Home Entertainment 2005 Invitation to Arny Krueger

[John Atkinson]

Mr. Krueger, on December 7, 2004, at the instigation of
Michael McKelvy, I invited you to debate me in person at the
forthcoming Home Entertainment 2005 Show, scheduled to take
place in New York at the end of April. (See r.a.o. message
om>.) I
promised you that there would be no restrictions on what
subjects you wished to talk about, although I felt it fair
to include a section where you and I answered questions from
the audience.

Mr. McKelvy strongly felt that I was not owed a fee if I
were to accept a similar invitation -- "Stop mucking about
with all the bull**** about fees..." he wrote -- so I made
it clear that no fee would be offered you, Mr. Krueger, for
your appearance in New York, just "reasonable expenses." I
subsequently defined these expenses as a round trip,
coach-class air fare and accommodation for 2 nights. I also
subsequently clarified that this invitation was to you
personally, not to someone else that you might wish to
attend in your place.

You responded that while you were interested in taking part
in this debate, you needed some time to come to a decision.
Your specific words were "Of course that's a long way from
home, but let's see if I can put something together..." and
"I will give you my *final answer* by the end of January,
if that's all right with you."

In response, I told you on December 12 that I needed to know
your decision by February 1, 2005 (see r.a.o. message
. com>).

Back then, February 1 was more than 6 weeks in the future,
so I didn't felt it necessary to remind you of the
invitation. However, as that deadline is now next Tuesday,
I really do need a Yes or No answer by 10am that morning,
as I am meeting with the magazine and Show management later
that day to make the final decisions over the Show's events
program.

Thanks in advance for letting me know what you decision is
by the time and date specified above.
Sincerely
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
oups.com
> Mr. Krueger, on December 7, 2004, at the instigation of
> Michael McKelvy, I invited you to debate me in person at the
> forthcoming Home Entertainment 2005 Show, scheduled to take
> place in New York at the end of April. (See r.a.o. message
> om>.) I

> You responded that while you were interested in taking part
> in this debate, you needed some time to come to a decision.
> Your specific words were "Of course that's a long way from
> home, but let's see if I can put something together..." and
> "I will give you my *final answer* by the end of January,
> if that's all right with you."
>
> In response, I told you on December 12 that I needed to know
> your decision by February 1, 2005 (see r.a.o. message
> . com>).
>
> Back then, February 1 was more than 6 weeks in the future,
> so I didn't felt it necessary to remind you of the
> invitation. However, as that deadline is now next Tuesday,
> I really do need a Yes or No answer by 10am that morning,
> as I am meeting with the magazine and Show management later
> that day to make the final decisions over the Show's events
> program.
>

John you have my answer now, "Yes"

I only delayed answering because of the posturing by Middius and his crowd.
I hope that you picked up on the fact that the only reason I delayed my
answer was to give them plenty of time to posture about how I was not going
to agree with your invitation.

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> oups.com
> > Mr. Krueger, on December 7, 2004, at the instigation of
> > Michael McKelvy, I invited you to debate me in person at the
> > forthcoming Home Entertainment 2005 Show, scheduled to take
> > place in New York at the end of April. (See r.a.o. message
> > om>.) I
>
> > You responded that while you were interested in taking part
> > in this debate, you needed some time to come to a decision.
> > Your specific words were "Of course that's a long way from
> > home, but let's see if I can put something together..." and
> > "I will give you my *final answer* by the end of January,
> > if that's all right with you."
> >
> > In response, I told you on December 12 that I needed to know
> > your decision by February 1, 2005 (see r.a.o. message
> > . com>).
> >
> > Back then, February 1 was more than 6 weeks in the future,
> > so I didn't felt it necessary to remind you of the
> > invitation. However, as that deadline is now next Tuesday,
> > I really do need a Yes or No answer by 10am that morning,
> > as I am meeting with the magazine and Show management later
> > that day to make the final decisions over the Show's events
> > program.
> >
>
> John you have my answer now, "Yes"
>
> I only delayed answering because of the posturing by Middius and his
crowd.
> I hope that you picked up on the fact that the only reason I delayed
my
> answer was to give them plenty of time to posture about how I was not
going
> to agree with your invitation.
>
>

Remember the Scott Wheeler lawsuit? Remember how "George M. Middius"
said you would apologize to avoid the threat of legal action? Then he
shifted gears and predicted that Wheeler would prevail in court (as did
Sad-sackman). Then, when Wheeler's "case" collapsed, "George" fell
silent. Sort of like Ed Shain disappearing from RAO when Vergance went
bust. ;-)

So, now we can expect "George" to post endlessly about how you will
"back out" at the last minute because you fear "Lord Atkinson.....

[[email protected]]

George M. Middius wrote:
> Fran=E7ois Yves Le Gal said:
>
> > >John you have my answer now, "Yes"
>
> > Wow. Will the revolution be webcasted?
>
> They already showed it on broadcast TV, on New Year's Day. You know
-- the
> hours-long video feed of nothing (except a fireplace). Krooger will
not
> show up in NYC, and if he does show up, it will be too late, or he'll
be
> "unable" to find the location of the event, or he'll give some other
> excuse. Krooger will not take the stage and address JA. Not now, not
ever.
>
>

here we go....... ;-)

[Fella]

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> François Yves Le Gal said:
>
>
>>>John you have my answer now, "Yes"
>
>
>>Wow. Will the revolution be webcasted?
>Krooger will not take the stage and address JA. Not now, not ever.
>

Why not? He'll just be the same dirt he's here, also there.


>
>

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com

> Remember the Scott Wheeler lawsuit?

It's Scott, not me that is trying to forget his loss. ;-)

>Remember how "George M. Middius" said you would apologize to avoid the
>threat of legal action?

I seem to recall that. I'm quite sure that Middius did everythng he could to
impress Scott of this *fact*.

>Then he shifted gears and predicted that Wheeler would prevail in court
>(as did Sad-sackman).

I seem to recall that. I'm quite sure that Middius and Sackman did everythng
they could to impress Scott of this *fact*. Didn't Sackman even visit the
west coast in or about that time?

>Then, when Wheeler's "case" collapsed, "George" fell silent.

Will any person who is surprised, please raise their hand! ;-) <I mean,
besides George, Scott, and Sack_of_whatever_man.>

> Sort of like Ed Shain disappearing from RAO when Vergance went bust. ;-)

Well, everything you're talking about now is pretty small potatoes compared
to THAT! I hear that serious money (totalling maybe in the 7 figure range)
was involved.

> So, now we can expect "George" to post endlessly about how you will
> "back out" at the last minute because you fear "Lord Atkinson...

His mouth, his personal reputation...

What am I thinking? George has no personal reputation. You have to be a
person to have a personal repuation, right? ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com

> George M. Middius wrote:

>> Krooger will not show up in NYC, and if he does show up, it will be too
>> late, or he'll be
>> "unable" to find the location of the event, or he'll give some other
>> excuse. Krooger will not take the stage and address JA. Not now, not
> ever.

> here we go....... ;-)

Agreed.

BTW, who is Krooger? ;-)

I can see it now:

Interviewer - George, were you wrong about Scatt Wheeler's lawsuit against
Krueger?

Middius - No, who is Krueger? I wrote about Krooger!

Interviewer - George, were you wrong about Atkinson's New York debate with
Krueger?

Middius - No, who is Krueger? I wrote about Krooger!

[dave weil]

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:06:41 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

> wrote in message
oups.com
>
>> George M. Middius wrote:
>
>>> Krooger will not show up in NYC, and if he does show up, it will be too
>>> late, or he'll be
>>> "unable" to find the location of the event, or he'll give some other
>>> excuse. Krooger will not take the stage and address JA. Not now, not
>> ever.
>
>> here we go....... ;-)
>
>Agreed.
>
>BTW, who is Krooger? ;-)
>
>I can see it now:
>
>Interviewer - George, were you wrong about Scatt Wheeler's lawsuit against
>Krueger?

Who is Scatt Wheeler, a jazz singer? A jazz singer with a "repuation"
perhaps?

>Middius - No, who is Krueger? I wrote about Krooger!
>
>Interviewer - George, were you wrong about Atkinson's New York debate with
>Krueger?
>
>Middius - No, who is Krueger? I wrote about Krooger!

BTW, it's so cute when you guys kiss. It would be cuter if it weren't
your butts though.

[John Atkinson]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> oups.com
> > I really do need a Yes or No answer by 10am that morning,
> > as I am meeting with the magazine and Show management later
> > that day to make the final decisions over the Show's events
> > program.
>
> John you have my answer now, "Yes"

Thank you, Mr. Krueger. Following next Tuesday's meeting, I will get
back to you with the exact date. We can then discuss travel
arrangements
so we can purchase your ticket.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[dave weil]

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 10:59:30 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
oups.com
>> Mr. Krueger, on December 7, 2004, at the instigation of
>> Michael McKelvy, I invited you to debate me in person at the
>> forthcoming Home Entertainment 2005 Show, scheduled to take
>> place in New York at the end of April. (See r.a.o. message
>> om>.) I
>
>> You responded that while you were interested in taking part
>> in this debate, you needed some time to come to a decision.
>> Your specific words were "Of course that's a long way from
>> home, but let's see if I can put something together..." and
>> "I will give you my *final answer* by the end of January,
>> if that's all right with you."
>>
>> In response, I told you on December 12 that I needed to know
>> your decision by February 1, 2005 (see r.a.o. message
>> . com>).
>>
>> Back then, February 1 was more than 6 weeks in the future,
>> so I didn't felt it necessary to remind you of the
>> invitation. However, as that deadline is now next Tuesday,
>> I really do need a Yes or No answer by 10am that morning,
>> as I am meeting with the magazine and Show management later
>> that day to make the final decisions over the Show's events
>> program.
>>
>
>John you have my answer now, "Yes"
>
>I only delayed answering because of the posturing by Middius and his crowd.
>I hope that you picked up on the fact that the only reason I delayed my
>answer was to give them plenty of time to posture about how I was not going
>to agree with your invitation.

Yeah, that's such a good reason all right. Just shows what kind of
person you are to do business with.

Have fun in NYC though. You should have a good time.

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message


> But Krooger's connection to the real world, though tenuous, is just
> tenacious enough. He realizes there's a chasm between his private
> fantasy world and that "other world" he's trying to escape. And so he
> won't let the worlds collide, because if he did, the viability of the
> Kroo-dimension would be compromised even in Krooger's tortured mind.
> He'll stay where it's safe -- inside his hovel, connected to the
> world only through his computer.

George, who is Krooger?

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message

> ****-for-Brains said:
>
>>> But Krooger's connection to the real world, though tenuous, is just
>>> tenacious enough. He realizes there's a chasm between his private
>>> fantasy world and that "other world" he's trying to escape. And so
>>> he won't let the worlds collide, because if he did, the viability
>>> of the Kroo-dimension would be compromised even in Krooger's
>>> tortured mind. He'll stay where it's safe -- inside his hovel,
>>> connected to the world only through his computer.
>
>> George, who is Krooger?

<snip non-answer>

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message

> dave weil said to Fecesborg:
>
>>> I hope that you picked up on the fact that the only reason I
>>> delayed my answer was to give them plenty of time to posture about
>>> how I was not going to agree with your invitation.
>
>> Yeah, that's such a good reason all right. Just shows what kind of
>> person you are to do business with.
>
> Krooger is a "master of the debating trade".

Who is Krooger, and who are you quoting besides yourself, George?

[Joseph Oberlander]

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> François Yves Le Gal said:
>
>
>>>John you have my answer now, "Yes"
>
>
>>Wow. Will the revolution be webcasted?
>
>
> They already showed it on broadcast TV, on New Year's Day. You know -- the
> hours-long video feed of nothing (except a fireplace). Krooger will not
> show up in NYC, and if he does show up, it will be too late, or he'll be
> "unable" to find the location of the event, or he'll give some other
> excuse. Krooger will not take the stage and address JA. Not now, not ever.


"So, now we can expect "George" to post endlessly about how you will
"back out" at the last minute because you fear "Lord Atkinson....."

Right on cue, George. Are you sure you weren't some
behavioral modification subject at one time or another?
You sure seem to salivate and whine whenever Kreuger
posts anything.

[Joseph Oberlander]

dave weil wrote:

> BTW, it's so cute when you guys kiss. It would be cuter if it weren't
> your butts though.

Best laugh I've had all week. Thanks, I needed that. :)

[Joseph Oberlander]

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> Fella said:
>
>
>>>Krooger will not take the stage and address JA. Not now, not ever.
>
>
>
>>Why not? He'll just be the same dirt he's here, also there.
>
>
> Why not, you ask? Heh heh heh....
>
> Krooger has given us several glimpses into his private world of delusions
> and psychoses. In his imaginary reality, he is the all-knowing Great Audio
> Expert who "has never lost an audio debate". That is the imagined
> dimension where his "debating trade" garbage takes the place of both
> genuine intellectual discourse and the true business of producing and
> selling audio equipment.

Or Kreuger could be enjoying poking you with a stick to see
how you react. MY guess, based upon what a search online
turned up, as well as a search at the local library, is that
Kreuger has more audio knowledge than you might believe.

[Arny Krueger]

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
ink.net

> Or Kreuger could be enjoying poking you with a stick to see
> how you react.

According to Wheeler, that would be a sociopathic think to do. ;-)

>MY guess, based upon what a search online
> turned up, as well as a search at the local library, is that
> Kreuger has more audio knowledge than you might believe.

BTW, who is Kreuger? ;-)

[dave weil]

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:25:12 -0500, George M. Middius
> wrote:

>
>
>dave weil said to Fecesborg:
>
>> >I hope that you picked up on the fact that the only reason I delayed my
>> >answer was to give them plenty of time to posture about how I was not going
>> >to agree with your invitation.
>
>> Yeah, that's such a good reason all right. Just shows what kind of
>> person you are to do business with.
>
>Krooger is a "master of the debating trade".
>
>> Have fun in NYC though. You should have a good time.
>
>I tried to find out if there's a line on whether Krooger shows up, but
>oddly, none of the bookies in Vegas seems to have heard of him. ;-)

Oh, I'm sure he'll be there. Why wouldn't he? He's seemingly
impervious to embarassment. Besides, THAT VOICE. Who wouldn't want to
see it immortalized once more, and this time in a format that can be
shared with the world-at-large.

[Lionel]

dave weil a écrit :
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 10:59:30 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
oups.com
>>
>>>Mr. Krueger, on December 7, 2004, at the instigation of
>>>Michael McKelvy, I invited you to debate me in person at the
>>>forthcoming Home Entertainment 2005 Show, scheduled to take
>>>place in New York at the end of April. (See r.a.o. message
om>.) I
>>
>>>You responded that while you were interested in taking part
>>>in this debate, you needed some time to come to a decision.
>>>Your specific words were "Of course that's a long way from
>>>home, but let's see if I can put something together..." and
>>>"I will give you my *final answer* by the end of January,
>>>if that's all right with you."
>>>
>>>In response, I told you on December 12 that I needed to know
>>>your decision by February 1, 2005 (see r.a.o. message
. com>).
>>>
>>>Back then, February 1 was more than 6 weeks in the future,
>>>so I didn't felt it necessary to remind you of the
>>>invitation. However, as that deadline is now next Tuesday,
>>>I really do need a Yes or No answer by 10am that morning,
>>>as I am meeting with the magazine and Show management later
>>>that day to make the final decisions over the Show's events
>>>program.
>>>
>>
>>John you have my answer now, "Yes"
>>
>>I only delayed answering because of the posturing by Middius and his crowd.
>>I hope that you picked up on the fact that the only reason I delayed my
>>answer was to give them plenty of time to posture about how I was not going
>>to agree with your invitation.
>
>
> Yeah, that's such a good reason all right. Just shows what kind of
> person you are to do business with.

For my part I have always a lot of fun seing that all Middius's
predictions fail grotesquely.
If like me you was here for the fun you would also appreciate such
attention from Arnold Krueger.
RAO is for fun isn't it Dave ?

> Have fun in NYC though. You should have a good time.

Fair Dave.
Only Middius & Co don't understand that it is possible.

[Lionel]

a écrit :
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>>"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
oups.com
>>
>>>Mr. Krueger, on December 7, 2004, at the instigation of
>>>Michael McKelvy, I invited you to debate me in person at the
>>>forthcoming Home Entertainment 2005 Show, scheduled to take
>>>place in New York at the end of April. (See r.a.o. message
om>.) I
>>
>>>You responded that while you were interested in taking part
>>>in this debate, you needed some time to come to a decision.
>>>Your specific words were "Of course that's a long way from
>>>home, but let's see if I can put something together..." and
>>>"I will give you my *final answer* by the end of January,
>>>if that's all right with you."
>>>
>>>In response, I told you on December 12 that I needed to know
>>>your decision by February 1, 2005 (see r.a.o. message
. com>).
>>>
>>>Back then, February 1 was more than 6 weeks in the future,
>>>so I didn't felt it necessary to remind you of the
>>>invitation. However, as that deadline is now next Tuesday,
>>>I really do need a Yes or No answer by 10am that morning,
>>>as I am meeting with the magazine and Show management later
>>>that day to make the final decisions over the Show's events
>>>program.
>>>
>>
>>John you have my answer now, "Yes"
>>
>>I only delayed answering because of the posturing by Middius and his
>
> crowd.
>
>>I hope that you picked up on the fact that the only reason I delayed
>
> my
>
>>answer was to give them plenty of time to posture about how I was not
>
> going
>
>>to agree with your invitation.
>>
>>
>
>
> Remember the Scott Wheeler lawsuit? Remember how "George M. Middius"
> said you would apologize to avoid the threat of legal action? Then he
> shifted gears and predicted that Wheeler would prevail in court (as did
> Sad-sackman). Then, when Wheeler's "case" collapsed, "George" fell
> silent. Sort of like Ed Shain disappearing from RAO when Vergance went
> bust. ;-)
>
> So, now we can expect "George" to post endlessly about how you will
> "back out" at the last minute because you fear "Lord Atkinson.....
>

"George" cannot resist to the temptation to make an ass of himself.

Don't laugh, George is my prefered one.
While other like Sackman, Richman... do that on a petty and miserable
daily basis, George always takes care to do the things in large.
His narcissistic person always requests an hollywoodian humiliation !

[Lionel]

a écrit :
> George M. Middius wrote:
>
>>François Yves Le Gal said:
>>
>>
>>>>John you have my answer now, "Yes"
>>
>>>Wow. Will the revolution be webcasted?
>>
>>They already showed it on broadcast TV, on New Year's Day. You know
>
> -- the
>
>>hours-long video feed of nothing (except a fireplace). Krooger will
>
> not
>
>>show up in NYC, and if he does show up, it will be too late, or he'll
>
> be
>
>>"unable" to find the location of the event, or he'll give some other
>>excuse. Krooger will not take the stage and address JA. Not now, not
>
> ever.
>
>>
>
> here we go....... ;-)

Even Richman isn't so *predictable* ! :o)

[Lionel]

dave weil a écrit :
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:25:12 -0500, George M. Middius
> > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>dave weil said to Fecesborg:
>>
>>
>>>>I hope that you picked up on the fact that the only reason I delayed my
>>>>answer was to give them plenty of time to posture about how I was not going
>>>>to agree with your invitation.
>>
>>>Yeah, that's such a good reason all right. Just shows what kind of
>>>person you are to do business with.
>>
>>Krooger is a "master of the debating trade".
>>
>>
>>>Have fun in NYC though. You should have a good time.
>>
>>I tried to find out if there's a line on whether Krooger shows up, but
>>oddly, none of the bookies in Vegas seems to have heard of him. ;-)
>
>
> Oh, I'm sure he'll be there. Why wouldn't he?

You don't understand Dave.
George is a *coward*, the above proves that he simply thinks that
everybody would react as cowardly as him. Nothing complicate.

[Lionel_Chapuis]

George M. Middius wrote:

>
>
> dave weil said:
>
> > >I tried to find out if there's a line on whether Krooger shows up, but
> > >oddly, none of the bookies in Vegas seems to have heard of him. ;-)
>
> > Oh, I'm sure he'll be there. Why wouldn't he? He's seemingly
> > impervious to embarassment. Besides, THAT VOICE. Who wouldn't want to
> > see it immortalized once more, and this time in a format that can be
> > shared with the world-at-large.
>
> Would you like to make a bet on it? I'll bet he won't open his mouth at
> the event. I'll put up two bottles of red wine. Not that it wouldn't be
> delightful to see Krooger get eviscerated in person.
>
> Anybody want to bet?

