emails to my
business associates? You should know better than to make that comment.

> But go ahead and be nice if you can. Unlike you, I won't try to stop
> you.

I'm nice to more people here than you are.

[Clyde Slick]

On 11 aug., 14:22, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Aug 11, 10:29*am, vinyl anachronist >
> wrote:
>

>
> *As Jenn often likes to say....show me where she lied.

> You're also far nastier than I am.
>

..Right there!!!!!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 11, 9:54*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:

> George pretty much IS a socialist.
> I disagree with Scott inpart, as I feel that George IS and elitist
> and likes to order the proles about.

LoL.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 11, 10:57*am, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Aug 10, 10:39*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:

> > On 10 aug., 19:55, George M. Middius > wrote:

> > > You're an idiot, but you're not in Scottie's class of idiot.
>
> > your definition of an idiot is anyoidy who disagrees with you.
> > It is sad, so sad!
>
> *As well as just another pompous elitist with nothing to justify his
> pompousness.
> He isn't even in-bred royalty.

Two idiots nod in agreement.

Sad? What could be funnier? LOL!

[vinyl anachronist]

On Aug 11, 11:22�am, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Aug 11, 10:29�am, vinyl anachronist >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 11, 10:00 am, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 11, 9:37 am, vinyl anachronist >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 11, 9:16 am, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 10, 10:36 pm, vinyl anachronist >
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Aug 10, 3:49 pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > So you're here to be an asshole. All righty then.
>
> > > > > > > If that means not conforming to your way of thinking, I guess so.
>
> > > > > > No...it just means you're here to misbehave. I don't have a problem
> > > > > > with that as long as you're entertaining.
>
> > > > > And there it is. Misbehaving is ok as long as you find it amusing..
>
> > > > Misbehaving is okay as long as you take it in the right spirit. If you
> > > > take it personally, then you probably should stay away from Usenet.
>
> > > > > I don't find childish immaturity entertaining so are you going to
> > > > > stop?
>
> > > > You mean, am I going to bow to your every whim and desire? No.
>
> > > > > > Some people obviously think
> > > > > > that you are.
>
> > > > > The difference is I don't care what some people think, particularly
> > > > > those who indulge in immaturity for their own amusement.
>
> > > > Then why don't you avoid them? Why do you constantly engage them?
>
> > > Most of the time I do. I see your little peanut gallery snipes.
> > > They usually lack substance and aren't worthy of a response.
>
> > That would be your opinion. I look at your excessive OT threads and
> > feel they also lack substance, especially when derived from such
> > blatantly biased people as Michelle Malkin.
>
> �As Jenn often likes to say....show me where she lied.

I didn't say she lied...I said she's blatantly biased. Do you know the
difference?

>
>
> > > You think wit can make up for lack of substance and knowledge.
>
> > Now you know what I think?
>
> �I do when you say so. Unless you don't mean what you say.

So in your words, you're saying that I've said "I think wit can make
up for lack of substance or knowledge." Just show me where I said
that...or apologize for being wrong.

>
> > �LoL. No, I think wit can make a discussion
> > forum a much more interesting place to be. But exchanging information
> > should be a primary goal.
>
> �Yet you objected to links that provide information. Go figure.

Information? Hardly. It's propaganda that you're passing on.
>
>
>
> > > I don't.
>
> > > > > I prefer to discuss current political events.
>
> > > > That's nice, but there are forums designed for that.
>
> > > This forum has little to no audio discussion.
>
> > I participated in one yesterday.
>
> �A very little one. �Still no one bothered you as far as I can tell.

It doesn't matter. I saw an audio topic and I commented on it. The
original poster replied, and I replied to that. What else am I
supposed to do to satisfy your ever shifting idea of right and wrong?

>
>
>
> > > Yet with Arny gone there is no one that is going to disrupt
> > > anything the comes up on-topic.
>
> > The right people have to come back. You and Bratzi aren't enough to
> > attract them.
>
> �And you are? � How about Middiot? Shhtard?