Yes I'm ready to bet with you.
But not red wine, please, since you have already proved that you don't know anything on the subject. ;-)




----------
Sent via SPRACI - http://www.spraci.com/ - Parties,Raves,Clubs,Festivals

[Lionel_Chapuis]

George M. Middius wrote:

>





----------
Sent via SPRACI - http://www.spraci.com/ - Parties,Raves,Clubs,Festivals

[Lionel_Chapuis]

George M. Middius wrote:

>
>
> ****-for-Brains said:
>
> > > But Krooger's connection to the real world, though tenuous, is just
> > > tenacious enough. He realizes there's a chasm between his private
> > > fantasy world and that "other world" he's trying to escape. And so he
> > > won't let the worlds collide, because if he did, the viability of the
> > > Kroo-dimension would be compromised even in Krooger's tortured mind.
> > > He'll stay where it's safe -- inside his hovel, connected to the
> > > world only through his computer.
>
> > George, who is Krooger?
>
> Failure to attempt to refute the obvious noted. Full and complete
> acceptance of my description noted. Total and utter failure as a human
> being noted.

One or two days ago you were writing that you have killfiled Krueger.
You are really a *pityful* liar George... ;-)




----------
Sent via SPRACI - http://www.spraci.com/ - Parties,Raves,Clubs,Festivals

[Lionel_Chapuis]

----------
Sent via SPRACI - http://www.spraci.com/ - Parties,Raves,Clubs,Festivals

[JBorg]

> Arny Krueger" > wrote
>
>
>
>
> John you have my answer now, "Yes"
>
> I only delayed answering because of the posturing by Middius and his crowd. I
> hope that you picked up on the fact that the only reason I delayed my answer was
> to give them plenty of time to posture about how I was not going to agree with
> your invitation.


Unbelievable!! Of course that doesn't really mean that you are going to be
there personally until you, umm ah, I mean you know, ........ showed up.

[Margaret von B.]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Mr. Krueger, on December 7, 2004, at the instigation of
> Michael McKelvy, I invited you to debate me in person at the
> forthcoming Home Entertainment 2005 Show, scheduled to take
> place in New York at the end of April. (See r.a.o. message
> om>.) I
> promised you that there would be no restrictions on what
> subjects you wished to talk about, although I felt it fair
> to include a section where you and I answered questions from
> the audience.
>
> Mr. McKelvy strongly felt that I was not owed a fee if I
> were to accept a similar invitation -- "Stop mucking about
> with all the bull**** about fees..." he wrote -- so I made
> it clear that no fee would be offered you, Mr. Krueger, for
> your appearance in New York, just "reasonable expenses." I
> subsequently defined these expenses as a round trip,
> coach-class air fare and accommodation for 2 nights. I also
> subsequently clarified that this invitation was to you
> personally, not to someone else that you might wish to
> attend in your place.
>

Dear John,

It would be well worth the extra expense to schedule Mr. Krueger's arrival
at least 24 hours ahead of the "performance". Otherwise you run the
considerable risk of him getting lost in the traffic, airport or his own
basement. There is also the considerable potential for minor traffic
accidents, canceled flights due to a tsunami and hijacking of his flight to
Cuba. Of course even the best laid out travel plans will not prevent family
tragedies or sudden illnesses like a stroke, diarrhea and ingrown toenails
(in a combination of your choice).

Additionally, there is also the real danger of Mr. Krueger becoming a victim
of kidnapping and conspiracy in which an impostor will try to take his place
in the debate. To prevent this from happening, I recommend that you conduct
a DNA test prior to the debate to verify that the person attending really is
Mr. Krueger. I would particularly keep an eye on suspicious characters
wearing a Jeffrey Dahmer Halloween mask, a Corvette t-shirt and displaying a
name tag of "Arny Kreuger".

Best of luck. This should be very interesting.

Cheers,

Margaret

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> John you have my answer now, "Yes"
>
> I only delayed answering because of the posturing by Middius and his
> crowd. I hope that you picked up on the fact that the only reason I
> delayed my answer was to give them plenty of time to posture about how I
> was not going to agree with your invitation.
>

Well, for the most part, we were silent. You had till the 31st, and
AFAIAC, you should be given until the 31st.
I am glad you reached the decision to attend.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
>> oups.com
>> > Mr. Krueger, on December 7, 2004, at the instigation of
>> > Michael McKelvy, I invited you to debate me in person at the
>> > forthcoming Home Entertainment 2005 Show, scheduled to take
>> > place in New York at the end of April. (See r.a.o. message
>> > om>.) I
>>
>> > You responded that while you were interested in taking part
>> > in this debate, you needed some time to come to a decision.
>> > Your specific words were "Of course that's a long way from
>> > home, but let's see if I can put something together..." and
>> > "I will give you my *final answer* by the end of January,
>> > if that's all right with you."
>> >
>> > In response, I told you on December 12 that I needed to know
>> > your decision by February 1, 2005 (see r.a.o. message
>> > . com>).
>> >
>> > Back then, February 1 was more than 6 weeks in the future,
>> > so I didn't felt it necessary to remind you of the
>> > invitation. However, as that deadline is now next Tuesday,
>> > I really do need a Yes or No answer by 10am that morning,
>> > as I am meeting with the magazine and Show management later
>> > that day to make the final decisions over the Show's events
>> > program.
>> >
>>
>> John you have my answer now, "Yes"
>>
>> I only delayed answering because of the posturing by Middius and his
> crowd.
>> I hope that you picked up on the fact that the only reason I delayed
> my
>> answer was to give them plenty of time to posture about how I was not
> going
>> to agree with your invitation.
>>
>>
>
> Remember the Scott Wheeler lawsuit? Remember how "George M. Middius"
> said you would apologize to avoid the threat of legal action? Then he
> shifted gears and predicted that Wheeler would prevail in court (as did
> Sad-sackman). Then, when Wheeler's "case" collapsed, "George" fell
> silent. Sort of like Ed Shain disappearing from RAO when Vergance went
> bust. ;-)
>
> So, now we can expect "George" to post endlessly about how you will
> "back out" at the last minute because you fear "Lord Atkinson.....
>

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> Remember the Scott Wheeler lawsuit? Remember how "George M. Middius"
> said you would apologize to avoid the threat of legal action? Then he
> shifted gears and predicted that Wheeler would prevail in court (as did
> Sad-sackman). Then, when Wheeler's "case" collapsed, "George" fell
> silent. Sort of like Ed Shain disappearing from RAO when Vergance went
> bust. ;-)
>
> So, now we can expect "George" to post endlessly about how you will
> "back out" at the last minute because you fear "Lord Atkinson.....
>

Maybe next year you can show up.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote in message
> oups.com
>
> I seem to recall that. I'm quite sure that Middius and Sackman did
> everythng they could to impress Scott of this *fact*. Didn't Sackman even
> visit the west coast in or about that time?
>

No, I was in Detroit scouting the opposition. I wanted to see the cracks in
your basement foundation for myself.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
>
>
>> But Krooger's connection to the real world, though tenuous, is just
>> tenacious enough. He realizes there's a chasm between his private
>> fantasy world and that "other world" he's trying to escape. And so he
>> won't let the worlds collide, because if he did, the viability of the
>> Kroo-dimension would be compromised even in Krooger's tortured mind.
>> He'll stay where it's safe -- inside his hovel, connected to the
>> world only through his computer.
>
> George, who is Krooger?
>

The Beast.

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> dave weil said to Fecesborg:
>
>> >I hope that you picked up on the fact that the only reason I delayed my
>> >answer was to give them plenty of time to posture about how I was not
>> >going
>> >to agree with your invitation.
>
>> Yeah, that's such a good reason all right. Just shows what kind of
>> person you are to do business with.
>
> Krooger is a "master of the debating trade".
>
>> Have fun in NYC though. You should have a good time.
>
> I tried to find out if there's a line on whether Krooger shows up, but
> oddly, none of the bookies in Vegas seems to have heard of him. ;-)
>
>
>
>

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> dave weil said to Fecesborg:
>
>> >I hope that you picked up on the fact that the only reason I delayed my
>> >answer was to give them plenty of time to posture about how I was not
>> >going
>> >to agree with your invitation.
>
>> Yeah, that's such a good reason all right. Just shows what kind of
>> person you are to do business with.
>
> Krooger is a "master of the debating trade".
>
>> Have fun in NYC though. You should have a good time.
>
> I tried to find out if there's a line on whether Krooger shows up, but
> oddly, none of the bookies in Vegas seems to have heard of him. ;-)
>
>
>
>

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> dave weil said to Fecesborg:
>
>> >I hope that you picked up on the fact that the only reason I delayed my
>> >answer was to give them plenty of time to posture about how I was not
>> >going
>> >to agree with your invitation.
>
>> Yeah, that's such a good reason all right. Just shows what kind of
>> person you are to do business with.
>
> Krooger is a "master of the debating trade".
>
>> Have fun in NYC though. You should have a good time.
>
> I tried to find out if there's a line on whether Krooger shows up, but
> oddly, none of the bookies in Vegas seems to have heard of him. ;-)
>
I thought he was famous.

[[email protected]]

Clyde Slick wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> >
> > Remember the Scott Wheeler lawsuit? Remember how "George M.
Middius"
> > said you would apologize to avoid the threat of legal action? Then
he
> > shifted gears and predicted that Wheeler would prevail in court (as
did
> > Sad-sackman). Then, when Wheeler's "case" collapsed, "George" fell
> > silent. Sort of like Ed Shain disappearing from RAO when Vergance
went
> > bust. ;-)
> >
> > So, now we can expect "George" to post endlessly about how you will
> > "back out" at the last minute because you fear "Lord Atkinson.....
> >
>
> Maybe next year you can show up.
>
>


Maybe next year you'll be witty.

[Joseph Oberlander]

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> Doofy Krooberlander said:
>
>
>>You sure seem to salivate and whine whenever Kreuger
>>posts anything.
>
>
> Who is "Kreuger"? I assume you're deliberately misspelling Mr. ****'s name
> in order to avoid a "libel suit". Or maybe you'd like some yak butter with
> your stack of Kroopologism pancakes.....

I write for content, and not for exact spelling, so get over it.
He types. You jump and salivate. Sounds like good entertainment
to me.

[Joseph Oberlander]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
> ink.net
>
>
>>Or Kreuger could be enjoying poking you with a stick to see
>>how you react.
>
>
> According to Wheeler, that would be a sociopathic think to do. ;-)

It's human nature to poke the cages at the zoo, though.

[[email protected]]

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> George M. Middius wrote:
>
> >
> > Doofy Krooberlander said:
> >
> >
> >>You sure seem to salivate and whine whenever Kreuger
> >>posts anything.
> >
> >
> > Who is "Kreuger"? I assume you're deliberately misspelling Mr.
****'s name
> > in order to avoid a "libel suit". Or maybe you'd like some yak
butter with
> > your stack of Kroopologism pancakes.....
>
> I write for content, and not for exact spelling, so get over it.
> He types. You jump and salivate. Sounds like good entertainment
> to me.
>
>


Watching "George" drool keeps me here. :-)

[Tom]

Torry-boooy writes:
>
> Watching "George" drool keeps me here. :-)
>


LOL!

[Clyde Slick]

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
>> ink.net
>>
>>
>>>Or Kreuger could be enjoying poking you with a stick to see
>>>how you react.
>>
>>
>> According to Wheeler, that would be a sociopathic think to do. ;-)
>
> It's human nature to poke the cages at the zoo, though.
>

hey Obie, want some peanuts?

[Joseph Oberlander]

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> Doofy Krooberlander sputtered:
>
>
>>>>Kreuger
>
>
>>>Who is "Kreuger"? I assume you're deliberately misspelling Mr. ****'s name
>>>in order to avoid a "libel suit". Or maybe you'd like some yak butter with
>>>your stack of Kroopologism pancakes.....
>
>
>>I write for content, and not for exact spelling, so get over it.
>
>
> Not a bad spin for a lifetime nerd. Now see if you can pull the brick dust
> out of your forehead with your eyes closed.

I bet I've had a more interesting life than you up to this point.
Shoot, half of your *day* seems to be spent on various newsgroupos.

[Joseph Oberlander]

Clyde Slick wrote:

> "Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>
>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
ink.net
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Or Kreuger could be enjoying poking you with a stick to see
>>>>how you react.
>>>
>>>
>>>According to Wheeler, that would be a sociopathic think to do. ;-)
>>
>>It's human nature to poke the cages at the zoo, though.
>>
>
>
> hey Obie, want some peanuts?

Nah. I have my hibachi, a beer, and a nice folding chair. Let's
see how this nonsense plays out :)

[Fella]

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> Fella said:
>
>
>>>Krooger will not take the stage and address JA. Not now, not ever.
>
>
>
>>Why not? He'll just be the same dirt he's here, also there.
>
>
> Why not, you ask? Heh heh heh....
>
> Krooger has given us several glimpses into his private world of delusions
> and psychoses. In his imaginary reality, he is the all-knowing Great Audio
> Expert who "has never lost an audio debate". That is the imagined
> dimension where his "debating trade" garbage takes the place of both
> genuine intellectual discourse and the true business of producing and
> selling audio equipment.

Agreed.

>
> But Krooger's connection to the real world, though tenuous, is just
> tenacious enough. He realizes there's a chasm between his private fantasy
> world and that "other world" he's trying to escape. And so he won't let
> the worlds collide, because if he did, the viability of the Kroo-dimension
> would be compromised even in Krooger's tortured mind.


I disagree. Even in the "real world" he'll just repeat himself, ask for
proof, claim the counterpart to be delusional, avoid key answers with
irrelevant questions, lie and do demogogy. That's how all fanatics
survive in the real world. When in discussion with someone he disagrees
with Krueger reads the text of the other side just to be able to answer
it, and NOT to possibly learn anything from it. He will be just the same
in the real world.

Granted, he wont have the almighty google in his reach, so there is a
slight risk for him remaining silent, lost for words for longer periods,
not knowing where to copy-paste from. But he'll come up with something
to repeat and bable on about, you can bet on that.

Frankly, I do not understand what Atkinson is trying to accomplish.
They'll just argue, at best. And people from the Atkinson bench will say
Atkinson won, and the kroog and his bunch will say the kroog won. There
won't be geniune exchange of ideas, viewpoints, or information.

I have real world experiences with religious fanatics. Their last refuge
is violence. The ****borg's last refuge would just be verbal violence,
in this case. (Unless of course, nousianne shows up with that gun he
talks about in the "randi wire is not wire" thread.)

In anycase, no matter WHAT happens, the ****borg will have won the
debate, or so he will claim.


> He'll stay where
> it's safe -- inside his hovel,

What if he does show up? Aren't you taking a risk? I understand that
perhaps by insiting on this prediction of him chickening out you are
trying to further push him there, which is, risky for you, I guess, but
serves your purpose.

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message


> No, I was in Detroit scouting the opposition. I wanted to see the
> cracks in your basement foundation for myself.

Obsession with Krueger-related memorabilia noted.

BTW Art, virtually every home foundation has cracks in it.

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message



> I would really love it if Mr. **** did show up and actually took the
> podium. He'd be ripped to shreds in front of real world people. How
> bad would that be? ;-)

Unlike you George, I'm a real person who could possibly show up. ;-)

[[email protected]]

the nutball posting as "George M. Middius" wrote:

<snip>
>
> Just FYI, Doofy, RAO is the only newsgroup I post to regularly....
>
>


.....under the nym "George M. Middius". ;-)

[[email protected]]

the nutball posting as "George M. Middius" wrote:

<snip>
>
> Just FYI, Doofy, RAO is the only newsgroup I post to regularly....
>
>


.....under the nym "George M. Middius". ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com

> the nutball posting as "George M. Middius" wrote:

>> Just FYI, Doofy, RAO is the only newsgroup I post to regularly....

> ....under the nym "George M. Middius". ;-)

Exactly. At one point Georgie decided to stalk me on some of the other
audio-related newsgroups I post to regularily. Long story short, it wasn't a
pretty picture, and George left shortly with his tail parked firmly between
his legs. Georgie's good buddy Benchimol had a similar experience.

[Howard Cosell]

"François Yves Le Gal" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 10:59:30 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:
>
> >John you have my answer now, "Yes"
>
> Wow. Will the revolution be webcasted?
>
Yes, it will. Sports fans, it is my pride to announce my return from a very
*final* retirement, and more, to broadcast this world-shaking event to you
live, from whatever venue the champions may choose. And rest assured, this
grudge match is one event you won't want to miss. John Atkinson, heavyweight
audio publisher, though I see his magazine has cut a few pounds for this
bout. And up from the welter-weight division, Arny Krooger, but with an
appetite for punishment that exceeds in my opinion even that of George
Foreman. It is my understanding that diction coaches have been working with
Krooger round the clock to cut down on the spitting that costs him speed.

Completely unpredictable, this match promises to be a slugfest, a
bare-knuckle extravaganza reminiscent of Ali and Frazer. The thrilla in
Manilla -- Krueger will make you more ill than I was that very first first
Monday night football broadcast in Philadelphia when I threw up all over
Dandy Don.

[Lionel]

Howard Cosell a écrit :
> "François Yves Le Gal" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 10:59:30 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>
> wrote:
>
>>>John you have my answer now, "Yes"
>>
>>Wow. Will the revolution be webcasted?
>>
>
> Yes, it will. Sports fans, it is my pride to announce my return from a very
> *final* retirement, and more, to broadcast this world-shaking event to you
> live, from whatever venue the champions may choose. And rest assured, this
> grudge match is one event you won't want to miss. John Atkinson, heavyweight
> audio publisher, though I see his magazine has cut a few pounds for this
> bout. And up from the welter-weight division, Arny Krooger, but with an
> appetite for punishment that exceeds in my opinion even that of George
> Foreman.

LOL

> It is my understanding that diction coaches have been working with
> Krooger round the clock to cut down on the spitting that costs him speed.
>
> Completely unpredictable, this match promises to be a slugfest, a
> bare-knuckle extravaganza reminiscent of Ali and Frazer. The thrilla in
> Manilla -- Krueger will make you more ill than I was that very first first
> Monday night football broadcast in Philadelphia when I threw up all over
> Dandy Don.

:-D

[Bruce J. Richman]

Howard Cosell wrote:


>"François Yves Le Gal" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 10:59:30 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>wrote:
>>
>> >John you have my answer now, "Yes"
>>
>> Wow. Will the revolution be webcasted?
>>
>Yes, it will. Sports fans, it is my pride to announce my return from a very
>*final* retirement, and more, to broadcast this world-shaking event to you
>live, from whatever venue the champions may choose. And rest assured, this
>grudge match is one event you won't want to miss. John Atkinson, heavyweight
>audio publisher, though I see his magazine has cut a few pounds for this
>bout. And up from the welter-weight division, Arny Krooger, but with an
>appetite for punishment that exceeds in my opinion even that of George
>Foreman. It is my understanding that diction coaches have been working with
>Krooger round the clock to cut down on the spitting that costs him speed.
>
>Completely unpredictable, this match promises to be a slugfest, a
>bare-knuckle extravaganza reminiscent of Ali and Frazer. The thrilla in
>Manilla -- Krueger will make you more ill than I was that very first first
>Monday night football broadcast in Philadelphia when I threw up all over
>Dandy Don.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

LOL !!!!

Another first in the long list of Krueger's many accomplishments. He's now
managed to antagonize the dead as well as the living !!!!

:-)




Bruce J. Richman

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>
>> No, I was in Detroit scouting the opposition. I wanted to see the
>> cracks in your basement foundation for myself.
>
> Obsession with Krueger-related memorabilia noted.
>

I'll keep my piece of concrete from your foundation right next
to my cornflakes.

> BTW Art, virtually every home foundation has cracks in it.

By your description, it is
a particular problem

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>> I would really love it if Mr. **** did show up and actually took the
>> podium. He'd be ripped to shreds in front of real world people. How
>> bad would that be? ;-)
>
> Unlike you George, I'm a real person who could possibly show up. ;-)
>

Could, not would???
I sense a wavering of your will.

[Robert Morein]

"Howard Cosell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "François Yves Le Gal" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 10:59:30 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
> >
> > >John you have my answer now, "Yes"
> >
> > Wow. Will the revolution be webcasted?
> >
> Yes, it will. Sports fans, it is my pride to announce my return from a
very
> *final* retirement, and more, to broadcast this world-shaking event to you
> live, from whatever venue the champions may choose. And rest assured, this
> grudge match is one event you won't want to miss. John Atkinson,
heavyweight
> audio publisher, though I see his magazine has cut a few pounds for this
> bout. And up from the welter-weight division, Arny Krooger, but with an
> appetite for punishment that exceeds in my opinion even that of George
> Foreman. It is my understanding that diction coaches have been working
with
> Krooger round the clock to cut down on the spitting that costs him speed.
>
> Completely unpredictable, this match promises to be a slugfest, a
> bare-knuckle extravaganza reminiscent of Ali and Frazer. The thrilla in
> Manilla -- Krueger will make you more ill than I was that very first
first
> Monday night football broadcast in Philadelphia when I threw up all over
> Dandy Don.
>
I have just one question, Mr. Cosell.

Do the Marquis de Sade rules apply to this match?

[JBorg]

> Howard Cosell wrote
>> François Yves Le Gal wrote
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> John you have my answer now, "Yes"
>>
>> Wow. Will the revolution be webcasted?
>
> Yes, it will. Sports fans, it is my pride to announce my return from a very
> *final* retirement, and more, to broadcast this world-shaking event to you
> live, from whatever venue the champions may choose. And rest assured, this
> grudge match is one event you won't want to miss. John Atkinson, heavyweight
> audio publisher, though I see his magazine has cut a few pounds for this
> bout. And up from the welter-weight division, Arny Krooger, but with an
> appetite for punishment that exceeds in my opinion even that of George
> Foreman. It is my understanding that diction coaches have been working with
> Krooger round the clock to cut down on the spitting that costs him speed.
>
> Completely unpredictable, this match promises to be a slugfest, a
> bare-knuckle extravaganza reminiscent of Ali and Frazer. The thrilla in
> Manilla -- Krueger will make you more ill than I was that very first first
> Monday night football broadcast in Philadelphia when I threw up all over
> Dandy Don.


I see Arnii getting knockdown twice in 1st round. At the end of that round,
he retaliated by smearing kroofeces up and down his body to deflect the
punches for the next round.

[JBorg]

> Howard Cosell wrote
>> François Yves Le Gal wrote
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> John you have my answer now, "Yes"
>>
>> Wow. Will the revolution be webcasted?
>
> Yes, it will. Sports fans, it is my pride to announce my return from a very
> *final* retirement, and more, to broadcast this world-shaking event to you
> live, from whatever venue the champions may choose. And rest assured, this
> grudge match is one event you won't want to miss. John Atkinson, heavyweight
> audio publisher, though I see his magazine has cut a few pounds for this
> bout. And up from the welter-weight division, Arny Krooger, but with an
> appetite for punishment that exceeds in my opinion even that of George
> Foreman. It is my understanding that diction coaches have been working with
> Krooger round the clock to cut down on the spitting that costs him speed.
>
> Completely unpredictable, this match promises to be a slugfest, a
> bare-knuckle extravaganza reminiscent of Ali and Frazer. The thrilla in
> Manilla -- Krueger will make you more ill than I was that very first first
> Monday night football broadcast in Philadelphia when I threw up all over
> Dandy Don.



After getting knockdown yet again twice in the 2nd round, Arnii decided to
dump a sackload of kroofeces on the ring! to keep his body soak with his
dung next time falls down!!

[JBorg]

> JBorg wrote
>> Howard Cosell wrote
>
>
>>
>> Completely unpredictable, this match promises to be a slugfest, a
>> bare-knuckle extravaganza reminiscent of Ali and Frazer. The thrilla in
>> Manilla -- Krueger will make you more ill than I was that very first first
>> Monday night football broadcast in Philadelphia when I threw up all over
>> Dandy Don.



2nd Round

After getting knockdown yet again twice in the 2nd round, Arnii decided to
dump a sackload of kroofeces on the ring! ... on the ring! to keep his body
soak with his dung next time he falls down!!


3rd Round


<ding,ding,ding>


.... Third round ladies and gentlemen... here we go...

Arnii up from his chair and walk towards the center of the ring, body
swaying side to side... .... .... he swing to the right, a right hook.. and
miss ...
....he swing to the left... and miss. He steps back as he hooves to his right,
.... and left .... turning back to face his opponent ..... and...and..

.... WHAammm !!

........ HE is hit ... he is hit.... struck with a solid right to he head !!
Gentlemen!
and dowwnnn he go..... down he go... gentlemen...
........ ......... .............................
One...................................Two......... ....

<announcer: hmmm...> Arnii is shaken !! ... ..still wobbly as he lie on
.... on the floor... <hmm... hmm> .... Arnii is.. is.. scooping some of the dung...
... with his arms...... to himself, .... and... and putting some to his mouth ...
<spinach?> ... ... .........
......................Three......................F our.........................

[John Atkinson]

John Atkinson wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> > "John Atkinson" > wrote in
> > oups.com
> > > I really do need a Yes or No answer by 10am that morning,
> > > as I am meeting with the magazine and Show management later
> > > that day to make the final decisions over the Show's events
> > > program.
> >
> > John you have my answer now, "Yes"
>
> Thank you, Mr. Krueger. Following next Tuesday's meeting, I
> will get back to you with the exact date. We can then discuss
> travel arrangements so we can purchase your ticket.

Just a note to confirm that, following our planning meeting
yesterday, our debate is confirmed for Home Entertainment 2005,
Mr. Krueger. Provisionally, the debate will take place at the
Manhattan Hilton from 2:30pm to 4pm on Friday April 29, and we
hope to be able to webcast the event as well as recording it.

As I said before, there will be no limits imposed concerning
what subjects either of us wants to discuss. My provisional
plan will be for me to introduce you (in a non-confrontational
manner, of course), for you (as the guest) then to present a
prepared text lasting no more than 5 minutes, followed by a
prepared text from myself. Following those 2 formal
presentations, we can each discuss what the other has said and
ask followup questions of each other, to be followed by a
session where each of us answer questions put to us by the
audience.

I can be flexible over these details, of course, but I do insist
that the audience be offered the opportunity to contribute.

I anticipate you arriving Thursday, departing Saturday, and
you will, of course, have free access to all the rooms and
exhibits at the Show. I hope you take the opportunity to
take a listen to some of the great sound the exhibitors
are presenting.

Provided you are agreeable to this, we can continue discussing
matters such as travel arrangements etc by private email.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
ups.com
> John Atkinson wrote:
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> "John Atkinson" > wrote in
>>> oups.com
>>>> I really do need a Yes or No answer by 10am that morning,
>>>> as I am meeting with the magazine and Show management later
>>>> that day to make the final decisions over the Show's events
>>>> program.
>>>
>>> John you have my answer now, "Yes"
>>
>> Thank you, Mr. Krueger. Following next Tuesday's meeting, I
>> will get back to you with the exact date. We can then discuss
>> travel arrangements so we can purchase your ticket.
>
> Just a note to confirm that, following our planning meeting
> yesterday, our debate is confirmed for Home Entertainment 2005,
> Mr. Krueger. Provisionally, the debate will take place at the
> Manhattan Hilton from 2:30pm to 4pm on Friday April 29, and we
> hope to be able to webcast the event as well as recording it.
>
> As I said before, there will be no limits imposed concerning
> what subjects either of us wants to discuss. My provisional
> plan will be for me to introduce you (in a non-confrontational
> manner, of course), for you (as the guest) then to present a
> prepared text lasting no more than 5 minutes, followed by a
> prepared text from myself. Following those 2 formal
> presentations, we can each discuss what the other has said and
> ask followup questions of each other, to be followed by a
> session where each of us answer questions put to us by the
> audience.
>
> I can be flexible over these details, of course, but I do insist
> that the audience be offered the opportunity to contribute.
>
> I anticipate you arriving Thursday, departing Saturday, and
> you will, of course, have free access to all the rooms and
> exhibits at the Show. I hope you take the opportunity to
> take a listen to some of the great sound the exhibitors
> are presenting.
>
> Provided you are agreeable to this, we can continue discussing
> matters such as travel arrangements etc by private email.
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

Sounds good to me!

[[email protected]]

John Atkinson wrote:
> John Atkinson wrote:
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> > > "John Atkinson" > wrote in
> > > oups.com
> > > > I really do need a Yes or No answer by 10am that morning,
> > > > as I am meeting with the magazine and Show management later
> > > > that day to make the final decisions over the Show's events
> > > > program.
> > >
> > > John you have my answer now, "Yes"
> >
> > Thank you, Mr. Krueger. Following next Tuesday's meeting, I
> > will get back to you with the exact date. We can then discuss
> > travel arrangements so we can purchase your ticket.
>
> Just a note to confirm that, following our planning meeting
> yesterday, our debate is confirmed for Home Entertainment 2005,
> Mr. Krueger. Provisionally, the debate will take place at the
> Manhattan Hilton from 2:30pm to 4pm on Friday April 29, and we
> hope to be able to webcast the event as well as recording it.
>
> As I said before, there will be no limits imposed concerning
> what subjects either of us wants to discuss. My provisional
> plan will be for me to introduce you (in a non-confrontational
> manner, of course), for you (as the guest) then to present a
> prepared text lasting no more than 5 minutes, followed by a
> prepared text from myself. Following those 2 formal
> presentations, we can each discuss what the other has said and
> ask followup questions of each other, to be followed by a
> session where each of us answer questions put to us by the
> audience.
>
> I can be flexible over these details, of course, but I do insist
> that the audience be offered the opportunity to contribute.
>
> I anticipate you arriving Thursday, departing Saturday, and
> you will, of course, have free access to all the rooms and
> exhibits at the Show. I hope you take the opportunity to
> take a listen to some of the great sound the exhibitors
> are presenting.
>
> Provided you are agreeable to this, we can continue discussing
> matters such as travel arrangements etc by private email.
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile
Who will be moderating this debate?

Scott Wheeler

[Margaret von B.]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> John Atkinson wrote:
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> > "John Atkinson" > wrote in
>> > oups.com
>> > > I really do need a Yes or No answer by 10am that morning,
>> > > as I am meeting with the magazine and Show management later
>> > > that day to make the final decisions over the Show's events
>> > > program.
>> >
>> > John you have my answer now, "Yes"
>>
>> Thank you, Mr. Krueger. Following next Tuesday's meeting, I
>> will get back to you with the exact date. We can then discuss
>> travel arrangements so we can purchase your ticket.
>
> Just a note to confirm that, following our planning meeting
> yesterday, our debate is confirmed for Home Entertainment 2005,
> Mr. Krueger. Provisionally, the debate will take place at the
> Manhattan Hilton from 2:30pm to 4pm on Friday April 29, and we
> hope to be able to webcast the event as well as recording it.
>
> As I said before, there will be no limits imposed concerning
> what subjects either of us wants to discuss. My provisional
> plan will be for me to introduce you (in a non-confrontational
> manner, of course), for you (as the guest) then to present a
> prepared text lasting no more than 5 minutes, followed by a
> prepared text from myself. Following those 2 formal
> presentations, we can each discuss what the other has said and
> ask followup questions of each other, to be followed by a
> session where each of us answer questions put to us by the
> audience.
>
> I can be flexible over these details, of course, but I do insist
> that the audience be offered the opportunity to contribute.
>
> I anticipate you arriving Thursday, departing Saturday, and
> you will, of course, have free access to all the rooms and
> exhibits at the Show. I hope you take the opportunity to
> take a listen to some of the great sound the exhibitors
> are presenting.
>
> Provided you are agreeable to this, we can continue discussing
> matters such as travel arrangements etc by private email.
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile
>

This is really great news. My admiration goes to both you for setting it up
and to Arny (frankly for the first time) for agreeing to show up. The world
of audio needs something like this to keep things interesting.

By Manhattan Hilton I presume you mean the (at least one time) New York
Hilton located at AA and 53rd or so?

I might just make the trip from my new outpost above the Arctic Circle. Even
in the likely case of noshow by your esteemed guest, I want to witness it
with my own eyes.

LET'S GET READY TO RRRUUUUUMMMMMBBBLLLEEEEEE!

Margaret

[Margaret von B.]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> ups.com
>> John Atkinson wrote:
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>> "John Atkinson" > wrote in
>>>> oups.com
>>>>> I really do need a Yes or No answer by 10am that morning,
>>>>> as I am meeting with the magazine and Show management later
>>>>> that day to make the final decisions over the Show's events
>>>>> program.
>>>>
>>>> John you have my answer now, "Yes"
>>>
>>> Thank you, Mr. Krueger. Following next Tuesday's meeting, I
>>> will get back to you with the exact date. We can then discuss
>>> travel arrangements so we can purchase your ticket.
>>
>> Just a note to confirm that, following our planning meeting
>> yesterday, our debate is confirmed for Home Entertainment 2005,
>> Mr. Krueger. Provisionally, the debate will take place at the
>> Manhattan Hilton from 2:30pm to 4pm on Friday April 29, and we
>> hope to be able to webcast the event as well as recording it.
>>
>> As I said before, there will be no limits imposed concerning
>> what subjects either of us wants to discuss. My provisional
>> plan will be for me to introduce you (in a non-confrontational
>> manner, of course), for you (as the guest) then to present a
>> prepared text lasting no more than 5 minutes, followed by a
>> prepared text from myself. Following those 2 formal
>> presentations, we can each discuss what the other has said and
>> ask followup questions of each other, to be followed by a
>> session where each of us answer questions put to us by the
>> audience.
>>
>> I can be flexible over these details, of course, but I do insist
>> that the audience be offered the opportunity to contribute.
>>
>> I anticipate you arriving Thursday, departing Saturday, and
>> you will, of course, have free access to all the rooms and
>> exhibits at the Show. I hope you take the opportunity to
>> take a listen to some of the great sound the exhibitors
>> are presenting.
>>
>> Provided you are agreeable to this, we can continue discussing
>> matters such as travel arrangements etc by private email.
>> John Atkinson
>> Editor, Stereophile
>
> Sounds good to me!
>

Go Arny! (and I mean it)

Cheers,

Margaret

[John Atkinson]

wrote:
> John Atkinson wrote:
> > Just a note to confirm that, following our planning meeting
> > yesterday, our debate is confirmed for Home Entertainment
> > 2005, Mr. Krueger. Provisionally, the debate will take
> > place at the Manhattan Hilton from 2:30pm to 4pm on Friday
> > April 29, and we hope to be able to webcast the event as
> > well as recording it...
>
> Who will be moderating this debate?

Hi Scott, no moderation, just a one-on-one discussion. I figure
that for the audience participation section, Mr. Krueger and I
can take turns in selecting a question.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[[email protected]]

John Atkinson wrote:
> wrote:
> > John Atkinson wrote:
> > > Just a note to confirm that, following our planning meeting
> > > yesterday, our debate is confirmed for Home Entertainment
> > > 2005, Mr. Krueger. Provisionally, the debate will take
> > > place at the Manhattan Hilton from 2:30pm to 4pm on Friday
> > > April 29, and we hope to be able to webcast the event as
> > > well as recording it...
> >
> > Who will be moderating this debate?
>
> Hi Scott, no moderation, just a one-on-one discussion. I figure
> that for the audience participation section, Mr. Krueger and I
> can take turns in selecting a question.
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile


Interesting choice. Doesn't this usually lead to a contest of who can
talk over whom? Doesn't this just open the door for dishonerable debate
tactics? While I don't think Arny will show and if he does I suspect he
will get stage fright and freeze like a deer in headlights, you never
know for sure. He may show up fully prepared to be as disgusting and
mal-behaved in person as he is here on RAO. Oh, you are going to run a
web cast. Never mind. Makes sense to me now.


Scott Wheeler

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
ups.com

> Interesting choice. Doesn't this usually lead to a contest of who can
> talk over whom?

It could. If Atkinson wants to dominate the show, I'll be happy to let him
do so. The less I say, the less work I do. I'm basically laid back and lazy.

> Doesn't this just open the door for dishonorable
> debate tactics? While I don't think Arny will show and if he does I
> suspect he will get stage fright and freeze like a deer in
> headlights, you never know for sure.

I intend to let Atkinson say what he will as much as he will, on the grounds
that the more he says, the more he hurts his cause.

> He may show up fully prepared to
> be as disgusting and mal-behaved in person as he is here on RAO.

Trust me Maggie, I can never bee as disgusting and mal-behaved as you are
here on RAO.

> Oh, you are going to run a web cast. Never mind. Makes sense to me now.

Actually, it changes nothing. What will be, will be.

[Lionel]

John Atkinson a écrit :
> wrote:
>
>>John Atkinson wrote:
>>
>>>Just a note to confirm that, following our planning meeting
>>>yesterday, our debate is confirmed for Home Entertainment
>>>2005, Mr. Krueger. Provisionally, the debate will take
>>>place at the Manhattan Hilton from 2:30pm to 4pm on Friday
>>>April 29, and we hope to be able to webcast the event as
>>>well as recording it...
>>
>>Who will be moderating this debate?
>
>
> Hi Scott, no moderation, just a one-on-one discussion. I figure
> that for the audience participation section, Mr. Krueger and I
> can take turns in selecting a question.
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

Seems fair and worthy. Well done Gentleman.

[Bruce J. Richman]

Margaret von B. wrote:


>"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>>
>> John Atkinson wrote:
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> > "John Atkinson" > wrote in
>>> > oups.com
>>> > > I really do need a Yes or No answer by 10am that morning,
>>> > > as I am meeting with the magazine and Show management later
>>> > > that day to make the final decisions over the Show's events
>>> > > program.
>>> >
>>> > John you have my answer now, "Yes"
>>>
>>> Thank you, Mr. Krueger. Following next Tuesday's meeting, I
>>> will get back to you with the exact date. We can then discuss
>>> travel arrangements so we can purchase your ticket.
>>
>> Just a note to confirm that, following our planning meeting
>> yesterday, our debate is confirmed for Home Entertainment 2005,
>> Mr. Krueger. Provisionally, the debate will take place at the
>> Manhattan Hilton from 2:30pm to 4pm on Friday April 29, and we
>> hope to be able to webcast the event as well as recording it.
>>
>> As I said before, there will be no limits imposed concerning
>> what subjects either of us wants to discuss. My provisional
>> plan will be for me to introduce you (in a non-confrontational
>> manner, of course), for you (as the guest) then to present a
>> prepared text lasting no more than 5 minutes, followed by a
>> prepared text from myself. Following those 2 formal
>> presentations, we can each discuss what the other has said and
>> ask followup questions of each other, to be followed by a
>> session where each of us answer questions put to us by the
>> audience.
>>
>> I can be flexible over these details, of course, but I do insist
>> that the audience be offered the opportunity to contribute.
>>
>> I anticipate you arriving Thursday, departing Saturday, and
>> you will, of course, have free access to all the rooms and
>> exhibits at the Show. I hope you take the opportunity to
>> take a listen to some of the great sound the exhibitors
>> are presenting.
>>
>> Provided you are agreeable to this, we can continue discussing
>> matters such as travel arrangements etc by private email.
>> John Atkinson
>> Editor, Stereophile
>>
>
>This is really great news. My admiration goes to both you for setting it up
>and to Arny (frankly for the first time) for agreeing to show up. The world
>of audio needs something like this to keep things interesting.
>
>By Manhattan Hilton I presume you mean the (at least one time) New York
>Hilton located at AA and 53rd or so?
>
>I might just make the trip from my new outpost above the Arctic Circle. Even
>in the likely case of noshow by your esteemed guest, I want to witness it
>with my own eyes.
>
>LET'S GET READY TO RRRUUUUUMMMMMBBBLLLEEEEEE!
>
>Margaret
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Even though Mr. Atkinson has stipulated that he will be making the
introductrions of the "contestants", I would not be surprised if he would defer
in favor of Michael Buffer, if the famed boxing/wrestling announcer is
available.


Bruce J. Richman

[dave weil]

On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 14:29:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

> I'm basically laid back and lazy.

Wel, we're making progress, Arnold.

Good for you!

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com
>
> > Interesting choice. Doesn't this usually lead to a contest of who
can
> > talk over whom?
>
> It could. If Atkinson wants to dominate the show, I'll be happy to
let him
> do so. The less I say, the less work I do. I'm basically laid back
and lazy.



I believe the lazy part.



>
> > Doesn't this just open the door for dishonorable
> > debate tactics? While I don't think Arny will show and if he does I
> > suspect he will get stage fright and freeze like a deer in
> > headlights, you never know for sure.
>
> I intend to let Atkinson say what he will as much as he will, on the
grounds
> that the more he says, the more he hurts his cause.


Have you prepared your concession speech?




>
> > He may show up fully prepared to
> > be as disgusting and mal-behaved in person as he is here on RAO.
>
> Trust me Maggie, I can never bee as disgusting and mal-behaved as you
are
> here on RAO.


I hope in the debate you can do a better job of keeping track of who
you are talking to. that would be just plain embarrassing in a debate.