Of course. Look at the posts over the last year from people like
Hophead and Herbert Hoover that said, "Wow, Boon...great to see you
again!" Contrast that with the number of posts that say, "Hey
Scott...I'm really happy you're here...you really contribute to the
group."

>
> �Look RAHE. It's pretty open for any audio topic yet there is little
> new. �Same 'ol folks, same 'ol debate.

That's why I'm not really interested in audio discussions on the
Internet anymore.
>
>
>
> > > Meanwhile, everyone here engages in off-topic discussion.
> > > Midiot does his silly sniping.
> > > Jenn rants against Fox.
> > > You get sprung over Palin.
> > > Everyone here has started off-topic threads.
> > > You've just decided you don't like the topics I raise
> > > because they don't spawn nice friendly donut hole like
> > > discussions. Too bad.
>
> > It has nothing to do with OT discussions.
>
> � Well that's a change in argument.

No, it's not. I made it clear just ahead.
>
> > Most of us have known each
> > other for many years, and it's perfectly natural to talk about other
> > topics.
>
> �Go ahead. �What you mostly talk about is other people in childish
> fashion but reality is...no one is stopping you if that's what you
> want to do.

"Childish fashion"? Like how?

>
> > Excessively spamming the group with right-wing and nationalist
> > links is another story, It violates the Usenet charter.
>
> �So does your endless banter with Geo who you recently overtly trolled
> about nothing. �So did your donut hole discussion.

No, it didn't. First, explain to me how I trolled a person who came on
here and immediately called two regulars "fat"? (Of course without
ever meeting either person.) THAT'S a troll. My response was pretty
normal in the context of discussion forums...if you can't play nice,
get the **** out.

>
> �You want a group in strict compliance with usenet charter now?
> Bye bye shhh. �Bye bye George. �Bye bye Mark.

Do you know what the charter is? It's not against OT topics. It's
against excessive spamming. When you introduce OT thread after OT
thread that's little more than a link to someone else's blog, that's
spam. By definition.

>
> �Go to RAHE if you want charter rules.
>
> Once again I see you obviously and hypocritically wanting your charter
> violations
> condoned while others are not.

Again, this point was proven and is therefore moot.

>
>
>
> > Do you see the difference, or is your world still black and white?
>
> I see you trying to paint the world as you want it to be.
> Not very tolerant, are you?

I'm not trying to paint it any way. Why are you treating me like I'm
some sort of authority who is making demands from the others? I am
merely expressing an opinion. 11 years ago, there was a lot of
entertaining and informed posters here. Now they come on here, see the
ridiculous OT spamming from people like you and Bratzi, and leave.
You're not saving RAO, you're ruining it. And I have a right to bitch
about it. If you don't like it, killfile me.

>
>
>
> > > > > You prefer donut holes and T-shirts.
>
> > > > To what, your excessive OT posting?
>
> > > LoL. You're off-topic as much as anyone.
> > > You just want to decide what is acceptably entertaining
> > > to you and what isn't.
>
> > It's called an opinion. Hence, rec.audio.opinion. And my opinion that
> > excessive OT spamming hurts the group.
>
> �I think excessive whining, ridicule, and childish insults are far
> more
> damaging. �You engage in all of that.

In your opinion. From my point of view I got rid of Arny.
>
>
>
> > > Your complaints are hypocritical.
>
> > You're failing to understand my complaints, so your point is moot.
>
> �LoL. � I fail to see any honesty in your argument.

You fail to see honesty in any argument but your own. Consequently,
people tend to say the same about you. You're not known for being a
paragon of truth around here.
>
>
>
> > > > > I don't find donut holes and T-shirts any more entertaining than the
> > > > > childish ridicule and unsubstantiated insults but it is more tolerable
>
> > > > It doesn't matter what you think about donut holes and T-shirts. I had
> > > > a nice, friendly conversation with at least two other people here on a
> > > > subject we all found interesting.
>
> > > And I didn't interfere nor do I complain about it beyond pointing
> > > out the hypocrisy of your complaints.
>
> > That's interfering.
>
> �LoL. �I don't think you belong on usenet. �You need a private forum
> all to yourself.

Non-response noted.

>
> > It also makes YOU the hypocrite, not me. (That's
> > not a IKYABWAI but simple logic.)
>
> �Simply futile and self-serving disingenuous logic.

If you say so.
>
>
>
> > > > Evidently you are against nice,
> > > > friendly conversations or else you would have more of them.
>
> > > That's a matter of perspective.
>
> > Who other than you thinks you have nice friendly conversations here?
>
> �See? Your leap of logic demands participation else I'm in opposition.
> That's just more self-serving disingenuous logical BS.
> I'm not opposed to your boring donut hole conversations.

Your obsession with donut holes is getting pretty dumb. It tells me
that you can only think of one instanceof my OT posting behavior and
you're repeating it over and over.

> It's pretty much the only time you're civil.
> But don't tell me I have to participate or I'm opposed.
> I'm not opposed to them. I'm just bored by them.
> Doesn't mean I don't think you should have them if you wish.

And I feel the same about you and your excessive spamming. I'll never
do anything about it other than complain when the subject comes up.
But if you go around saying your trying to save the group, I'll call
you on it.

>
> > Name one person. In other words, we're talking about YOUR prespective,
> > right?
>
> �No, I'm actually talking about yours.

So I think you're having nice friendly conversations here? Would you
like to go back and read more carefully and try again?
>
>
>
> > > You certainly aren't nice in a couple peoples perspective.
>
> > You mean people who tell lies about my family or write emails to my
> > business associates? You should know better than to make that comment.
>
> �I mean you go out of your way to start and escalate personal
> conflicts IMO.

In each case, people did something to me that crossed the line. Both
Bob and Arny went real-world on me. CISG told lies about me and my
family. If any of those three guys did that to my face, they'd take a
beating.

> �You've also claimed to go real world yourself.

I didn't claim to go real world. I've told you privately what
happened. Apparently you've forgotten.

Even if you didn't do
> it, I think
> that's just dumb as it provides to those, like Bob, with justification
> to do what
> you say you do.

Ah, the two wrongs make a right argument.
>
>
>
> > > But go ahead and be nice if you can. Unlike you, I won't try to stop
> > > you.
>
> > I'm nice to more people here than you are.
>
> �Oh goody.
>
> You're also far nastier than I am.

In your opinion. Again, compare the number of people with whom I have
civil discussions with your personal list.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

> > George pretty much IS a socialist.
> > I disagree with Scott inpart, as I feel that George IS and elitist
> > and likes to order the proles about.
>
> LoL.

Yes, Sacky nailed it: I'm a socialist *and* an elitist. And I have a pet tooth
fairy who eats rainbows and buries pots of treasure.

[GeoSynch]

Buffoon engages in more buffoonery:

> [E]xplain to me how I trolled a person who came on here and immediately called
> two regulars "fat"? (Of course without ever meeting either person.)

Not to belabor the obviouus, but as I previously stated, pudge long ago
described himself as a "gay obese man"; this picture of Jenn tells a similar
story
http://academic.cuesta.edu/performingarts/bios/jennifer_martin.html

So, as usual, you're wrong again.

> Why are you treating me like I'm some sort of authority who is making demands
> from the others?
,,,
> From my point of view I got rid of Arny.

Like I also previously stated, "I guess your olfactory senses have become so
blunted, you no longer reek
yourself right out of the room with the stench of your own hypocrisy."

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
vinyl anachronist > wrote:

> From my point of view I got rid of Arny.

Wasn't there some understanding that Scott was defending Arny from
attacks, mentions, etc? Now that he's gone, what's Scott defending?

Stephen

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

MiNe 109 said:

> > From my point of view I got rid of Arny.
>
> Wasn't there some understanding that Scott was defending Arny from
> attacks, mentions, etc? Now that he's gone, what's Scott defending?

Arnii's turd collection?