>
> > Oh, you are going to run a web cast. Never mind. Makes sense to me
now.
>
> Actually, it changes nothing. What will be, will be.


And it will be documented. LOL. That is in the unlikely event that it
takes place.


Scott Wheeler

[[email protected]]

Bruce J. Richman wrote:
> Margaret von B. wrote:
>
>
> >"John Atkinson" > wrote in message

> ups.com...
> >>
> >> John Atkinson wrote:
> >>> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>> > "John Atkinson" > wrote in
> >>> > oups.com
> >>> > > I really do need a Yes or No answer by 10am that morning,
> >>> > > as I am meeting with the magazine and Show management later
> >>> > > that day to make the final decisions over the Show's events
> >>> > > program.
> >>> >
> >>> > John you have my answer now, "Yes"
> >>>
> >>> Thank you, Mr. Krueger. Following next Tuesday's meeting, I
> >>> will get back to you with the exact date. We can then discuss
> >>> travel arrangements so we can purchase your ticket.
> >>
> >> Just a note to confirm that, following our planning meeting
> >> yesterday, our debate is confirmed for Home Entertainment 2005,
> >> Mr. Krueger. Provisionally, the debate will take place at the
> >> Manhattan Hilton from 2:30pm to 4pm on Friday April 29, and we
> >> hope to be able to webcast the event as well as recording it.
> >>
> >> As I said before, there will be no limits imposed concerning
> >> what subjects either of us wants to discuss. My provisional
> >> plan will be for me to introduce you (in a non-confrontational
> >> manner, of course), for you (as the guest) then to present a
> >> prepared text lasting no more than 5 minutes, followed by a
> >> prepared text from myself. Following those 2 formal
> >> presentations, we can each discuss what the other has said and
> >> ask followup questions of each other, to be followed by a
> >> session where each of us answer questions put to us by the
> >> audience.
> >>
> >> I can be flexible over these details, of course, but I do insist
> >> that the audience be offered the opportunity to contribute.
> >>
> >> I anticipate you arriving Thursday, departing Saturday, and
> >> you will, of course, have free access to all the rooms and
> >> exhibits at the Show. I hope you take the opportunity to
> >> take a listen to some of the great sound the exhibitors
> >> are presenting.
> >>
> >> Provided you are agreeable to this, we can continue discussing
> >> matters such as travel arrangements etc by private email.
> >> John Atkinson
> >> Editor, Stereophile
> >>
> >
> >This is really great news. My admiration goes to both you for
setting it up
> >and to Arny (frankly for the first time) for agreeing to show up.
The world
> >of audio needs something like this to keep things interesting.
> >
> >By Manhattan Hilton I presume you mean the (at least one time) New
York
> >Hilton located at AA and 53rd or so?
> >
> >I might just make the trip from my new outpost above the Arctic
Circle. Even
> >in the likely case of noshow by your esteemed guest, I want to
witness it
> >with my own eyes.
> >
> >LET'S GET READY TO RRRUUUUUMMMMMBBBLLLEEEEEE!
> >
> >Margaret
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Even though Mr. Atkinson has stipulated that he will be making the
> introductrions of the "contestants", I would not be surprised if he
would defer
> in favor of Michael Buffer, if the famed boxing/wrestling announcer
is
> available.
>
>
As a west coast guy I'd rather see Jimmy Lennon Jr.


Scott Wheeler

[Lionel]

In >, dave weil wrote :

> On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 14:29:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> I'm basically laid back and lazy.
>
> Wel, we're making progress, Arnold.

No, Arnold is making progress...
Is "wel" a contraction of "Weil" or a contraction of "Well" ?

[Lionel]

In >, Bruce J. Richman wrote :


> Even though Mr. Atkinson has stipulated that he will be making the
> introductrions of the "contestants", I would not be surprised if he would
> defer in favor of Michael Buffer, if the famed boxing/wrestling announcer
> is available.

Richman's usual petty and envious comments.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ups.com
>>
>>> Interesting choice. Doesn't this usually lead to a contest of who
>>> can talk over whom?

>> It could. If Atkinson wants to dominate the show, I'll be happy to
>> let him do so. The less I say, the less work I do. I'm basically
>> laid back and lazy.

> I believe the lazy part.

It is a frequent spur to creativity and invention.

>>> Doesn't this just open the door for dishonorable
>>> debate tactics? While I don't think Arny will show and if he does I
>>> suspect he will get stage fright and freeze like a deer in
>>> headlights, you never know for sure.
>>
>> I intend to let Atkinson say what he will as much as he will, on the
>> grounds that the more he says, the more he hurts his cause.

> Have you prepared your concession speech?

Delusions that I am running for some public office noted.

>> He may show up fully prepared to
>>> be as disgusting and mal-behaved in person as he is here on RAO.

>> Trust me Maggie, I can never bee as disgusting and mal-behaved as
>> you are here on RAO.

> I hope in the debate you can do a better job of keeping track of who
> you are talking to. that would be just plain embarrassing in a debate.

The problem is that all radical subjectivists sound the same - nuts! ;-)

>>> Oh, you are going to run a web cast. Never mind. Makes sense to me
>>> now.

>> Actually, it changes nothing. What will be, will be.

> And it will be documented. LOL. That is in the unlikely event that it
> takes place.

Thanks for claiming that it will never happen, Scott.

[Lionel]

In >, Arny Krueger wrote :


> Delusions that I am running for some public office noted.

Don't be surprised Arnold, Wheeler's point is fair compare to some things I
have read recently.

Few days ago Richman was writing that Mr Atkinson has invited you mainly to
clear an obscur matter accusations.
This idiot doesn't understand that such assertions was equally insulting for
you and for Mr Atkinson... :-(

[Bruce J. Richman]

Lionel lied:


>In >, Bruce J. Richman wrote :
>
>
>> Even though Mr. Atkinson has stipulated that he will be making the
>> introductrions of the "contestants", I would not be surprised if he would
>> defer in favor of Michael Buffer, if the famed boxing/wrestling announcer
>> is available.
>
>Richman's usual petty and envious comments.
>
>

Lionel's ignorance is again on display. Do you have any idea who Michael
Buffer, is, Delusional French Poodle?

There is of course nothing to be envious about, except in the deranged "mind"
of a enraged French sewer worker.



Bruce J. Richman

[Bruce J. Richman]

Lionel babbled:


>In >, Arny Krueger wrote :
>
>
>> Delusions that I am running for some public office noted.
>
>Don't be surprised Arnold, Wheeler's point is fair compare to some things I
>have read recently.
>
>Few days ago Richman was writing that Mr Atkinson has invited you mainly to
>clear an obscur matter accusations.


"obscur matter accusations"? More butchering of the English language by a
retarded little poodle.

The only thing "obscur" is how two adults could have produced such a deranged
>This idiot doesn't understand that such assertions was equally insulting for
>you and for Mr Atkinson... :-(
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

The imbecilic cretin named Lionel doesn't comprehend the very concrete fact
that Atkinson has not engaged in libelous false statements about Krueger,
whereas Krueger has, on several occasions, made libelous comments about both
Mr. Atkinson and Stereophile.

Lionel's stupidity is so predictable and laughable.

LOL !!!!



Bruce J. Richman

[Lionel]

In >, Bruce J. Richman wrote :


>>> Even though Mr. Atkinson has stipulated that he will be making the
>>> introductrions of the "contestants", I would not be surprised if he
>>> would defer in favor of Michael Buffer, if the famed boxing/wrestling
>>> announcer is available.
>>
>>Richman's usual petty and envious comments.


Why do they need an announcer since you have recently written that Mr
Atkinson invitation goal is to discuss "Krueger's past libellous comments".

Have you written that yes or no ?

Eh Bruce, have you written that ?

[Bruce J. Richman]

Lionel postured:


>In >, Bruce J. Richman wrote :
>
>
>>>> Even though Mr. Atkinson has stipulated that he will be making the
>>>> introductrions of the "contestants", I would not be surprised if he
>>>> would defer in favor of Michael Buffer, if the famed boxing/wrestling
>>>> announcer is available.
>>>
>>>Richman's usual petty and envious comments.
>
>
>Why do they need an announcer since you have recently written that Mr
>Atkinson invitation goal is to discuss "Krueger's past libellous comments".
>

Michael Buffer does introductions for boxing matches, nothing more, fool?


>Have you written that yes or no ?
>
>Eh Bruce, have you written that ?
>

Why are my comments either petty or envious, Lionel?

Where is the evidence that are anything other than humorous, liar?

Your pettiness, however, in trying to generate another personal attack about
something that doesn;'t concern you at all, is pretty obvious, is it not?



Bruce J. Richman

[Lionel]

Bruce J. Richman a écrit :

> The imbecilic cretin named Lionel doesn't comprehend the very concrete fact
> that Atkinson has not engaged in libelous false statements about Krueger,
> whereas Krueger has, on several occasions, made libelous comments about both
> Mr. Atkinson and Stereophile.

I know that but this is not my point.

[Bruce J. Richman]

Lionel wrote:


>Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
>
>> The imbecilic cretin named Lionel doesn't comprehend the very concrete fact
>> that Atkinson has not engaged in libelous false statements about Krueger,
>> whereas Krueger has, on several occasions, made libelous comments about
>both
>> Mr. Atkinson and Stereophile.
>
>I know that but this is not my point.
>
>
>

You don't have a point. You imagine things for which there is no evidence.

The only thing we agree on is that Krueger has libeled Atkinson in his comments
about his professional activities and his magazine. (No doubt, you approve of
this since you also like to use RAO to libel other people's professional
activities).

If you think that the debate will be equally insulting for both parties, then
you are in denial. Just compare Atkinson's responses to Krueger's constant
insults, compared with Krueger's typical responses to Atkinson, on RAO.


Bruce J. Richman

[Lionel]

Bruce J. Richman a écrit :

>>Why do they need an announcer since you have recently written that Mr
>>Atkinson invitation goal is to discuss "Krueger's past libellous comments".
>
>
> Michael Buffer does introductions for boxing matches, nothing more, fool?

You still don't answer to the question...
Have you written that Mr Atkinson has invited Mr Krueger in New York to
hold him accountable of paranoid accusations that Krueger has done in
the past ?

The answer should be a simple "yes" or a simple "no".

Nothing difficult even for a senile oldster. ;-)

[Lionel]

Bruce J. Richman a écrit :

> If you think that the debate will be equally insulting for both parties, then
> you are in denial. Just compare Atkinson's responses to Krueger's constant
> insults, compared with Krueger's typical responses to Atkinson, on RAO.

I don't think that I say that you have recently pretend that Mr Atkinson
has invited Mr Krueger in New York to hold him accountable of past
paranoid accusations.

At this time I have answered you the following :

"I'm afraid that you don't understand Mr. Atkinson's goal.

From you to me I find that your above explanations of Mr. Atkinson's
motivations insulting for him and for the audio lovers who are
interested in their debate.
Such petty and miserable considerations surely explain why I meet you so
often in my sewers."

[Bruce J. Richman]

Lionel wrote:


>Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
>
>>>Why do they need an announcer since you have recently written that Mr
>>>Atkinson invitation goal is to discuss "Krueger's past libellous comments".
>>
>>
>> Michael Buffer does introductions for boxing matches, nothing more, fool?
>
>You still don't answer to the question...
>Have you written that Mr Atkinson has invited Mr Krueger in New York to
>hold him accountable of paranoid accusations that Krueger has done in
>the past ?
>
>The answer should be a simple "yes" or a simple "no".
>
>Nothing difficult even for a senile oldster. ;-)
>
>

Whatever I've written is in the Google record. Why should I respond to your
idiotic inquiries, since you have no interest in either the truth or rational
conversation.


Bruce J. Richman

[Lionel]

Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
> Lionel wrote:
>
>
>
>>Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
>>
>>
>>>The imbecilic cretin named Lionel doesn't comprehend the very concrete fact
>>>that Atkinson has not engaged in libelous false statements about Krueger,
>>>whereas Krueger has, on several occasions, made libelous comments about
>>
>>both
>>
>>>Mr. Atkinson and Stereophile.
>>
>>I know that but this is not my point.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> You don't have a point. You imagine things for which there is no evidence.

Have you written that Mr. Atkinson invitation goal is to hold Krueger
accountable of past paranoid accusations ?

Yes or no.

> The only thing we agree on is that Krueger has libeled Atkinson in his comments
> about his professional activities and his magazine. (No doubt, you approve of
> this since you also like to use RAO to libel other people's professional
> activities).
>
> If you think that the debate will be equally insulting for both parties, then
> you are in denial. Just compare Atkinson's responses to Krueger's constant
> insults, compared with Krueger's typical responses to Atkinson, on RAO.

I don't think that. this is not my point.

I say that you have recently pretend that Mr Atkinson has invited Mr
Krueger in New York to hold him accountable of past paranoid accusations.

At this time I have answered you the following :

"I'm afraid that you don't understand Mr. Atkinson's goal.

From you to me I find that your above explanations of Mr. Atkinson's
motivations insulting for him and for the audio lovers who are
interested in their debate.
Such petty and miserable considerations surely explain why I meet you so
often in my sewers."

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> >> ups.com
> >>
> >>> Interesting choice. Doesn't this usually lead to a contest of who
> >>> can talk over whom?
>
> >> It could. If Atkinson wants to dominate the show, I'll be happy to
> >> let him do so. The less I say, the less work I do. I'm basically
> >> laid back and lazy.
>
> > I believe the lazy part.
>
> It is a frequent spur to creativity and invention.



Um....yeah, right. Ok......




>
> >>> Doesn't this just open the door for dishonorable
> >>> debate tactics? While I don't think Arny will show and if he does
I
> >>> suspect he will get stage fright and freeze like a deer in
> >>> headlights, you never know for sure.
> >>
> >> I intend to let Atkinson say what he will as much as he will, on
the
> >> grounds that the more he says, the more he hurts his cause.
>
> > Have you prepared your concession speech?
>
> Delusions that I am running for some public office noted.


There you go making things up again.




>
> >> He may show up fully prepared to
> >>> be as disgusting and mal-behaved in person as he is here on RAO.
>
> >> Trust me Maggie, I can never bee as disgusting and mal-behaved as
> >> you are here on RAO.
>
> > I hope in the debate you can do a better job of keeping track of
who
> > you are talking to. that would be just plain embarrassing in a
debate.
>
> The problem is that all radical subjectivists sound the same - nuts!
;-)



Your audience will be made up mostly of subjectivists that think you
are full of it. Will this cause you to loose track of who is who when
answering questions from the audience? That would make you look
particularly idiotic.



>
> >>> Oh, you are going to run a web cast. Never mind. Makes sense to
me
> >>> now.
>
> >> Actually, it changes nothing. What will be, will be.
>
> > And it will be documented. LOL. That is in the unlikely event that
it
> > takes place.
>
> Thanks for claiming that it will never happen, Scott.

Thanks for admitting you don't know the meaning of "unlikely." Will
this be a typical tatctic of yours in the unlikely event that you show
up? Are you prepared to be pelted by rotton tomatoes? That's the old
school remedy for such bad acts. You better hope the audience is more
civil than you.


Scott Wheeler

[Lionel]

Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
> Lionel wrote:
>
>
>
>>Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
>>
>>
>>>>Why do they need an announcer since you have recently written that Mr
>>>>Atkinson invitation goal is to discuss "Krueger's past libellous comments".
>>>
>>>
>>>Michael Buffer does introductions for boxing matches, nothing more, fool?
>>
>>You still don't answer to the question...
>>Have you written that Mr Atkinson has invited Mr Krueger in New York to
>>hold him accountable of paranoid accusations that Krueger has done in
>>the past ?
>>
>>The answer should be a simple "yes" or a simple "no".
>>
>>Nothing difficult even for a senile oldster. ;-)
>>
>>
>
>
> Whatever I've written is in the Google record.

Are you telling us taht you don't remember what you have written 5 days
ago Bruce ?

[[email protected]]

George M. Middius wrote:
> Krooglish alert!
>
> > > And it will be documented. LOL. That is in the unlikely event
that it
> > > takes place.
>
> > Thanks for claiming[sic] that it will never happen, Scott.
>
>
> Is your "dictionnery" broken again, Arnii? The word you want is
> predicting, not claiming. And I concur with Scott. Is Nousiane
helping you
> invent an excuse that you can use to get out of the event? You could
> always kill off another family member. That way, you could be busy
with
> the funeral etc. (But don't try to tell us you're distraught with
grief --
> that would never fly.)

I know you have a deep dislike for Krueger but that was ugly.
Scott Wheeler

[Bruce J. Richman]

Lionel wrote:


>Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
>
>> If you think that the debate will be equally insulting for both parties,
>then
>> you are in denial. Just compare Atkinson's responses to Krueger's constant
>> insults, compared with Krueger's typical responses to Atkinson, on RAO.
>
>I don't think that I say that you have recently pretend that Mr Atkinson
>has invited Mr Krueger in New York to hold him accountable of past
>paranoid accusations.
>

Yes you have.



>At this time I have answered you the following :
>
>"I'm afraid that you don't understand Mr. Atkinson's goal.

How do you know? Do you presume to be able to read Mr. Atkinson's mind. To be
clear, I *hypothesized" (since I don't know for sure) that *one* of Mr.
Atkinson's motives would be to confront him re. his history of accusations
about Stereophile and his professional activities. There is nothing
particularly sinister or unusual about that. I also assume that Mr. Atkinson
has numerous other reasons for this invitation, and that these will be
discussed during the debate.



>
> From you to me I find that your above explanations of Mr. Atkinson's
>motivations insulting for him and for the audio lovers who are
>interested in their debate.

Then you are both ignorant and prejudiced by your personal animosities. Your
constant tendencies to smear and defame Krueger's enemies on RAO clearly color
your judgment. It's not unheard of for people that have been smeared to expect
people to substantiate their false claims in public. Since Krueger has made a
number of inflammatory comments about Atkinson publicly (on RAO), why should he
not be held accountable for them in an open debate? There is nothing insulting
about that. I also assume that such subjects as subjective vs. objective
evaluations will dominate much of the discussion, and since Mr. Atkinson has
both conducted and participatrd in double blind testing (as have I, btw), that
these topics will also be discussed.









>Such petty and miserable considerations surely explain why I meet you so
>often in my sewers."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Bruce J. Richman

[Bruce J. Richman]

Lionel wrote:


>Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
>> Lionel wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Why do they need an announcer since you have recently written that Mr
>>>>>Atkinson invitation goal is to discuss "Krueger's past libellous
>comments".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Michael Buffer does introductions for boxing matches, nothing more, fool?
>>>
>>>You still don't answer to the question...
>>>Have you written that Mr Atkinson has invited Mr Krueger in New York to
>>>hold him accountable of paranoid accusations that Krueger has done in
>>>the past ?
>>>
>>>The answer should be a simple "yes" or a simple "no".
>>>
>>>Nothing difficult even for a senile oldster. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Whatever I've written is in the Google record.
>
>Are you telling us taht you don't remember what you have written 5 days
>ago Bruce ?
>
>
>
>
>
>

Your memnry must be a lot worse than mine, if you have to ask questions about
what was recently said by me, Lionel.

How old did you say you were?


Bruce J. Richman

[Lionel]

Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
> Lionel wrote:
>
>
>
>>Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
>>
>>
>>>If you think that the debate will be equally insulting for both parties,
>>
>>then
>>
>>>you are in denial. Just compare Atkinson's responses to Krueger's constant
>>>insults, compared with Krueger's typical responses to Atkinson, on RAO.
>>
>>I don't think that I say that you have recently pretend that Mr Atkinson
>>has invited Mr Krueger in New York to hold him accountable of past
>>paranoid accusations.
>>
>
>
> Yes you have.


No I haven't. :-)


>>At this time I have answered you the following :
>>
>>"I'm afraid that you don't understand Mr. Atkinson's goal.
>
>
> How do you know? Do you presume to be able to read Mr. Atkinson's mind.

I know that Mr Atkinson is a gentleman. It's enough for me to be sure
that he hasn't the intentions you have given him.

> To be clear, I *hypothesized" (since I don't know for sure) that *one* of Mr.
> Atkinson's motives would be to confront him re. his history of accusations
> about Stereophile and his professional activities. There is nothing
> particularly sinister or unusual about that.

This is not what you have written.


> I also assume that Mr. Atkinson
> has numerous other reasons for this invitation, and that these will be
> discussed during the debate.

This is not what you have written.

>
>>From you to me I find that your above explanations of Mr. Atkinson's
>>motivations insulting for him and for the audio lovers who are
>>interested in their debate.
>
>
> Since Krueger has made a number of inflammatory comments about Atkinson publicly (on RAO), why should he
> not be held accountable for them in an open debate?