[vinyl anachronist]

On Aug 11, 1:57�pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> �vinyl anachronist > wrote:
>
> > From my point of view I got rid of Arny.
>
> Wasn't there some understanding that Scott was defending Arny from
> attacks, mentions, etc? Now that he's gone, what's Scott defending?

Himself, I guess. He and Bratzi have a right to spam. It's very
important to Scott that this right be preserved, charter be damned.
It's about his right to express himself as an angry white guy.

[Clyde Slick]

On 11 aug., 16:46, George M. Middius > wrote:
> Shhhh! said:
>
> > > George pretty much IS a socialist.
> > > I disagree with Scott inpart, as I feel that George IS and elitist
> > > and likes to order the proles about.
>
> > LoL.
>
> Yes, Sacky nailed it: I'm a socialist *and* an elitist. And I have a pet tooth
> fairy who eats rainbows and buries pots of treasure.

in your case, used condoms from the nether region.

[hophead]

In article >, smcelroy2
@POPaustin.rr.com says...

> Wasn't there some understanding that Scott was defending Arny from
> attacks, mentions, etc?

Indeed: he still sometimes uses "NAT" to preface his mindless trolls.

> Now that he's gone, what's Scott defending?

The "Truth" according to angry Republicans?

[vinyl anachronist]

On Aug 11, 2:48�pm, hophead > wrote:
> In article >, smcelroy2
> @POPaustin.rr.com says...
>
> > Wasn't there some understanding that Scott was defending Arny from
> > attacks, mentions, etc?
>
> Indeed: he still sometimes uses "NAT" to preface his mindless trolls.

I've wondered why he still does the NAT thing. If anyone's keeping the
spirit of Arny alive, it's him.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 11, 6:10*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Aug 11, 1:24*pm, vinyl anachronist >
> wrote:

> > Information? Hardly. It's propaganda that you're passing on.
>
> *LoL. *How would you know if you don't read it?

Keep in mind that 2pid discounts experience.

In 2pid's 'mind' his 'differing POV' is as valid as a field-grade
officer's with over 20 years of service (not to mention that of
general officers in command of the theaters in question).

That's just how 2pid rolls.

[vinyl anachronist]

On Aug 11, 4:10�pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Aug 11, 1:24�pm, vinyl anachronist >
> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 11, 11:22 am, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 11, 10:29 am, vinyl anachronist >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 11, 10:00 am, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 11, 9:37 am, vinyl anachronist >
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Aug 11, 9:16 am, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Aug 10, 10:36 pm, vinyl anachronist >
> > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Aug 10, 3:49 pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > So you're here to be an asshole. All righty then.
>
> > > > > > > > > If that means not conforming to your way of thinking, I guess so.
>
> > > > > > > > No...it just means you're here to misbehave. I don't have a problem
> > > > > > > > with that as long as you're entertaining.
>
> > > > > > > And there it is. Misbehaving is ok as long as you find it amusing.
>
> > > > > > Misbehaving is okay as long as you take it in the right spirit. If you
> > > > > > take it personally, then you probably should stay away from Usenet.
>
> > > > > > > I don't find childish immaturity entertaining so are you going to
> > > > > > > stop?
>
> > > > > > You mean, am I going to bow to your every whim and desire? No.
>
> > > > > > > > Some people obviously think
> > > > > > > > that you are.
>
> > > > > > > The difference is I don't care what some people think, particularly
> > > > > > > those who indulge in immaturity for their own amusement.
>
> > > > > > Then why don't you avoid them? Why do you constantly engage them?
>
> > > > > Most of the time I do. I see your little peanut gallery snipes.
> > > > > They usually lack substance and aren't worthy of a response.
>
> > > > That would be your opinion. I look at your excessive OT threads and
> > > > feel they also lack substance, especially when derived from such
> > > > blatantly biased people as Michelle Malkin.
>
> > > As Jenn often likes to say....show me where she lied.
>
> > I didn't say she lied...I said she's blatantly biased. Do you know the
> > difference?
>
> �Yeah, one is a subjective opinion not worth arguing.

Yes, subjective opinions are never worth arguing. Only stupid people
do that.
>
>
>
> > > > > You think wit can make up for lack of substance and knowledge.
>
> > > > Now you know what I think?
>
> > > I do when you say so. Unless you don't mean what you say.
>
> > So in your words, you're saying that I've said "I think wit can make
> > up for lack of substance or knowledge."
>
> � Or the equivalent.

No, that would be a subjective opinion of yours and not worth
arguing...at least according to your rules.

>
> > Just show me where I said
> > that...or apologize for being wrong.
>
> �No.

Figures. Why use facts when you have white guy anger? It used to work
in the days when we'd lynch people jus' for bein' the wrong color!

>
>
>
> > > > LoL. No, I think wit can make a discussion
> > > > forum a much more interesting place to be. But exchanging information
> > > > should be a primary goal.
>
> > > Yet you objected to links that provide information. Go figure.
>
> > Information? Hardly. It's propaganda that you're passing on.
>
> �LoL. �How would you know if you don't read it?

How do you know I haven't read it?

People have read your links. They've noticed that you don't
necessarily connect the dots. They gave up listening to you because it
was a waste of their time.

>
>
>
> > > > > I don't.
>
> > > > > > > I prefer to discuss current political events.
>
> > > > > > That's nice, but there are forums designed for that.
>
> > > > > This forum has little to no audio discussion.
>
> > > > I participated in one yesterday.
>
> > > A very little one. Still no one bothered you as far as I can tell.
>
> > It doesn't matter.
>
> � Yeah, it does.

How?
>
> > �I saw an audio topic and I commented on it. The
> > original poster replied, and I replied to that. What else am I
> > supposed to do to satisfy your ever shifting idea of right and wrong?
>
> �Quit acting like someone disrupted you by commenting in other
> threads.

I have no idea what that means. (Hint: it's you, not me.)
>
>
>
> > > > > Yet with Arny gone there is no one that is going to disrupt
> > > > > anything the comes up on-topic.
>
> > > > The right people have to come back. You and Bratzi aren't enough to
> > > > attract them.
>
> > > And you are? How about Middiot? Shhtard?
>
> > Of course. Look at the posts over the last year from people like
> > Hophead and Herbert Hoover that said, "Wow, Boon...great to see you
> > again!"
>
> �Those guys are like you. Shallow and without substance IMO.

Goddamn you sound like Arny these days. You don't know either of those
guys. They are strangers on the Internet to you.


> Perfect donut holes. �But feel free to have your discussions.
> No one is stopping you but you with your extreme sensitivity.

Extreme sensitivity? About what? About having someone **** with my
livelihood?

>
> > Contrast that with the number of posts that say, "Hey
> > Scott...I'm really happy you're here...you really contribute to the
> > group."
>
> � You were gone for years.

No, I wasn't.

�I didn't see anyone lamenting your
> absence.

I received plenty of emails.

�In return all you want to do is censor what you don't like.

No, I don't.

> Why not just kill-file me instead of insisting on being group cop?

I don't need to kill-file you. 99% of the time I ignore you. And you
know that.

>
>
>
> > > Look RAHE. It's pretty open for any audio topic yet there is little
> > > new. Same 'ol folks, same 'ol debate.
>
> > That's why I'm not really interested in audio discussions on the
> > Internet anymore.
>
> �So you want to remake RAO in your "non-audio" image. �LoL.

I don't want to remake RAO. It's you and Bret that have remade
RAO...into something close to worthless.
>
> �You are a blazing hypocrite.