Because this is not Mr Atkinson's goal.


> There is nothing insulting about that.

You say that because you aren't a gentleman, nasty idiot.


"Since Krueger's paranoid claims *are* oftren about Atkinson and his
allleged cliques and conspiracies (via his magazine) to attack his
"scientific" bloviations on RAO, I think it's fair to assume that Mr.
Atkinson intends to hold Krueger accountable at the Home Entertainment
Show for the various accusations (paranoid in tone) that Krueger has
leveled against him and Stereophile.
It is one thing for Krueger to make all sorts of accusations on
RAO. It will be quite another for him to have to attend them in person,
in a public forum, with Mr. Atkinson present."

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> George M. Middius wrote:
> > Krooglish alert!
> >
> > > > And it will be documented. LOL. That is in the unlikely event
> that it
> > > > takes place.
> >
> > > Thanks for claiming[sic] that it will never happen, Scott.
> >
> >
> > Is your "dictionnery" broken again, Arnii? The word you want is
> > predicting, not claiming. And I concur with Scott. Is Nousiane
> helping you
> > invent an excuse that you can use to get out of the event? You
could
> > always kill off another family member. That way, you could be busy
> with
> > the funeral etc. (But don't try to tell us you're distraught with
> grief --
> > that would never fly.)
>
> I know you have a deep dislike for Krueger but that was ugly.
> Scott Wheeler
>
>

You're really not familiar with the history of "Middius", are you? That
comment is mild compared to some of his past stuff. Go do some Google
Group searches and get a clue.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> wrote:
> > George M. Middius wrote:
> > > Krooglish alert!
> > >
> > > > > And it will be documented. LOL. That is in the unlikely event
> > that it
> > > > > takes place.
> > >
> > > > Thanks for claiming[sic] that it will never happen, Scott.
> > >
> > >
> > > Is your "dictionnery" broken again, Arnii? The word you want is
> > > predicting, not claiming. And I concur with Scott. Is Nousiane
> > helping you
> > > invent an excuse that you can use to get out of the event? You
> could
> > > always kill off another family member. That way, you could be
busy
> > with
> > > the funeral etc. (But don't try to tell us you're distraught with
> > grief --
> > > that would never fly.)
> >
> > I know you have a deep dislike for Krueger but that was ugly.
> > Scott Wheeler
> >
> >
>
> You're really not familiar with the history of "Middius", are you?



I have not made much effort to familiarize myself with any history of
RAO prior to my arrival.




That
> comment is mild compared to some of his past stuff. Go do some Google
> Group searches and get a clue.


Life is too short to research the history of RAO. I base my opinions on
my experience with each individual. I don't think the prior goings on
of RAO merit any further investigation. I am glad that I have been
warned about this McCarthy creep. It seems he is actually a serious
problem for some people. Other than serious threats posed by people on
RAO I'm just not interested in an old soap opera. Frankly, I am getting
quite bored with the current ones on RAO.


Scott Wheeler

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> wrote:
> > George M. Middius wrote:
> > > Krooglish alert!
> > >
> > > > > And it will be documented. LOL. That is in the unlikely event
> > that it
> > > > > takes place.
> > >
> > > > Thanks for claiming[sic] that it will never happen, Scott.
> > >
> > >
> > > Is your "dictionnery" broken again, Arnii? The word you want is
> > > predicting, not claiming. And I concur with Scott. Is Nousiane
> > helping you
> > > invent an excuse that you can use to get out of the event? You
> could
> > > always kill off another family member. That way, you could be
busy
> > with
> > > the funeral etc. (But don't try to tell us you're distraught with
> > grief --
> > > that would never fly.)
> >
> > I know you have a deep dislike for Krueger but that was ugly.
> > Scott Wheeler
> >
> >
>
> You're really not familiar with the history of "Middius", are you?
That
> comment is mild compared to some of his past stuff. Go do some Google
> Group searches and get a clue.

[Clyde Slick]

"Margaret von B." > wrote in message
...
>
>
> I might just make the trip from my new outpost above the Arctic Circle.
> Even in the likely case of noshow by your esteemed guest, I want to
> witness it with my own eyes.
>
> LET'S GET READY TO RRRUUUUUMMMMMBBBLLLEEEEEE!
>
> Margaret
>

just in case some of us want to meet you, what color dress will you be
wearing?







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> wrote:
> > George M. Middius wrote:
> > > Krooglish alert!
> > >
> > > > > And it will be documented. LOL. That is in the unlikely event
> > that it
> > > > > takes place.
> > >
> > > > Thanks for claiming[sic] that it will never happen, Scott.
> > >
> > >
> > > Is your "dictionnery" broken again, Arnii? The word you want is
> > > predicting, not claiming. And I concur with Scott. Is Nousiane
> > helping you
> > > invent an excuse that you can use to get out of the event? You
> could
> > > always kill off another family member. That way, you could be
busy
> > with
> > > the funeral etc. (But don't try to tell us you're distraught with
> > grief --
> > > that would never fly.)
> >
> > I know you have a deep dislike for Krueger but that was ugly.
> > Scott Wheeler
> >
> >
>
> You're really not familiar with the history of "Middius", are you?
That
> comment is mild compared to some of his past stuff. Go do some Google
> Group searches and get a clue.

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message

> Krooglish alert!
>
>>> And it will be documented. LOL. That is in the unlikely event that
>>> it takes place.
>
>> Thanks for claiming[sic] that it will never happen, Scott.
>
>
> Is your "dictionnery" broken again, Arnii? The word you want is
> predicting, not claiming.

Thanks Middius for showing that you can't figure out that claiming a future
event is the same as predicting.

>And I concur with Scott.

It appears that Scott doesn't concur with you, George.

>Is Nousiane helping you invent an excuse that you can use to get out of
>the
> event?

Yup, we've been working on it with the rest of the SMWTMS and Detroit-area
AES people, day and night! ;-)

>You could always kill off another family member.

Please name the family member you think I've already killed off, George.

>That way, you could be busy with the funeral etc. (But don't try to tell
>us you're
> distraught with grief -- that would never fly.)

It appears that you're really strung out about this, George. I'm sorry to
cause you so much grief and I hope you get some help for your problem.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com

> wrote:

>> wrote:

>>> George M. Middius wrote:

>>>>You could
>>>> always kill off another family member. That way, you could be busy
>>>> with the funeral etc. (But don't try to tell us you're distraught
>>>> with grief -- that would never fly.)

>>> I know you have a deep dislike for Krueger but that was ugly.
>>> Scott Wheeler

>> You're really not familiar with the history of "Middius", are you?

> I have not made much effort to familiarize myself with any history of
> RAO prior to my arrival.

>> That comment is mild compared to some of his past stuff. Go do some
>> Google
>> Group searches and get a clue.

Agreed. There have also been many posts in the same vein by Roy, Dormer,
Phillips, and others.

Then there are the posts by Art Sackman dismissing all of the Middius crap
as a joke.

> Life is too short to research the history of RAO.

Self-imposed ignornace befits you, Scott. It's a perfectly ingenuous thing
for you to do.

> I base my opinions on my experience with each individual.

As do the rest of us, which is why that many think that your pals are the
scum of the earth or lower.

> I don't think the prior goings on of RAO merit any further investigation.

Self-imposed ignornace is obviously a source of comfort to you, Scott.
Enjoy!

<is this guy in love with Middius, or what?>

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
ups.com

> Just a note to confirm that, following our planning meeting
> yesterday, our debate is confirmed for Home Entertainment 2005,
> Mr. Krueger. Provisionally, the debate will take place at the
> Manhattan Hilton from 2:30pm to 4pm on Friday April 29, and we
> hope to be able to webcast the event as well as recording it.
>
> As I said before, there will be no limits imposed concerning
> what subjects either of us wants to discuss. My provisional
> plan will be for me to introduce you (in a non-confrontational
> manner, of course), for you (as the guest) then to present a
> prepared text lasting no more than 5 minutes, followed by a
> prepared text from myself. Following those 2 formal
> presentations, we can each discuss what the other has said and
> ask followup questions of each other, to be followed by a
> session where each of us answer questions put to us by the
> audience.
>
> I can be flexible over these details, of course, but I do insist
> that the audience be offered the opportunity to contribute.
>
> I anticipate you arriving Thursday, departing Saturday, and
> you will, of course, have free access to all the rooms and
> exhibits at the Show. I hope you take the opportunity to
> take a listen to some of the great sound the exhibitors
> are presenting.
>
> Provided you are agreeable to this, we can continue discussing
> matters such as travel arrangements etc by private email.

BTW, will there be a Powerpoint 2000-compatible computer and projector
available?

[John Atkinson]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
>
> > Is [Tom Nousaine] helping you invent an excuse that you can use to
> > get out of the event?
>
> Yup, we've been working on it with the rest of the SMWTMS and
> Detroit-area AES people, day and night! ;-)

I'm sure you're being humorous Mr. Krueger, but I thought I
should take the opportunity to repeat what I posted in December, that
my invitation was to you personally, not to Tom Nousaine or to anyone
else who might wish to substitute for you.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Lionel]

In >, Arny Krueger wrote :

> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
>
>> Krooglish alert!
>>Is Nousiane helping you invent an excuse that you can use to get out of
>>the
>> event?
>
> Yup, we've been working on it with the rest of the SMWTMS and Detroit-area
> AES people, day and night! ;-)
>
>>You could always kill off another family member.
>
> Please name the family member you think I've already killed off, George.
>
>>That way, you could be busy with the funeral etc. (But don't try to tell
>>us you're
>> distraught with grief -- that would never fly.)
>
> It appears that you're really strung out about this, George. I'm sorry to
> cause you so much grief and I hope you get some help for your problem.



Middius' ass has been already the place of all the outrages and it is
hilarious to see that today it is experiencing so much difficulties to
accept an other, all in all, banal intrusion.

So George tell us, pure coquetry or real pain ? ;-)

[Lionel]

In . com>, John Atkinson
wrote :

>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
>>
>> > Is [Tom Nousaine] helping you invent an excuse that you can use to
>> > get out of the event?
>>
>> Yup, we've been working on it with the rest of the SMWTMS and
>> Detroit-area AES people, day and night! ;-)
>
> I'm sure you're being humorous Mr. Krueger, but I thought I
> should take the opportunity to repeat what I posted in December, that
> my invitation was to you personally, not to Tom Nousaine or to anyone
> else who might wish to substitute for you.

As George pertinently remind us he cannot even count on a familial
subsitution.

Reassured ?

[Margaret von B.]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
>>
>> > Is [Tom Nousaine] helping you invent an excuse that you can use to
>> > get out of the event?
>>
>> Yup, we've been working on it with the rest of the SMWTMS and
>> Detroit-area AES people, day and night! ;-)
>
> I'm sure you're being humorous Mr. Krueger, but I thought I
> should take the opportunity to repeat what I posted in December, that
> my invitation was to you personally, not to Tom Nousaine or to anyone
> else who might wish to substitute for you.
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile
>

Sounds like someone has been making some serious inquiries of Arny and his
character...his rather well-known shortcomings included. Good for you.
Everything's fair in love and WAR.

Cheers,

Margaret

[Tom]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote

> Enjoy!

oh my god. Torry-boooy is a clone geek.


> <is this guy in love with Middius, or what?>

I was just wondering the same thing about Torry-boooy and you.

[Margaret von B.]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Margaret von B." > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> I might just make the trip from my new outpost above the Arctic Circle.
>> Even in the likely case of noshow by your esteemed guest, I want to
>> witness it with my own eyes.
>>
>> LET'S GET READY TO RRRUUUUUMMMMMBBBLLLEEEEEE!
>>
>> Margaret
>>
>
> just in case some of us want to meet you, what color dress will you be
> wearing?
>
>

What would you like me to wear?

Cheers,

Margaret

[Bruce J. Richman]

Margaret von B. wrote:


>"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Margaret von B." > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>> I might just make the trip from my new outpost above the Arctic Circle.
>>> Even in the likely case of noshow by your esteemed guest, I want to
>>> witness it with my own eyes.
>>>
>>> LET'S GET READY TO RRRUUUUUMMMMMBBBLLLEEEEEE!
>>>
>>> Margaret
>>>
>>
>> just in case some of us want to meet you, what color dress will you be
>> wearing?
>>
>>
>
>What would you like me to wear?
>
>Cheers,
>
>Margaret
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Didn't famed country singer Kenny Rogers once get in trouble for asking that
question? (Or was it "tell me what you're wearing") :-) :-)



Bruce J. Richman

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com
>
> > wrote:
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> George M. Middius wrote:
>
> >>>>You could
> >>>> always kill off another family member. That way, you could be
busy
> >>>> with the funeral etc. (But don't try to tell us you're
distraught
> >>>> with grief -- that would never fly.)
>
> >>> I know you have a deep dislike for Krueger but that was ugly.
> >>> Scott Wheeler
>
> >> You're really not familiar with the history of "Middius", are you?
>
> > I have not made much effort to familiarize myself with any history
of
> > RAO prior to my arrival.
>
> >> That comment is mild compared to some of his past stuff. Go do
some
> >> Google
> >> Group searches and get a clue.
>
> Agreed. There have also been many posts in the same vein by Roy,
Dormer,
> Phillips, and others.
>
> Then there are the posts by Art Sackman dismissing all of the Middius
crap
> as a joke.
>
> > Life is too short to research the history of RAO.
>
> Self-imposed ignornace befits you, Scott. It's a perfectly ingenuous
thing
> for you to do.



It is a perfectly normal thing for someone not to be interested in the
history of the RAO soap opera. As important as it may be to you (it is
your life and occupation after all) it is quite unimportant to me. Live
with it.


>
> > I base my opinions on my experience with each individual.
>
> As do the rest of us, which is why that many think that your pals are
the
> scum of the earth or lower.


Funny, none of them called me a pedophile over a disagreement on audio.
They may be guilty of stooping down to your level in dealing with you
but all the evidence I have seen points to you as the source of that
very low level.



>
> > I don't think the prior goings on of RAO merit any further
investigation.
>
> Self-imposed ignornace is obviously a source of comfort to you,
Scott.
> Enjoy!

Indeed, I am quite happy not wasting time doing google searches on the
RAO archives. Are you so lost in your life on Usenet that you cannot
understand this?



>
> <is this guy in love with Middius, or what?>


what.


Scott Wheeler

[Lionel_Chapuis]

The Roy Brigg's wrote:

> I'll do it for him, Arnii. It was your son, whose brains you battered
> out with your erection and smeared all over your wife's ****.


I bet that you have done several feasts of veal brain during the '80s, eh gourmet ?

;-)




----------
Sent via SPRACI - http://www.spraci.com/ - Parties,Raves,Clubs,Festivals

[Arny Krueger]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

> The Roy Brigg's > said:
>
>
>>> Please name the family member you think I've already killed off,
>>> George.
>
>> I'll do it for him, Arnii. It was your son, whose brains you battered
>> out with your erection and smeared all over your wife's ****.
>
>> Is that grotesque enough for you, since it is what you crave?

> Please don't make the same mistake again, Graham.

Lame, very lame.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
oups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
>>
>>> Is [Tom Nousaine] helping you invent an excuse that you can use to
>>> get out of the event?
>>
>> Yup, we've been working on it with the rest of the SMWTMS and
>> Detroit-area AES people, day and night! ;-)

> I'm sure you're being humorous Mr. Krueger, but I thought I
> should take the opportunity to repeat what I posted in December, that
> my invitation was to you personally, not to Tom Nousaine or to anyone
> else who might wish to substitute for you.

Understood. I'm not sure that anybody of merit here would want to substitute
for me, given how futile of an effort it will no doubt be. They've sorta
signed the nutcase audiophile market over to me. ;-)

So Atkinson, are you bringing me into to town to serve me or what?

[Arny Krueger]

"Margaret von B." > wrote in message

> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> Is [Tom Nousaine] helping you invent an excuse that you can use to
>>>> get out of the event?
>>>
>>> Yup, we've been working on it with the rest of the SMWTMS and
>>> Detroit-area AES people, day and night! ;-)
>>
>> I'm sure you're being humorous Mr. Krueger, but I thought I
>> should take the opportunity to repeat what I posted in December, that
>> my invitation was to you personally, not to Tom Nousaine or to anyone
>> else who might wish to substitute for you.
>> John Atkinson
>> Editor, Stereophile
>>
>
> Sounds like someone has been making some serious inquiries of Arny
> and his character...his rather well-known shortcomings included. Good
> for you. Everything's fair in love and WAR.

It's interesting how dogs always seem to return to their vomit.

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

>> The Roy Brigg's > said:

>>>> Please name the family member you think I've already killed off,
>>>> George.

>>> I'll do it for him, Arnii. It was your son, whose brains you battered
>>> out with your erection and smeared all over your wife's ****.

>>> Is that grotesque enough for you, since it is what you crave?

>> Please don't make the same mistake again, Graham.

>Lame, very lame.


You know my POV about things like this, Arny.
Would it be better if I had kept my mouth shut, so that "someone"
could claim that by my silence, I agree with his sentiments?

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Lionel]

Sander deWaal a écrit :
> The Roy Brigg's > said:
>
>
>
>>>Please name the family member you think I've already killed off, George.
>
>
>>I'll do it for him, Arnii. It was your son, whose brains you battered
>>out with your erection and smeared all over your wife's ****.
>
>
>>Is that grotesque enough for you, since it is what you crave?
>
>
>
> Please don't make the same mistake again, Graham.


Why ? IMHO it's an interesting illustration to the human weakness.
Few days ago this guy was still pretending to have killfiled 95% of RAO
contributors and was producing the following pearl :

----------------------------------------------------------------------
De :The Devil )
Objet :Re: THE 'TAPE'
Groupes de discussion :rec.audio.opinion
Date :2005-02-01 14:30:20 PST

(...)
Bleh, **** this place, etc. It really is INCREDIBLY boring at the
moment. I pop back every few days and pick a few posts to read. Same
dreariness over and over again. I've definitely lost my happy thoughts
about RAO. Are the photography groups full of people like Arnii? I
hope not.

--
td
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Adult balls and childish determination...
Please Sander don't try to bridle him anymore, I am interested in what
he has to say.
Sincerely, I start to feel sympathy for him.

[Clyde Slick]

"Margaret von B." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Margaret von B." > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>> I might just make the trip from my new outpost above the Arctic Circle.
>>> Even in the likely case of noshow by your esteemed guest, I want to
>>> witness it with my own eyes.
>>>
>>> LET'S GET READY TO RRRUUUUUMMMMMBBBLLLEEEEEE!
>>>
>>> Margaret
>>>
>>
>> just in case some of us want to meet you, what color dress will you be
>> wearing?
>>
>>
>
> What would you like me to wear?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Margaret
>

Obviously. something that enhances your already overly embellished bust.

These hometown gisls
( see http://www.hogettes.org/images/hogphotoDbig.jpg )
are just a little too flat chested, I need bigger breasts.





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Arny Krueger]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>
>> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
>>
>>> The Roy Brigg's > said:
>
>>>>> Please name the family member you think I've already killed off,
>>>>> George.
>
>>>> I'll do it for him, Arnii. It was your son, whose brains you
>>>> battered out with your erection and smeared all over your wife's
>>>> ****.
>
>>>> Is that grotesque enough for you, since it is what you crave?
>
>>> Please don't make the same mistake again, Graham.
>
>> Lame, very lame.
>
>
> You know my POV about things like this, Arny.
> Would it be better if I had kept my mouth shut, so that "someone"
> could claim that by my silence, I agree with his sentiments?

Letsee.

(1) Sander keeps his mouth shut.
(2) Sander says something unbelievably lame.

How can I choose? ;-)

[Lionel]

Arny Krueger a écrit :
> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
>
>
>>The Roy Brigg's > said:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Please name the family member you think I've already killed off,
>>>>George.
>>
>>>I'll do it for him, Arnii. It was your son, whose brains you battered
>>>out with your erection and smeared all over your wife's ****.
>>
>>>Is that grotesque enough for you, since it is what you crave?
>
>
>>Please don't make the same mistake again, Graham.
>
>
> Lame, very lame.

Lame ?
No, I would say terribly sorry.

[Arny Krueger]

"Lionel" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger a écrit :
>> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> The Roy Brigg's > said:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Please name the family member you think I've already killed off,
>>>>> George.
>>>
>>>> I'll do it for him, Arnii. It was your son, whose brains you
>>>> battered out with your erection and smeared all over your wife's
>>>> ****.
>>>
>>>> Is that grotesque enough for you, since it is what you crave?
>>
>>
>>> Please don't make the same mistake again, Graham.
>>
>>
>> Lame, very lame.