I don't think you understand what that word means. You keep misusing
it.
>
>
>
> > > > > Meanwhile, everyone here engages in off-topic discussion.
> > > > > Midiot does his silly sniping.
> > > > > Jenn rants against Fox.
> > > > > You get sprung over Palin.
> > > > > Everyone here has started off-topic threads.
> > > > > You've just decided you don't like the topics I raise
> > > > > because they don't spawn nice friendly donut hole like
> > > > > discussions. Too bad.
>
> > > > It has nothing to do with OT discussions.
>
> > > Well that's a change in argument.
>
> > No, it's not. I made it clear just ahead.
>
> > > > Most of us have known each
> > > > other for many years, and it's perfectly natural to talk about other
> > > > topics.
>
> > > Go ahead. What you mostly talk about is other people in childish
> > > fashion but reality is...no one is stopping you if that's what you
> > > want to do.
>
> > "Childish fashion"? Like how?
>
> �Like your silly sideline comments about me but not
> addressed to me. �That is childish.

It's childish to talk about a third party? Really?

Wow, talk about sensitive.

> The fact that you don't know that speaks volumes.

Yes, it's childish to talk about other human beings. Utterly
infantile.
>
>
>
> > > > Excessively spamming the group with right-wing and nationalist
> > > > links is another story, It violates the Usenet charter.
>
> > > So does your endless banter with Geo who you recently overtly trolled
> > > about nothing. So did your donut hole discussion.
>
> > No, it didn't.
>
> �Yes it did. �But only condemn you for hypocrisy, not the act.

No. You keep clinging to the fact that you're not spamming the group.
You are.

>
> > �First, explain to me how I trolled a person who came on
> > here and immediately called two regulars "fat"?
>
> So you trolled a troll. It's still trolling.

No, it's not.

>
> > �(Of course without
> > ever meeting either person.) THAT'S a troll. �My response was pretty
> > normal in the context of discussion forums...if you can't play nice,
> > get the **** out.
>
> �Marc the rulemaker.

Ugh. You can't tell the difference between spamming and off-topic, and
you can't tell the difference between voicing an opinion and trying to
take over.
>
>
>
> > > You want a group in strict compliance with usenet charter now?
> > > Bye bye shhh. Bye bye George. Bye bye Mark.
>
> > Do you know what the charter is? It's not against OT topics. It's
> > against excessive spamming. When you introduce OT thread after OT
> > thread that's little more than a link to someone else's blog, that's
> > spam. By definition.
>
> � �Nope, it's just OT stuff you're not interested.

Few are.

> �You aren't Bush the decider of what OT is spam and what OT
> is not.

Ummm...I'm not sure what Bush has to do with it, but you're right.
It's not my decision. It's Usenet. And your in clear violation of
their charter.
>
>
>
> > > Go to RAHE if you want charter rules.
>
> > > Once again I see you obviously and hypocritically wanting your charter
> > > violations
> > > condoned while others are not.
>
> > Again, this point was proven and is therefore moot.
>
> �LoL. �The debating trade "proof".

No, it's just that you can't concede your mistakes, so we go round and
round.
>
>
>
> > > > Do you see the difference, or is your world still black and white?
>
> > > I see you trying to paint the world as you want it to be.
> > > Not very tolerant, are you?
>
> > I'm not trying to paint it any way. Why are you treating me like I'm
> > some sort of authority who is making demands from the others?
>
> Because you are.

You think I am. I'm not sure why you're so threatened by me.

>
> > I am
> > merely expressing an opinion.
>
> �Then I shall give it all the consideration is deserves.
> Anything else?
>
> > 11 years ago, there was a lot of
> > entertaining and informed posters here. Now they come on here, see the
> > ridiculous OT spamming from people like you and Bratzi, and leave.
>
> Revisionist history. �


Prove it. No one sent you emails about why they left.

The left because of the nasty flamefests.

Many left because of Arny. MANY.

> This place was dead long before I started making political posts.
> You had vacated it yourself. � Silence isn't going to bring the past
> back.

Now it's the "we found it like this" argument. How noble.
>
> > You're not saving RAO, you're ruining it. And I have a right to bitch
> > about it. If you don't like it, killfile me.
>
> �OK.

Promise?
>
>
>
> > > > > > > You prefer donut holes and T-shirts.
>
> > > > > > To what, your excessive OT posting?
>
> > > > > LoL. You're off-topic as much as anyone.
> > > > > You just want to decide what is acceptably entertaining
> > > > > to you and what isn't.
>
> > > > It's called an opinion. Hence, rec.audio.opinion. And my opinion that
> > > > excessive OT spamming hurts the group.
>
> > > I think excessive whining, ridicule, and childish insults are far
> > > more
> > > damaging. You engage in all of that.
>
> > In your opinion. From my point of view I got rid of Arny.
>
> �Not withoug collateral damage. � What if some people would
> prefer Arny be here? �Did you ever consider that decision wasn't
> your right?

Yes, I did. I know many people were here to poke fun at Arny and I
took that away from them. But they weren't in the position I was.

I did receive several emails from people here who encouraged me to go
after him and drive him away.
>
>
>
> > > > > Your complaints are hypocritical.
>
> > > > You're failing to understand my complaints, so your point is moot.
>
> > > LoL. I fail to see any honesty in your argument.
>
> > You fail to see honesty in any argument but your own. Consequently,
> > people tend to say the same about you. You're not known for being a
> > paragon of truth around here.
>
> �RAO isn't know as a paragon of judgement of truth.

Of course not. It's the Internet. But it doesn't have to be a pack of
lies, either.
>
>
>
> > > > > > > I don't find donut holes and T-shirts any more entertaining than the
> > > > > > > childish ridicule and unsubstantiated insults but it is more tolerable
>
> > > > > > It doesn't matter what you think about donut holes and T-shirts.. I had
> > > > > > a nice, friendly conversation with at least two other people here on a
> > > > > > subject we all found interesting.
>
> > > > > And I didn't interfere nor do I complain about it beyond pointing
> > > > > out the hypocrisy of your complaints.
>
> > > > That's interfering.
>
> > > LoL. I don't think you belong on usenet. You need a private forum
> > > all to yourself.
>
> > Non-response noted.
>
> �It was clear even if over your head.

It wasn't over my head. It was just sort of a feeble response.
>
>
>
> > > > It also makes YOU the hypocrite, not me. (That's
> > > > not a IKYABWAI but simple logic.)
>
> > > Simply futile and self-serving disingenuous logic.
>
> > If you say so.
>
> I do.

Fine. The feeling is mutual.
>
>
>
> > > > > > Evidently you are against nice,
> > > > > > friendly conversations or else you would have more of them.
>
> > > > > That's a matter of perspective.
>
> > > > Who other than you thinks you have nice friendly conversations here?
>
> > > See? Your leap of logic demands participation else I'm in opposition.
> > > That's just more self-serving disingenuous logical BS.
> > > I'm not opposed to your boring donut hole conversations.
>
> > Your obsession with donut holes is getting pretty dumb.
>
> �Then have a less boring conversation.

I already said I wasn't going to killfile you.

>
> > �It tells me
> > that you can only think of one instanceof my OT posting behavior and
> > you're repeating it over and over.
>
> �Non-response noted.

I don't think you understand what that means, either.
>
>
>
> > > It's pretty much the only time you're civil.
> > > But don't tell me I have to participate or I'm opposed.
> > > I'm not opposed to them. I'm just bored by them.
> > > Doesn't mean I don't think you should have them if you wish.
>
> > And I feel the same about you and your excessive spamming. I'll never
> > do anything about it other than complain when the subject comes up.
> > But if you go around saying your trying to save the group, I'll call
> > you on it.
>
> �Feel free. Once I thought RAO could be saved. No more.
> RAO isn't the only audio forum that is dying.

No kidding.
>
>
>
> > > > Name one person. In other words, we're talking about YOUR prespective,
> > > > right?
>
> > > No, I'm actually talking about yours.
>
> > So I think you're having nice friendly conversations here?
>
> �Now you have to ask me what you think? �Try again.
>
> Let's make it simple. I don't think my conversations will be percieved
> as "nice and friendly" by some who demand "like-minded" thinking to be
> perceived as nice and friendly. �I am not a big admirer of "like-
> mindedness".