> Lame ?

> No, I would say terribly sorry.

That would be a reasonable choice of words - it's a very sorry response to a
horrific situation.

[Tom]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote
>
> They've sorta signed the nutcase audiophile market over to me. ;-)

perfect.


> So Atkinson, are you bringing me into to town to serve me or what?

The first step. I smell an excuse to excuse coming.

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>>>> Please don't make the same mistake again, Graham.

>>> Lame, very lame.

>> You know my POV about things like this, Arny.
>> Would it be better if I had kept my mouth shut, so that "someone"
>> could claim that by my silence, I agree with his sentiments?

>Letsee.

>(1) Sander keeps his mouth shut.
>(2) Sander says something unbelievably lame.

>How can I choose? ;-)


You don't have to, I have already.

Are both choices considered hostile towards you, Arnold?

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Sander deWaal]

Lionel > said:

>>>Please don't make the same mistake again, Graham.

>> Lame, very lame.

>Lame ?
>No, I would say terribly sorry.


What should I have said then, Lionel?

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Ruud Broens]

"Arny Krueger" > wroete
: > wrote in message
: oups.com
:
: > wrote:
:
: >> wrote:
:
: >>> George M. Middius wrote:
:
: >>>>You could
: >>>> always kill off another family member. That way, you could be busy
: >>>> with the funeral etc. (But don't try to tell us you're distraught
: >>>> with grief -- that would never fly.)
:
: >>> I know you have a deep dislike for Krueger but that was ugly.
: >>> Scott Wheeler
:
: >> You're really not familiar with the history of "Middius", are you?
:
: > I have not made much effort to familiarize myself with any history of
: > RAO prior to my arrival.
:
: >> That comment is mild compared to some of his past stuff. Go do some
: >> Google Group searches and get a clue.
:
: Agreed. There have also been many posts in the same vein by Roy, Dormer,
: Phillips, and others.
:
: Then there are the posts by Art Sackman dismissing all of the Middius crap
: as a joke.
:
: > Life is too short to research the history of RAO.
:
: Self-imposed ignornace befits you, Scott. It's a perfectly ingenuous thing
: for you to do.
:
: > I base my opinions on my experience with each individual.
:
: As do the rest of us, which is why that many think that your pals are the
: scum of the earth or lower.
:
: > I don't think the prior goings on of RAO merit any further investigation.
:
: Self-imposed ignornace is obviously a source of comfort to you, Scott.
: Enjoy!
:
: <is this guy in love with Middius, or what?>
:
"Something about unreliable, low performance, expensive"
remember that one, Arny ? Expensive - that may be doubtfull,
but the other affinities are readily visible, herrn Krueger !
You're making it hard for others to stand up against particular nasties
swung your way, if you immidiately start your usual garbage routine, eh ?

Rudy

[Arny Krueger]

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message


> You're making it hard for others to stand up against particular
> nasties swung your way, if you immidiately start your usual garbage
> routine, eh ?

Thanks for blaming me for Middius' behavior, Rudy.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>
>>>>> Please don't make the same mistake again, Graham.
>
>>>> Lame, very lame.
>
>>> You know my POV about things like this, Arny.
>>> Would it be better if I had kept my mouth shut, so that "someone"
>>> could claim that by my silence, I agree with his sentiments?
>
>> Letsee.
>
>> (1) Sander keeps his mouth shut.
>> (2) Sander says something unbelievably lame.
>
>> How can I choose? ;-)
>
>
> You don't have to, I have already.
>
> Are both choices considered hostile towards you, Arnold?

Absolutely.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

> Lionel > said:
>
>>>> Please don't make the same mistake again, Graham.
>
>>> Lame, very lame.
>
>> Lame ?
>> No, I would say terribly sorry.
>
>
> What should I have said then, Lionel?

Something that includes references to unreasoning hatred and sickening
subhuman behavior seems appropriate.

[Arny Krueger]

"Tom" > wrote in message


> "Arny Krueger" > wrote

>> They've sorta signed the nutcase audiophile market over to me. ;-)

> perfect.

Also, a correct statement.


>> So Atkinson, are you bringing me into to town to serve me or what?

> The first step. I smell an excuse to excuse coming.

Since when is not a good idea to get commitment for safe conduct, at least
in terms of no aggression from the host or his minions?

[Ruud Broens]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
: "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
:
:
: > You're making it hard for others to stand up against particular
: > nasties swung your way, if you immidiately start your usual garbage
: > routine, eh ?
:
: Thanks for blaming me for Middius' behavior, Rudy.
:
I was referring to a few posts above, vs. Scott, Arny:

"Self-imposed ignornace is obviously a source of comfort to you"
"<is this guy in love with Middius, or what?>"

that is YOUR behaviour, Arny !!

Rudy

[Ruud Broens]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
: "Tom" > wrote in message
:
:
: > "Arny Krueger" > wrote
:
: >> They've sorta signed the nutcase audiophile market over to me. ;-)
:
: > perfect.
:
: Also, a correct statement.
:
:
: >> So Atkinson, are you bringing me into to town to serve me or what?
:
: > The first step. I smell an excuse to excuse coming.
:
: Since when is not a good idea to get commitment for safe conduct, at least
: in terms of no aggression from the host or his minions?
:
I think it's a safe bet that "axes to be ground" will be figuratively speaking
:-)
Rudy

[Margaret von B.]

"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
...
> Margaret von B. wrote:
>
>
>>"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> "Margaret von B." > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I might just make the trip from my new outpost above the Arctic Circle.
>>>> Even in the likely case of noshow by your esteemed guest, I want to
>>>> witness it with my own eyes.
>>>>
>>>> LET'S GET READY TO RRRUUUUUMMMMMBBBLLLEEEEEE!
>>>>
>>>> Margaret
>>>>
>>>
>>> just in case some of us want to meet you, what color dress will you be
>>> wearing?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>What would you like me to wear?
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Margaret
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Didn't famed country singer Kenny Rogers once get in trouble for asking
> that
> question? (Or was it "tell me what you're wearing") :-) :-)
>
>
>
> Bruce J. Richman
>

Don't remember that but I do remember that he almost died from a
liposuction. I guess they sucked out a little more than was healthy. :-)

Anyway it was just Clyde being vituperative to me as is his custom.
Personalitywise, he's just an Arny with a Dynaco. Oh well...


Cheers,

Margaret

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
>
> > The Roy Brigg's > said:
> >
> >
> >>> Please name the family member you think I've already killed off,
> >>> George.
> >
> >> I'll do it for him, Arnii. It was your son, whose brains you
battered
> >> out with your erection and smeared all over your wife's ****.
> >
> >> Is that grotesque enough for you, since it is what you crave?
>
> > Please don't make the same mistake again, Graham.
>
> Lame, very lame.
>
>


While I have no problem coming right out and calling
Graham/Roy/Briggs/Devil a boozed up, psychotic whack job, Sander does
things differently. What is importent, Arny, is that it is clear he
does not condone this horrific crap regarding you and Nate.

[Arny Krueger]

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> You're making it hard for others to stand up against particular
>>> nasties swung your way, if you immidiately start your usual garbage
>>> routine, eh ?
>>
>> Thanks for blaming me for Middius' behavior, Rudy.
>>
> I was referring to a few posts above, vs. Scott, Arny:
>
> "Self-imposed ignornace is obviously a source of comfort to you"
> "<is this guy in love with Middius, or what?>"
>
> that is YOUR behaviour, Arny !!

It is true that I try to show love for my fellow man. With a lot of
stretching I can recognize Middius as being close enough to human to have
this rule applicable to him.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com

> While I have no problem coming right out and calling
> Graham/Roy/Briggs/Devil a boozed up, psychotic whack job, Sander does
> things differently. What is important, Arny, is that it is clear he
> does not condone this horrific crap regarding you and Nate.

I don't think Sander specifically condones it, but I'm quite sure he doesn't
want to chance irritating Middius or Briggs over it, presumably because he
fears some unknown consequences.

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com
>
> > While I have no problem coming right out and calling
> > Graham/Roy/Briggs/Devil a boozed up, psychotic whack job, Sander
does
> > things differently. What is important, Arny, is that it is clear he
> > does not condone this horrific crap regarding you and Nate.
>
> I don't think Sander specifically condones it, but I'm quite sure he
doesn't
> want to chance irritating Middius or Briggs over it, presumably
because he
> fears some unknown consequences.
>
>

The consequences of irritating "Middius" are well known: Just ask Jim
Sanders or Greg Singh.
>
That said, I do think that Sander has made his disapproval of the
tactics regarding false allegations against you clear.

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>>> (1) Sander keeps his mouth shut.
>>> (2) Sander says something unbelievably lame.

>>> How can I choose? ;-)

>> You don't have to, I have already.

>> Are both choices considered hostile towards you, Arnold?

>Absolutely.


OK, now we're getting somewhere.
Let's take this one step further:

Are you familiar with the concept of "a sensitive tank"?

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

>> Lionel > said:
>>
>>>>> Please don't make the same mistake again, Graham.
>>
>>>> Lame, very lame.
>>
>>> Lame ?
>>> No, I would say terribly sorry.
>>
>>
>> What should I have said then, Lionel?
>
>Something that includes references to unreasoning hatred and sickening
>subhuman behavior seems appropriate.


To Graham, my words may have that effect.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Ruud Broens]

"Margaret von B." > wrote in message
...
:
: "Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
: ...
: > Margaret von B. wrote:
: >
: >
: >>"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
: ...
: >>>
: >>> just in case some of us want to meet you, what color dress will you be
: >>> wearing?
: >>>
: >>>
: >>
: >>What would you like me to wear?
: >>
: >>Cheers,
: >>
: >>Margaret
: >>
: >>
: >
: > Didn't famed country singer Kenny Rogers once get in trouble for asking
: > that
: > question? (Or was it "tell me what you're wearing") :-) :-)
: >
: >
: >
: > Bruce J. Richman
: >
:
: Don't remember that but I do remember that he almost died from a
: liposuction. I guess they sucked out a little more than was healthy. :-)
:
: Anyway it was just Clyde being vituperative to me as is his custom.
: Personalitywise, he's just an Arny with a Dynaco. Oh well...
:
:
: Cheers,
:
: Margaret
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Babelfishing this last sentence to dutch and back was fun :-)
"In elk geval was het enkel Clyde zijnd hekelend aan me zoals zijn douane is.
Personalitywise, heeft hij enkel een Arny met een Dynaco. Oh goed..."
..........................
Anyway were denounce only the Clyde are to me such as its customs
authorities are. Personalitywise, have he only Arny with Dynaco. Oh well...
....
hehe,
Rudy

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>> While I have no problem coming right out and calling
>> Graham/Roy/Briggs/Devil a boozed up, psychotic whack job, Sander does
>> things differently. What is important, Arny, is that it is clear he
>> does not condone this horrific crap regarding you and Nate.

>I don't think Sander specifically condones it, but I'm quite sure he doesn't
>want to chance irritating Middius or Briggs over it, presumably because he
>fears some unknown consequences.


Thanks for finally admitting I don't condone such behaviour.
I fear no consequences of what I write in RAO, other than a belly-ache
from laughter sometimes, or a feeling of disgust when allegations
about you and your son or pedophilia in general are made.

Once you asked me to stop making references to that, I kept that
promise and will keep it in the future.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Margaret von B.]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
>
>
>> You're making it hard for others to stand up against particular
>> nasties swung your way, if you immidiately start your usual garbage
>> routine, eh ?
>
> Thanks for blaming me for Middius' behavior, Rudy.

Of course you are largely responsible for it. Not only do you provoke it
but you simply seem to thrive on it. It is hard to understand to what end,
since it often expands to cover your family in a very explicit manner
including their names and intimate details of their life.

Especially so since you proudly broadcast how Middius and company are just
anonymous sockpuppets. The sum of all these activities is that the internet
is full of inappropriate discussions, accusations and references to: 1) you
and your family -aka the real people- and 2) a bunch of fictional, nameless
sockpuppets who are figments of someone's imagination. Hardly seems like you
are winning in any discernible way. I'm not going to speculate why your
family hasn't put an end to it but let's just say that you should thank your
God that I'm not your wife.

I cannot help but wonder what you did during the Tigers' World Series
celebrations. Drive around town looking for large crowds in your car covered
with "Tigers are stupid n*ggers" stickers? :-)


I know that instead of a proper explanation, I will only get more insults
from you. But think about it privately.


Cheers,

Margaret

[[email protected]]

Margaret von B. wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
> >
> >
> >> You're making it hard for others to stand up against particular
> >> nasties swung your way, if you immidiately start your usual
garbage
> >> routine, eh ?
> >
> > Thanks for blaming me for Middius' behavior, Rudy.
>
> Of course you are largely responsible for it. Not only do you
provoke it
> but you simply seem to thrive on it. It is hard to understand to what
end,
> since it often expands to cover your family in a very explicit manner

> including their names and intimate details of their life.
>
> Especially so since you proudly broadcast how Middius and company are
just
> anonymous sockpuppets. The sum of all these activities is that the
internet
> is full of inappropriate discussions, accusations and references to:
1) you
> and your family -aka the real people- and 2) a bunch of fictional,
nameless
> sockpuppets who are figments of someone's imagination. Hardly seems
like you
> are winning in any discernible way. I'm not going to speculate why
your
> family hasn't put an end to it but let's just say that you should
thank your
> God that I'm not your wife.
>
> I cannot help but wonder what you did during the Tigers' World Series

> celebrations. Drive around town looking for large crowds in your car
covered
> with "Tigers are stupid n*ggers" stickers? :-)
>
>
> I know that instead of a proper explanation, I will only get more
insults
> from you. But think about it privately.
>
>
>


Margaret, perhaps you need a little perspective on the ways of
"Middius". Let's leave Arny out of this and look at how "Middius"
turned on a former ally, Jim Sanders, after Sanders dared to "cross"
him.
>
>

http://tinyurl.com/5js7q

>

If you want more, do a google groups search on Gregipus to see how
"Middius" turned on another staunch ally who dared to say that
"Middius" was ignorant in matters related to audio and brought nothing
of value to RAO.

[Arny Krueger]

"Margaret von B." > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
>>

>>> You're making it hard for others to stand up against particular
>>> nasties swung your way, if you immidiately start your usual garbage
>>> routine, eh ?

>> Thanks for blaming me for Middius' behavior, Rudy.

> Of course you are largely responsible for it.

So nmuch for your flirtation with sanity, eh Maggie?

> Not only do you
> provoke it but you simply seem to thrive on it.

If that's true why do people who want me to die feed me more of it?

>It is hard to
> understand to what end, since it often expands to cover your family
> in a very explicit manner including their names and intimate details
> of their life.

If that's true, name my other three children, Maggie. Remember that my
youngest son and wife had their names published on the web by third parties.

> Especially so since you proudly broadcast how Middius and company are
> just anonymous sockpuppets.

This is illogical and untrue. I don't think that Middius and company are
anonymous or sockpuppets. I think Middius and such sockpuppets that he
travels with are animated by persons who are known to at least some people
on this forum. Some of them are probably real persons. For example, I think
that Jim Sanders was a real person who was posting under a reasonable
facsimile of his given name. And, I don't doubt the reality of John
Atkinson.

Secondly,why should I be proud that *anybody* in particular is a sockpuppet?
What does it profit me? It doesn't!

>The sum of all these activities is that
> the internet is full of inappropriate discussions, accusations and
> references to: 1) you and your family -aka the real people- and 2) a
> bunch of fictional, nameless sockpuppets who are figments of
> someone's imagination.

Both of theseave been deconstructed. Respond if you can.

> Hardly seems like you are winning in any discernible way.

And exactly what is anybody else winning? Are you covering yourself with
glory with your ludicrous posts? Is Middius? I don't think so. One of you
looks more stupid than the others. It's a traveling bozo show.

> I'm not going to speculate why your family hasn't
> put an end to it but let's just say that you should thank your God
> that I'm not your wife.

Given that you're probably not the gender you make a show of claiming
Maggie, what could that mean? It can't mean anything!

> I cannot help but wonder what you did during the Tigers' World Series
> celebrations. Drive around town looking for large crowds in your car
> covered with "Tigers are stupid n*ggers" stickers? :-)

This is so funny its cruel. Lets start with the fact that I am very happy to
be part of a biracial extended family... Actually, its triracial in a way...

> I know that instead of a proper explanation, I will only get more
> insults from you.

You're getting far fewer insults than you deserve for being such a bigot,
Maggie.

>But think about it privately.

What's to think about Maggie? That you're so poorly-informed that you might
even believe some of this bilge? That you are so full of yourself that you
think you fool anybody but yourself? You can lie all you want but the truth
will out. You can think this is just a big joke and you're immune to the
consequences of your behavior because you're posting behind a stupid alias.
But, you are what you do and what you're doing here is crap.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
ups.com

> Margaret, perhaps you need a little perspective on the ways of
> "Middius". Let's leave Arny out of this and look at how "Middius"
> turned on a former ally, Jim Sanders, after Sanders dared to "cross"
> him.

> http://tinyurl.com/5js7q

I bet that Scott lacks the guts to look at this retrieval.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message


> Are you familiar with the concept of "a sensitive tank"?

Sure, I still vaguely remember sparring with a leading example of such a
creature - Paul Bamborough. He obviously picked the term up from one of his
therapists.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>
>> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
>>
>>> Lionel > said:
>>>
>>>>>> Please don't make the same mistake again, Graham.
>>>
>>>>> Lame, very lame.
>>>
>>>> Lame ?
>>>> No, I would say terribly sorry.
>>>
>>>
>>> What should I have said then, Lionel?

>> Something that includes references to unreasoning hatred and
>> sickening subhuman behavior seems appropriate.

> To Graham, my words may have that effect.

For what earthly reason?

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com
>
> > Margaret, perhaps you need a little perspective on the ways of
> > "Middius". Let's leave Arny out of this and look at how "Middius"
> > turned on a former ally, Jim Sanders, after Sanders dared to
"cross"
> > him.
>
> > http://tinyurl.com/5js7q
>
> I bet that Scott lacks the guts to look at this retrieval.
>
>

You can lead a horse to water......

[Bruce J. Richman]

Margaret von B. wrote:


>"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
...
>> Margaret von B. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>> "Margaret von B." > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I might just make the trip from my new outpost above the Arctic Circle.
>>>>> Even in the likely case of noshow by your esteemed guest, I want to
>>>>> witness it with my own eyes.
>>>>>
>>>>> LET'S GET READY TO RRRUUUUUMMMMMBBBLLLEEEEEE!
>>>>>
>>>>> Margaret
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> just in case some of us want to meet you, what color dress will you be
>>>> wearing?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>What would you like me to wear?
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>
>>>Margaret
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Didn't famed country singer Kenny Rogers once get in trouble for asking
>> that
>> question? (Or was it "tell me what you're wearing") :-) :-)
>>
>>
>>
>> Bruce J. Richman
>>
>
>Don't remember that but I do remember that he almost died from a
>liposuction. I guess they sucked out a little more than was healthy. :-)

According to news reports, he got into serious trouble some years ago for
spending large amounts of money on phone sex lines.


>
>Anyway it was just Clyde being vituperative to me as is his custom.
>Personalitywise, he's just an Arny with a Dynaco. Oh well...
>
>
>Cheers,
>
>Margaret
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


Bruce J. Richman

[Lionel]

Sander deWaal a écrit :
> Lionel > said:
>
>
>>>>Please don't make the same mistake again, Graham.
>
>
>
>>>Lame, very lame.
>
>
>>Lame ?
>>No, I would say terribly sorry.
>
>
>
> What should I have said then, Lionel?

At your place I would have say the same thing, Sander, sincerely.
You have answered, Scott Wheeler also. IMO the most important was to
dissociate yourself from this bull****. I hope I will be able to do the
same in every occasion.

Sons of bitch like Richman, Sackman... haven't had the courage to do the
same thing.