I'm not asking for nice and friendly.

> But I will be civil if treated civilly.

I have treated you in a civil manner. I've even apologized whenever I
take it too far. I've done it more than once with you.
>
> > Would you
> > like to go back and read more carefully and try again?
>
> > > > > You certainly aren't nice in a couple peoples perspective.
>
> > > > You mean people who tell lies about my family or write emails to my
> > > > business associates? You should know better than to make that comment.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 11, 9:25*pm, vinyl anachronist >
wrote:
> On Aug 11, 4:10 pm, ScottW2 > wrote:

It's time to teach a shorthand course:

"2pid are a imbecile."

[vinyl anachronist]

On Aug 11, 8:15�pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Aug 11, 9:25�pm, vinyl anachronist >
> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 11, 4:10 pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> It's time to teach a shorthand course:
>
> "2pid are a imbecile."

Yeah, no more of these epics. Life's too short.

[GeoSynch]

Buffoon bawled:

> Both Bob and Arny went real-world on me. CISG told lies about me and my
> family.

> I didn't claim to go real world.

You were crying like a girl about "taking food off my table" when Bob and Arny
went 'real-world' on you but in the next breath you wetted yourself with gleeful
self-satisfaction when you mistakenly believed you had gone 'real-world' on me
and gotten me fired from my job.

Face it, you're a no-credibility rat fink snitch hypocrite idiot loser.
And that's what you will always be.

Too bad you didn't heed your own advice and just "stop talking." Ha-ha-ha!

In trolling me - as a proxy for Arny to vainly display your argumentative
prowess - you've only exposed what a lowdown, dirty scoundrel you really are.

That karma thing I previously mentioned seems to finally be catching up with
you.

But the icing on the cake is that all this I've written will be gnawing away at
your psyche for days on end, the pent-up rage exacerbated by your silly "refuse
to engage" vow a few days ago. ;-)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 11, 11:43*pm, vinyl anachronist >
wrote:
> On Aug 11, 8:15 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > wrote:
> > On Aug 11, 9:25 pm, vinyl anachronist >
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 11, 4:10 pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > It's time to teach a shorthand course:
>
> > "2pid are a imbecile."
>
> Yeah, no more of these epics. Life's too short.

It would be one thing if the intended recipient could actually process
and understand what is being said.

In the words of a former RAOer about trying to hold adult-level
discussions with 2pid, "Been there, done that".

[vinyl anachronist]

On Aug 12, 9:43�am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Aug 11, 11:43�pm, vinyl anachronist >
> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 11, 8:15 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > On Aug 11, 9:25 pm, vinyl anachronist >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 11, 4:10 pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > It's time to teach a shorthand course:
>
> > > "2pid are a imbecile."
>
> > Yeah, no more of these epics. Life's too short.
>
> It would be one thing if the intended recipient could actually process
> and understand what is being said.
>
> In the words of a former RAOer about trying to hold adult-level
> discussions with 2pid, "Been there, done that".

The sad thing is that when I do engage him point by point like that, I
see a tiny hint of the human being behind the spam. But this neo-con
discomfiture syndrome is a powerful and debilitating disease.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 12, 1:18*pm, vinyl anachronist >
wrote:
> On Aug 12, 9:43 am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Aug 11, 11:43 pm, vinyl anachronist >
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 11, 8:15 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > On Aug 11, 9:25 pm, vinyl anachronist >
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 11, 4:10 pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > > It's time to teach a shorthand course:
>
> > > > "2pid are a imbecile."
>
> > > Yeah, no more of these epics. Life's too short.
>
> > It would be one thing if the intended recipient could actually process
> > and understand what is being said.
>
> > In the words of a former RAOer about trying to hold adult-level
> > discussions with 2pid, "Been there, done that".
>
> The sad thing is that when I do engage him point by point like that, I
> see a tiny hint of the human being behind the spam. But this neo-con
> discomfiture syndrome is a powerful and debilitating disease.

It seems to put people in cranial arrest.