[Margaret von B.]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Margaret von B." > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
>>>
>
>>>> You're making it hard for others to stand up against particular
>>>> nasties swung your way, if you immidiately start your usual garbage
>>>> routine, eh ?
>
>>> Thanks for blaming me for Middius' behavior, Rudy.
>
>> Of course you are largely responsible for it.
>
> So nmuch for your flirtation with sanity, eh Maggie?
>
>> Not only do you
>> provoke it but you simply seem to thrive on it.
>
> If that's true why do people who want me to die feed me more of it?
>
>>It is hard to
>> understand to what end, since it often expands to cover your family
>> in a very explicit manner including their names and intimate details
>> of their life.
>
> If that's true, name my other three children, Maggie. Remember that my
> youngest son and wife had their names published on the web by third
> parties.
>
>> Especially so since you proudly broadcast how Middius and company are
>> just anonymous sockpuppets.
>
> This is illogical and untrue. I don't think that Middius and company are
> anonymous or sockpuppets. I think Middius and such sockpuppets that he
> travels with are animated by persons who are known to at least some people
> on this forum. Some of them are probably real persons. For example, I
> think that Jim Sanders was a real person who was posting under a
> reasonable facsimile of his given name. And, I don't doubt the reality of
> John Atkinson.
>
> Secondly,why should I be proud that *anybody* in particular is a
> sockpuppet? What does it profit me? It doesn't!
>
>>The sum of all these activities is that
>> the internet is full of inappropriate discussions, accusations and
>> references to: 1) you and your family -aka the real people- and 2) a
>> bunch of fictional, nameless sockpuppets who are figments of
>> someone's imagination.
>
> Both of theseave been deconstructed. Respond if you can.
>
>> Hardly seems like you are winning in any discernible way.
>
> And exactly what is anybody else winning? Are you covering yourself with
> glory with your ludicrous posts? Is Middius? I don't think so. One of you
> looks more stupid than the others. It's a traveling bozo show.
>
>> I'm not going to speculate why your family hasn't
>> put an end to it but let's just say that you should thank your God
>> that I'm not your wife.
>
> Given that you're probably not the gender you make a show of claiming
> Maggie, what could that mean? It can't mean anything!
>
>> I cannot help but wonder what you did during the Tigers' World Series
>> celebrations. Drive around town looking for large crowds in your car
>> covered with "Tigers are stupid n*ggers" stickers? :-)
>
> This is so funny its cruel. Lets start with the fact that I am very happy
> to be part of a biracial extended family... Actually, its triracial in a
> way...
>
>> I know that instead of a proper explanation, I will only get more
>> insults from you.
>
> You're getting far fewer insults than you deserve for being such a bigot,
> Maggie.
>
>>But think about it privately.
>
> What's to think about Maggie? That you're so poorly-informed that you
> might even believe some of this bilge? That you are so full of yourself
> that you think you fool anybody but yourself? You can lie all you want
> but the truth will out. You can think this is just a big joke and you're
> immune to the consequences of your behavior because you're posting behind
> a stupid alias. But, you are what you do and what you're doing here is
> crap.
>
>
>

IOW, you think God will exonerate you. The only difference between you and
the rest of us is that you have managed to bring in civilian casualties due
to your selfishness and lack of foresight. It remains to be seen to what
extent stupidity is a sin.

Cheers,

Margaret

[Bruce J. Richman]

Lionel lies again:


>Sander deWaal a écrit :
>> Lionel > said:
>>
>>
>>>>>Please don't make the same mistake again, Graham.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Lame, very lame.
>>
>>
>>>Lame ?
>>>No, I would say terribly sorry.
>>
>>
>>
>> What should I have said then, Lionel?
>
>At your place I would have say the same thing, Sander, sincerely.
>You have answered, Scott Wheeler also. IMO the most important was to
>dissociate yourself from this bull****. I hope I will be able to do the
>same in every occasion.
>
>Sons of bitch like Richman, Sackman... haven't had the courage to do the
>same thing.
>
>

Krueger's retarded lap dog and full-time idiotic French Poodle has lied again.
This retarded nincompoop and compulosive liar is so brain dead and dishonest
that he doesn't realize the following:

(1) After Nate's death, I was one of many people that conveyed my condolences
to Krueger and his family.

(2) Krueger knows full well that I'm not one of the RAO posters that has posted
nasty stuff about the death of his son. That's probably one of the reasons
that he doesn't include me in his list of people that have done so when he
comments on the subject.

Gutless liars like Lionel don't have the courage to refrain from using
anti-Semitism as part of their smear campaigns. They also don't have the moral
integrity required to refrain from lying about another person's occupational
activities, even though they know nothing about them.


Bruce J. Richman

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:


>> Are you familiar with the concept of "a sensitive tank"?

>Sure, I still vaguely remember sparring with a leading example of such a
>creature - Paul Bamborough. He obviously picked the term up from one of his
>therapists.


Good, good.
Now here's a tricky one: you are probably able to see that property in
others posting here, aren't you?
Can you name a few RAO regulars who you think would fit this
description?

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>>>>>>> Please don't make the same mistake again, Graham.

>>>>>> Lame, very lame.

>>>>> Lame ?
>>>>> No, I would say terribly sorry.

>>>>
>>>> What should I have said then, Lionel?

>>> Something that includes references to unreasoning hatred and
>>> sickening subhuman behavior seems appropriate.

>> To Graham, my words may have that effect.

>For what earthly reason?


Remember, I'm able to look past my monitor into people's minds.
I know you're very sceptical about such claims, but you'll have to
trust me on this one.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Sander deWaal]

Lionel > said:

>>>>>Please don't make the same mistake again, Graham.

>>>>Lame, very lame.

>>>Lame ?
>>>No, I would say terribly sorry.

>> What should I have said then, Lionel?

>At your place I would have say the same thing, Sander, sincerely.
>You have answered, Scott Wheeler also. IMO the most important was to
>dissociate yourself from this bull****. I hope I will be able to do the
>same in every occasion.


OK, then I misunderstood your comment, as did Arny.


>Sons of bitch like Richman, Sackman... haven't had the courage to do the
>same thing.


They're only responsible for their own posting, as am I.
I don't always react to postings I find abusive, I suspect others
don't as well.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Lionel]

Bruce J. Richman a écrit :

I am not lying since *this* time you haven't emit any disapproval.
I can easily image what you would have written if Krueger have written
10% of what Middius/Graham have written.

You are a coward son of bitch.

[Bruce J. Richman]

Lionel wrote:

>Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
>
>I am not lying since *this* time you haven't emit any disapproval.
>I can easily image what you would have written if Krueger have written
>10% of what Middius/Graham have written.
>
>You are a coward son of bitch.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

You're full of ****, as usual. You're an anti-Semitic, lying *******.

Bruce J. Richman

[Lionel]

Sander deWaal a écrit :
> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>
>
>>>>>>>>Please don't make the same mistake again, Graham.
>
>
>>>>>>>Lame, very lame.
>
>
>>>>>>Lame ?
>>>>>>No, I would say terribly sorry.
>
>
>>>>>What should I have said then, Lionel?
>
>
>>>>Something that includes references to unreasoning hatred and
>>>>sickening subhuman behavior seems appropriate.
>
>
>>>To Graham, my words may have that effect.
>
>
>>For what earthly reason?
>
>
>
> Remember, I'm able to look past my monitor into people's minds.
> I know you're very sceptical about such claims, but you'll have to
> trust me on this one.

And precisely it seems that you have been efficient.
Say it the way you feel. The worst thing is to not say.

[Bruce J. Richman]

Sander wrote:


>Lionel > said:
>
>>>>>>Please don't make the same mistake again, Graham.
>
>>>>>Lame, very lame.
>
>>>>Lame ?
>>>>No, I would say terribly sorry.
>
>>> What should I have said then, Lionel?
>
>>At your place I would have say the same thing, Sander, sincerely.
>>You have answered, Scott Wheeler also. IMO the most important was to
>>dissociate yourself from this bull****. I hope I will be able to do the
>>same in every occasion.
>
>
>OK, then I misunderstood your comment, as did Arny.
>
>
>>Sons of bitch like Richman, Sackman... haven't had the courage to do the
>>same thing.
>
>
>They're only responsible for their own posting, as am I.
>I don't always react to postings I find abusive, I suspect others
>don't as well.
>
>--
>Sander de Waal
>" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "
>
>


That's absolutely correct. I'ts quite revealing that the anti-Semitic
hatemonger calling himself Lionel thinks he can lie about seveal RAO posters
without his won lack of intelligence or morality being exposed.

Lying scumbags like Lionel whine a lot, but fail to condemn the delusional
rantings and ravings of people like Krueger and McKelvy. His blatant hypocrisy
is extremely obvious.



Bruce J. Richman

[Lionel]

Sander deWaal a écrit :
> Lionel > said:
>
>
>>>>>>Please don't make the same mistake again, Graham.
>
>
>
>>>>>Lame, very lame.
>
>
>
>>>>Lame ?
>>>>No, I would say terribly sorry.
>
>
>
>>>What should I have said then, Lionel?
>
>
>>At your place I would have say the same thing, Sander, sincerely.
>>You have answered, Scott Wheeler also. IMO the most important was to
>>dissociate yourself from this bull****. I hope I will be able to do the
>>same in every occasion.
>
>
>
> OK, then I misunderstood your comment, as did Arny.


I think that you have been "terribly sorry" to read this from a friend.
Anyway this is how I would have felt : terribly sorry.


>>Sons of bitch like Richman, Sackman... haven't had the courage to do the
>>same thing.
>
>
>
> They're only responsible for their own posting, as am I.
> I don't always react to postings I find abusive, I suspect others
> don't as well.

I suspect that they are ****ing hypocrites.

[Lionel]

Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
> Lionel lies again:


I am not lying since you haven't emit any disapproval.

I can easily imagine what you would have written if Krueger have told
max. 10% of Middius/Graham's garbage.

You are a *coward* son of bitch. :-(

[Lionel]

Bruce J. Richman a écrit :

> That's absolutely correct...

This is totally wrong you are a coward. Deal with it.

[Sander deWaal]

Lionel > said:

>> They're only responsible for their own posting, as am I.
>> I don't always react to postings I find abusive, I suspect others
>> don't as well.

>I suspect that they are ****ing hypocrites.


My wording was a bit more polite ;-)
In a sense, we're all hypocrites.
We condemn actions by our "'enemies", we don't say anything when it
comes from our "allies" .

Except that lately, I'm beginning to wonder who's the enemy and who's
the ally...........

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Bruce J. Richman]

Lionel wrote:


>Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
>> Lionel lies again:
>
>
>I am not lying since you haven't emit any disapproval.
>

Where's your disapproval of all the libelous garbage spewed by McKelvy and
Krueger about me, you lying hypocrite?


>I can easily imagine what you would have written if Krueger have told
>max. 10% of Middius/Graham's garbage.
>
>You are a *coward* son of bitch. :-(
>
>

You're just projecting your own despicable qualities on to others. :(

You're a lying, hypocritical phony who blames others while taking no
responsibility for your own hate-driven bull****.

Bruce J. Richman

[Bruce J. Richman]

Sander deWaal wrote:


>Lionel > said:
>
>>> They're only responsible for their own posting, as am I.
>>> I don't always react to postings I find abusive, I suspect others
>>> don't as well.
>
>>I suspect that they are ****ing hypocrites.
>
>
>My wording was a bit more polite ;-)
>In a sense, we're all hypocrites.
>We condemn actions by our "'enemies", we don't say anything when it
>comes from our "allies" .
>

Unjlike the lying, phony "holier-than-thou" Kruege-loving French Poodle called
Lie -o-nel, your description is pretty fair when it comes to RAO. For an idiot
like Lionel to complain about 2 people not condemning the flames of others is a
clear indication of his hypocrisy and stupidity. As you've said, people on RAO
have, for the most part, clearly chosen sides, and ignore the insults of their
"allies" ("friennds"), while often piling on and adding to insults directed at
their enemies. Lionel is not honest enough to admit that basic fact.





>Except that lately, I'm beginning to wonder who's the enemy and who's
>the ally...........
>
>--
>Sander de Waal
>" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "
>
>
>
>
>
>


Bruce J. Richman

[Lionel]

In >, Bruce J. Richman wrote :

> Lionel wrote:
>
>
>>Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
>>> Lionel lies again:
>>
>>
>>I am not lying since you haven't emit any disapproval.
>>
>
> Where's your disapproval of all the libelous garbage spewed by McKelvy
> and Krueger about me,

All they have written is true and doesn't need any disapproval, idiot.

McKelvy has naively difficulties to accept that a psychologist can be as
****ed minded as you are.

OTOH if this is an insult to you this is also a compliment for the rest of
your corporation. ;-)
(I mean the ones who aren't hypocrite sons of bitch like you).

[Lionel]

In >, Sander deWaal wrote :

> Except that lately, I'm beginning to wonder who's the enemy and who's
> the ally...........

Sincerely *I* don't care since I haven't any enemies.

I just know that, IMHO, when Krueger write "pedophile" to Scott Wheeler it
is not more insulting than when Richman make an on-line diagnostic of a
guy. Moreover when this ****ing hypocrite pretends that he is just
expriming a personal POV... and doesn't forget to sign "Licenced
psychologist".

IMHO as stupidly nasty that it could be, Devil's yesterday garbage is
finally far less toxic than Richman daily hypocrite hatred.

[John Atkinson]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> oups.com
> > I'm sure you're being humorous Mr. Krueger, but I thought I
> > should take the opportunity to repeat what I posted in December,
> > that my invitation was to you personally, not to Tom Nousaine or
> > to anyone else who might wish to substitute for you.
>
> Understood. I'm not sure that anybody of merit here would want to
> substitute for me, given how futile of an effort it will no doubt be.
> They've sorta signed the nutcase audiophile market over to me. ;-)

Okay.

> So Atkinson, are you bringing me into to town to serve me or what?

No, please be assured that my invitation to is to debate me in person,
something that you have wished for and I have felt necessary. But I
do hope that while you are NY, you manage take a listen to some of the
systems being demonstrated.

And while I am posting, I'd like to condemn those who continue to
mock a tragic event in your personal life, no matter how justified
they feel in doing so.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Bruce J. Richman]

Lionel wrote:


>In >, Bruce J. Richman wrote :
>
>> Lionel wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
>>>> Lionel lies again:
>>>
>>>
>>>I am not lying since you haven't emit any disapproval.
>>>
>>
>> Where's your disapproval of all the libelous garbage spewed by McKelvy
>> and Krueger about me,
>
>All they have written is true and doesn't need any disapproval, idiot.
>

All they have written is a b unch of lies and libels, you retarded imbecile.
If you believe that what they ahve written is true, then you are clearly
delusional and out of touch with reality, you lying sack of ****.


>McKelvy has naively difficulties to accept that a psychologist can be as
>****ed minded as you are.
>

McKelvy is a retarded, lying scumbag just like you. People with your beloiefs
are few and far between - and are clearly deranged. Your lack of contact with
reality becomes exhibited with every line you write about me.





>OTOH if this is an insult to you this is also a compliment for the rest of
>your corporation. ;-)
>(I mean the ones who aren't hypocrite sons of bitch like you).
>
>
>

Nothing you say, since it is meaniingless and the delusional ravings of a fool,
is insulting to anybody but yourself.
Your idiocy is just confirmed with every new line you write.

Bruce J. Richman

[Bruce J. Richman]

Lionel continues his demented ranting and raving, full of sound and fury,
signifying nothing:

>In >, Sander deWaal wrote :
>
>> Except that lately, I'm beginning to wonder who's the enemy and who's
>> the ally...........
>
>Sincerely *I* don't care since I haven't any enemies.
>

Those without enemies don't engage in the kind of anti-Semitic, delusional
garbage emission that Lionel uses to pollute RAO on a daily basis. This
chronic liar and hypocrite never fails to smear one or more of Krueger &
McKelvy's targets, since he shares their agenda for flame throwing and
aggression.


>I just know that, IMHO, when Krueger write "pedophile" to Scott Wheeler it
>is not more insulting than when Richman make an on-line diagnostic of a
>guy.

Lying assholees like Lionel think it's OK for them to use words like "senile"
and "senescent", but it's not ok for somebody else to label them as delusional
since they don't know what tthey are talking about. This asshole would llike
to be able to smear others with his obnoxious pseudoscientific babble, but
actually expects somebody who knows what terms like "senile" and "delusional"
mean to refrain from using them when he clearly demonstrates his lack of
contact with reality.

This cretin is also full of **** when he makes the McKelvy-parrot-lkie false
claim that I've diagnosed anybody on RAO. This fool overlooks the fact that
diagnoses can't be given without a face-to-face evaluation, and therefore none
has been made. However, it requires no diagnosis to label this lying
hypocrites use of the words "senile" and "delusinoal" as totally worthless
since he has no evidence to support them.


Moreover when this ****ing hypocrite pretends that he is just
>expriming a personal POV... and doesn't forget to sign "Licenced
>psychologist".
>


I sign Licensed Psychologist on occasion to expose the false claims and
libelous statrements of assholes and hypocrites like McKelvy and Lionel that
have promoted lies about me and others on RAO since they started posted there.
This worthless French piece of **** is just demonstrating hi increased
agitation as more and more people realize how morally bankrupt and ffull of
**** he really is.



>IMHO as stupidly nasty that it could be, Devil's yesterday garbage is
>finally far less toxic than Richman daily hypocrite hatred.
>
>


Lie-o-nel's lack of contact with reality is once again on display for all to
see and despise.




Bruce J. Richman

[Sander deWaal]

George M. Middius > said:

>> Except that lately, I'm beginning to wonder who's the enemy and who's
>> the ally...........


Of course this was a rhetorical question.


>I'd say identifying "the enemy" is pretty simple. Krooger and his
>apologists are the enemy. Sorting out who's an ally might be more
>difficult because first you have to articulate where the battle is drawn.
>Since Krooger is on the wrong side of every issue, he's obviously always
>the enemy.
>
>Got that? ;-)


I think Arny is his own worst enemy.
Fighting yourself is a battle where there are no winners....

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Lionel]

In >, Bruce J. Richman wrote :


> Nothing you say, since it is meaniingless and the delusional ravings of a
> fool, is insulting to anybody but yourself.

LOL, are you sure that you can push the paradox so far ?

> Your idiocy is just confirmed with every new line you write.

You are right, see above. :-D

[Sander deWaal]

Lionel > said:

>> Except that lately, I'm beginning to wonder who's the enemy and who's
>> the ally...........

>Sincerely *I* don't care since I haven't any enemies.


It wasn't meant to be taken literally.

I'm sure that the dualistic thinking is purely artificial, but it is
also a human property.

Think back when the cold war was on: it was clear who were the "good"
and the "bad" guys .
After the wall fell, things became blurred.


>I just know that, IMHO, when Krueger write "pedophile" to Scott Wheeler it
>is not more insulting than when Richman make an on-line diagnostic of a
>guy. Moreover when this ****ing hypocrite pretends that he is just
>expriming a personal POV... and doesn't forget to sign "Licenced
>psychologist".

>IMHO as stupidly nasty that it could be, Devil's yesterday garbage is
>finally far less toxic than Richman daily hypocrite hatred.


To (mis)quote Obélix: "Funny guys, those audiophiles! " ;-)

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Bruce J. Richman]

Sander deWaal wrote:


>George M. Middius > said:
>
>>> Except that lately, I'm beginning to wonder who's the enemy and who's
>>> the ally...........
>
>
>Of course this was a rhetorical question.
>
>
>>I'd say identifying "the enemy" is pretty simple. Krooger and his
>>apologists are the enemy. Sorting out who's an ally might be more
>>difficult because first you have to articulate where the battle is drawn.
>>Since Krooger is on the wrong side of every issue, he's obviously always
>>the enemy.
>>
>>Got that? ;-)
>
>
>I think Arny is his own worst enemy.
>Fighting yourself is a battle where there are no winners....
>
>--
>Sander de Waal
>" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "
>
>
>

McKelvy and Lionel, who basically imitate in parrot-like fashion, almost
everything Krueger says when it comes to personal attacks, fall into the same
category. They isupport and encourage his chronic lying and smears of others
almost all the time.


Bruce J. Richman

[Lionel]

In >, Bruce J. Richman wrote :

> Lionel continues his demented ranting and raving, full of sound and fury,
> signifying nothing:
>
>>In >, Sander deWaal wrote :
>>
>>> Except that lately, I'm beginning to wonder who's the enemy and who's
>>> the ally...........
>>
>>Sincerely *I* don't care since I haven't any enemies.
>>
>
> Those without enemies don't engage in the kind of anti-Semitic, delusional
> garbage emission that Lionel uses to pollute RAO on a daily basis. This
> chronic liar and hypocrite never fails to smear one or more of Krueger &
> McKelvy's targets, since he shares their agenda for flame throwing and
> aggression.

You aren't an enemy Bruce.
Per definition an enemy should be a human being and you are a human dying...
Can you understand the difference ?

Let's say that discussing with you I have the feeling to study
thanatology... ;-)

This also allows me to save my soul gently providing you your last
distractions.

[Powell]

"John Atkinson" wrote

> > They've sorta signed the nutcase audiophile market
> > over to me. ;-)
>
> Okay.
>
> > So Atkinson, are you bringing me into to town to serve
> > me or what?
>
> No, please be assured that my invitation to is to debate
> me in person, something that you have wished for and
> I have felt necessary.
>
"I have felt necessary"... continued hidden agenda noted.

[Bruce J. Richman]

Lionel babbled:


>In >, Bruce J. Richman wrote :
>
>> Lionel continues his demented ranting and raving, full of sound and fury,
>> signifying nothing:
>>
>>>In >, Sander deWaal wrote :
>>>
>>>> Except that lately, I'm beginning to wonder who's the enemy and who's
>>>> the ally...........
>>>
>>>Sincerely *I* don't care since I haven't any enemies.
>>>
>>
>> Those without enemies don't engage in the kind of anti-Semitic, delusional
>> garbage emission that Lionel uses to pollute RAO on a daily basis. This
>> chronic liar and hypocrite never fails to smear one or more of Krueger &
>> McKelvy's targets, since he shares their agenda for flame throwing and
>> aggression.
>
>You aren't an enemy Bruce.
>Per definition an enemy should be a human being and you are a human dying...

More delusional false claims. You're subhuman, and therefore,are not qualified
to evaluate higher species.



>Can you understand the difference ?

Can you nderstand anything at all? Never mind, the answer is obvious.



>
>Let's say that discussing with you I have the feeling to study
>thanatology... ;-)

Your comments are part of the database encompassed in the field of scatology.
More precisely, hypocritical scatology.





This also allows me to save my soul gently providing you your last
>distractions.
>


Your delusional wishes will never be fulfilled, since you have no conscience,
no morals, and certainly no acquaintance withi the truth.



Bruce J. Richman

[Lionel]

In >, Bruce J. Richman wrote :


>>You aren't an enemy Bruce.
>>Per definition an enemy should be a human being and you are a human
>>dying...
>
> More delusional false claims. You're subhuman, and therefore,are not
> qualified to evaluate higher species.


More than 7 years now ?...
I am ready to bet that you have more RAO time behind than in front of you
Doc.
Let's say that you are throwing your last forces in the scuffle. It's nice
but pathetic...


>>Can you understand the difference ?
>
> Can you nderstand anything at all? Never mind, the answer is obvious.
>
>
>
>>
>>Let's say that discussing with you I have the feeling to study
>>thanatology... ;-)
>
> Your comments are part of the database encompassed in the field of
> scatology. More precisely, hypocritical scatology.


This is because I am mostly discussing with you... :-)

No I'm joking. Do you want I take your pulse ? Your tension ?


> This also allows me to save my soul gently providing you your last
>>distractions.
>>
>
>
> Your delusional wishes will never be fulfilled, since you have no
> conscience, no morals, and certainly no acquaintance withi the truth.


LOL, So I'll see you in the hell, Doc.

[Bruce J. Richman]

Lionel wrote:


>n >, Bruce J. Richman wrote :
>
>
>>>You aren't an enemy Bruce.
>>>Per definition an enemy should be a human being and you are a human
>>>dying...
>>
>> More delusional false claims. You're subhuman, and therefore,are not
>> qualified to evaluate higher species.
>
>
>More than 7 years now ?...

True of McKelvy and Krueger, but not me.


>I am ready to bet that you have more RAO time behind than in front of you
>Doc.

Fortune tellers and mind readers don't have much credibility, however. Which
do you pretend to be? Do you have crystal balls? (with which to predict the
future)


>Let's say that you are throwing your last forces in the scuffle. It's nice
>but pathetic...
>
>

Your daily defecations on RAO represent the pathetic and quite futile
delusions of a losing liar.





>>>Can you understand the difference ?
>>
>> Can you nderstand anything at all? Never mind, the answer is obvious.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Let's say that discussing with you I have the feeling to study
>>>thanatology... ;-)
>>
>> Your comments are part of the database encompassed in the field of
>> scatology. More precisely, hypocritical scatology.
>
>
>This is because I am mostly discussing with you... :-)
>
>

I thought it was because you're engaged in examining your life and its lack of
positive accomplishments.


No I'm joking. Do you want I take your pulse ? Your tension ?
>

I understand you use your head on yourself to take your rectal temperature.

Is that one of the newer trends in French medicine? Or are you just trying to
make a namd for yourself in the...... "anals" of scatology?

But I understand, Lionel. Is it not because you got so upset at the results of
your last physical examination - by a French veterinarian - that you decided to
engage in some self-examination. Congratulations on using your head in such a
noble enterprise.



>
>> This also allows me to save my soul gently providing you your last
>>>distractions.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Your delusional wishes will never be fulfilled, since you have no
>> conscience, no morals, and certainly no acquaintance withi the truth.
>
>
>LOL, So I'll see you in the hell, Doc.
>

You're already there. You just don't realize it.

LOL !!


Bruce J. Richman

[Lionel]

In >, Bruce J. Richman wrote :


> Do you have crystal balls? (with which to predict the future)

Crystal ? I don't know but mines still have a futur since yours... :-D

>>>>Let's say that discussing with you I have the feeling to study
>>>>thanatology... ;-)
>>>
>>> Your comments are part of the database encompassed in the field of
>>> scatology. More precisely, hypocritical scatology.
>>
>>
>>This is because I am mostly discussing with you... :-)
>>
>>
>
> I thought it was because you're engaged in examining your life and its
> lack of positive accomplishments.


Lame.


> No I'm joking. Do you want I take your pulse ? Your tension ?
>>
>
> I understand you use your head on yourself to take your rectal
> temperature.
>
> Is that one of the newer trends in French medicine? Or are you just
> trying to make a namd for yourself in the...... "anals" of scatology?


Feeble

>
> But I understand, Lionel. Is it not because you got so upset at the
> results of your last physical examination - by a French veterinarian -
> that you decided to
> engage in some self-examination. Congratulations on using your head in
> such a noble enterprise.
>
>
>
>>
>>> This also allows me to save my soul gently providing you your last
>>>>distractions.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Your delusional wishes will never be fulfilled, since you have no
>>> conscience, no morals, and certainly no acquaintance withi the truth.
>>
>>
>>LOL, So I'll see you in the hell, Doc.
>>
>
> You're already there. You just don't realize it.

No hell ? If this is the privilege of the idiots I'm sincerely happy to be
one of them.
Jesus said "heureux les simples d'esprit le royaume des cieux leur
appartient". :-)

[Bruce J. Richman]

Lionel wrote:


> In >, Bruce J. Richman
wrote :
>
>
> > Do you have crystal balls? (with which to predict the future)
>
> Crystal ? I don't know but mines still have a futur since yours...
:-D
>

Agreed. You don't know much of anything.


> >>>>Let's say that discussing with you I have the feeling to study
> >>>>thanatology... ;-)
> >>>
> >>> Your comments are part of the database encompassed in the field
of
> >>> scatology. More precisely, hypocritical scatology.
> >>
> >>
> >>This is because I am mostly discussing with you... :-)
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I thought it was because you're engaged in examining your life and
its
> > lack of positive accomplishments.
>
>
> Lame.
>
>

Yes, your juvenile name-calling and dtupid comments are generally quite
lame.


> > No I'm joking. Do you want I take your pulse ? Your tension ?
> >>
> >
> > I understand you use your head on yourself to take your rectal
> > temperature.
> >
> > Is that one of the newer trends in French medicine? Or are you
just
> > trying to make a namd for yourself in the...... "anals" of
scatology?
>
>
> Feeble
>

I think you meant to say that the results of your last examination
demonstrated that you are feeble-minded. Continue your confessions on
RAO, and perhaps you'll be forgiven for your sins. (Or perhaps not).



> >
> > But I understand, Lionel. Is it not because you got so upset at
the
> > results of your last physical examination - by a French
veterinarian -
> > that you decided to
> > engage in some self-examination. Congratulations on using your
head in
> > such a noble enterprise.
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>> This also allows me to save my soul gently providing you your
last
> >>>>distractions.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Your delusional wishes will never be fulfilled, since you have no
> >>> conscience, no morals, and certainly no acquaintance withi the
truth.
> >>
> >>
> >>LOL, So I'll see you in the hell, Doc.
> >>
> >
> > You're already there. You just don't realize it.
>
> No hell ? If this is the privilege of the idiots I'm sincerely happy
to be
> one of them.
> Jesus said "heureux les simples d'esprit le royaume des cieux leur
> appartient". :-)

So you think that Jesus spoke French? Any other new discoveries to
share with us, idiot?

LOL !!!

[Lionel]

In . com>, Bruce J. Richman
wrote :

>> No hell ? If this is the privilege of the idiots I'm sincerely happy
> to be
>> one of them.
>> Jesus said "heureux les simples d'esprit le royaume des cieux leur
>> appartient". :-)
>
> So you think that Jesus spoke French? Any other new discoveries to
> share with us, idiot?

You seem to have serious lacks in theology, Old Debris.
Quick you don't have so many time now.

> LOL !!!


Agreed, LOL !!!

[John Atkinson]

Powell wrote:
> "John Atkinson" wrote
> > please be assured that my invitation to is to debate
> > me in person, something that you have wished for and
> > I have felt necessary.
>
> "I have felt necessary"...continued hidden agenda noted.

Not hidden. My agenda was in plain sight in the following
sentence, which you snipped from your posting: "I do hope
that while you are NY, you manage take a listen to some of
the systems being demonstrated." If, after having listened
to the best that high-end audio has to offer, both in the
way of digital and analog playback, Mr. Krueger still
feels that the whole business is a fraud, well at least
that opinion will be based on exposure to it.

I encourage exhibitors to invite Mr. Krueger to take a
listen to their system. But please note that I am not
making this a condition of the debate. If Mr. Krueger
chooses not to take advantage of his trip to New York,
that's okay too.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Bruce J. Richman]

Lionel wrote:


>In . com>, Bruce J. Richman
>wrote :
>
>>> No hell ? If this is the privilege of the idiots I'm sincerely happy
>> to be
>>> one of them.
>>> Jesus said "heureux les simples d'esprit le royaume des cieux leur
>>> appartient". :-)
>>
>> So you think that Jesus spoke French? Any other new discoveries to
>> share with us, idiot?
>
>You seem to have serious lacks in theology

Only in your delusional and stupid mind, Delusional French Poodle. Your
attempts to reinvent biblical history are a joke, just like your idiotic
babble.


(Lionel's barnyard clucking and cackling deleted, since barnyard sounds belong
on the farm, not on RAO).




Bruce J. Richman

[Arny Krueger]

"Margaret von B." > wrote in message


> IOW, you think God will exonerate you.

Bad theology noted.

>The only difference between
> you and the rest of us is that you have managed to bring in civilian
> casualties due to your selfishness and lack of foresight.

RAO has an unforeseeably high proportion of extremely hateful people.

> It remains to be seen to what extent stupidity is a sin.

They'll find out, and it probably won't be pleasant.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>
>
>>> Are you familiar with the concept of "a sensitive tank"?

>> Sure, I still vaguely remember sparring with a leading example of
>> such a creature - Paul Bamborough. He obviously picked the term up
>> from one of his therapists.

> Good, good.

> Now here's a tricky one: you are probably able to see that property in
> others posting here, aren't you?

It's not a tricky question at all. It's nearly completely transparent.

> Can you name a few RAO regulars who you think would fit this
> description?

Sorry Sander, I'm not going to fall into Richman's trap of playing
psychotherapist.

Hypersensitivity isn't the problem here. The core problem is the desire to
ruin the conference for everybody because a few people with divergent
beliefs and opinions are here. There is a difference between
hypersensitivity and complete intolerance compounded a near-total lack of
moral scruples. I don't have to mention names because the names are pretty
obvious.

One way of describing the problem hwere is lack of a sense of community. A
number of the main contributors here could never be productive members of
any community because they don't know how to cooperate or make compromises.
They are also willing to do a variety of reprehensible things with the
stated goal of getting their way, even though they haven't been able to get
their way for by doing things like these for 6 or more years. In short, they
have shown themselves to be incapable of learning from their experiences.

At some point the insanity and stupidity overwhelms things, and you end up
with a RAO. I recently found another forum that is about 25% as screwed-up
as RAO. Similar situation. Fortunately its rare.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message


> Remember, I'm able to look past my monitor into people's minds.

I see no evidence of any special skills along those lines on your part.

> I know you're very sceptical about such claims, but you'll have to
> trust me on this one.

I'll just watch and wait for you to prove your claims, or not.

[Arny Krueger]

"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message

> Lionel wrote:
>
>> Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
>>
>> I am not lying since *this* time you haven't emit any disapproval.
>> I can easily image what you would have written if Krueger have
>> written 10% of what Middius/Graham have written.
>>
>> You are a coward son of bitch.

> You're full of ****, as usual. You're an anti-Semitic, lying *******.

Say what you want about Lionel, butBrucie he's at least 100% right about
what you would have written about McKelvy, Tor, or I had we written what
Middius and Roy wrote. Bottom line Brucie baby is that you have no claim on
any moral high, middle or low ground around here - you've proven yourself to
be completely without any moral grounding.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

>
> We condemn actions by our "'enemies", we don't say anything when it
> comes from our "allies" .

Just because you're pretty much describing yourself Sander doesn't mean that
you're describing everybody.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message


> I think Arny is his own worst enemy.

Not at all. Usenet is small segement of my life and RAO is only a tiny
fraction of the Usenet segment of my life.

> Fighting yourself is a battle where there are no winners....

On those grounds Roy and George are winners because they are obviously not
fighting their own vile impulses to any useful degree. Their purported
causes are shams. They obviously like having any excuse to act out their
antisocial impulses.

[Arny Krueger]

"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message


> Your delusional wishes will never be fulfilled, since you have no
> conscience, no morals, and certainly no acquaintance withi the truth.

If irony killed!

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
ups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
>> oups.com
>>> I'm sure you're being humorous Mr. Krueger, but I thought I
>>> should take the opportunity to repeat what I posted in December,
>>> that my invitation was to you personally, not to Tom Nousaine or
>>> to anyone else who might wish to substitute for you.
>>
>> Understood. I'm not sure that anybody of merit here would want to
>> substitute for me, given how futile of an effort it will no doubt be.
>> They've sorta signed the nutcase audiophile market over to me. ;-)
>
> Okay.
>
>> So Atkinson, are you bringing me into to town to serve me or what?
>
> No, please be assured that my invitation to is to debate me in person,
> something that you have wished for and I have felt necessary. But I
> do hope that while you are NY, you manage take a listen to some of the
> systems being demonstrated.
>
> And while I am posting, I'd like to condemn those who continue to
> mock a tragic event in your personal life, no matter how justified
> they feel in doing so.

Thank you.

[Arny Krueger]

"Margaret von B." > wrote in message


> Personalitywise, he's just an Arny with a Dynaco. Oh well...

Maggie, I have to admit that you are entirely different from any person I
know in real life. Ditto for Middius and Roy.

[Bruce J. Richman]

Arny Krueger lied:


>Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message

>> Lionel wrote:
>>
>>> Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
>>>
>>> I am not lying since *this* time you haven't emit any disapproval.
>>> I can easily image what you would have written if Krueger have
>>> written 10% of what Middius/Graham have written.
>>>
>>> You are a coward son of bitch.
>
>> You're full of ****, as usual. You're an anti-Semitic, lying *******.
>
>Say what you want about Lionel, butBrucie he's at least 100% right about
>what you would have written about McKelvy, Tor, or I had we written what
>Middius and Roy wrote. Bottom line Brucie baby is that you have no claim on
>any moral high, middle or low ground around here - you've proven yourself to
>be completely without any moral grounding.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Coming from a compulsive liar like you, Krugie, the above statements have zero
credibility. You've proven yourself totally incapable of ever condemning the
reprehenswible false claims and libelous statements made about me by McKelvy,
Tor, Lionel or yourself. You have no moral values whatsoever, and that's been
proven by your reprehensible and total willingness to ignore character
assassination and smears directed at your many RAO targets. That's why you
have the unique distinction of having smeared and lied about more individual
posters than any other RAO poster, Krugie, baby. Your reputation as RAO's most
widely despised and hated poster is unchallenged.

Bruce J. Richman

[Bruce J. Richman]

Arny Krueger wrote:


>Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

>> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>>
>>
>>>> Are you familiar with the concept of "a sensitive tank"?
>
>>> Sure, I still vaguely remember sparring with a leading example of
>>> such a creature - Paul Bamborough. He obviously picked the term up
>>> from one of his therapists.
>
>> Good, good.
>
>> Now here's a tricky one: you are probably able to see that property in
>> others posting here, aren't you?
>
>It's not a tricky question at all. It's nearly completely transparent.
>
>> Can you name a few RAO regulars who you think would fit this
>> description?
>
>Sorry Sander, I'm not going to fall into Richman's trap of playing
>psychotherapist.
>

Krueger is once again trying to spread his delusional false claims on RAO.
Apparently Krueger thinks that his false evaluations of all his targets as
being "delusional" is valid. His robotic response of various flaws "noted" at
the end of their statements is obviously bogus, given his obvious lack of
ability to even evaluate his own behavior, let alone that of anybody else.


>Hypersensitivity isn't the problem here. The core problem is the desire to
>ruin the conference for everybody because a few people with divergent
>beliefs and opinions are here. There is a difference between
>hypersensitivity and complete intolerance compounded a near-total lack of
>moral scruples. I don't have to mention names because the names are pretty
>obvious.
>
>One way of describing the problem hwere is lack of a sense of community. A
>number of the main contributors here could never be productive members of
>any community because they don't know how to cooperate or make compromises.
>They are also willing to do a variety of reprehensible things with the
>stated goal of getting their way, even though they haven't been able to get
>their way for by doing things like these for 6 or more years. In short, they
>have shown themselves to be incapable of learning from their experiences.
>
>At some point the insanity and stupidity overwhelms things, and you end up
>with a RAO. I recently found another forum that is about 25% as screwed-up
>as RAO. Similar situation. Fortunately its rare.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


Bruce J. Richman

[Margaret von B.]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Margaret von B." > wrote in message
>
>
>> Personalitywise, he's just an Arny with a Dynaco. Oh well...
>
> Maggie, I have to admit that you are entirely different from any person I
> know in real life. Ditto for Middius and Roy.

Sure. I just don't believe you know anyone in *real* life. :-)

Cheers,

Margaret

[Margaret von B.]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Margaret von B." > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Margaret von B." > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I might just make the trip from my new outpost above the Arctic Circle.
>>>> Even in the likely case of noshow by your esteemed guest, I want to
>>>> witness it with my own eyes.
>>>>
>>>> LET'S GET READY TO RRRUUUUUMMMMMBBBLLLEEEEEE!
>>>>
>>>> Margaret
>>>>
>>>
>>> just in case some of us want to meet you, what color dress will you be
>>> wearing?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> What would you like me to wear?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Margaret
>>
>
> Obviously. something that enhances your already overly embellished bust.
>
> These hometown gisls

I don't even want to know what "gisl" stands for <shiver> :-)

Cheers,

Margaret

[Margaret von B.]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Margaret von B." > wrote in message
>
>
>> IOW, you think God will exonerate you.
>
> Bad theology noted.
>
>>The only difference between
>> you and the rest of us is that you have managed to bring in civilian
>> casualties due to your selfishness and lack of foresight.
>
> RAO has an unforeseeably high proportion of extremely hateful people.
>
>> It remains to be seen to what extent stupidity is a sin.
>
> They'll find out, and it probably won't be pleasant.
>
>

I don't know where you'll end up but I know that Jimmy Swaggart will be your
eternal roommate. :-)

Cheers,

Margaret

[Margaret von B.]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> ups.com

>>
>> And while I am posting, I'd like to condemn those who continue to
>> mock a tragic event in your personal life, no matter how justified
>> they feel in doing so.
>
> Thank you.

"Arbeit macht frei" - Rudolf Höss

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Margaret von B." > wrote in message
>
>> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>>
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> Is [Tom Nousaine] helping you invent an excuse that you can use to
>>>>> get out of the event?
>>>>
>>>> Yup, we've been working on it with the rest of the SMWTMS and
>>>> Detroit-area AES people, day and night! ;-)
>>>
>>> I'm sure you're being humorous Mr. Krueger, but I thought I
>>> should take the opportunity to repeat what I posted in December, that
>>> my invitation was to you personally, not to Tom Nousaine or to anyone
>>> else who might wish to substitute for you.
>>> John Atkinson
>>> Editor, Stereophile
>>>
>>
>> Sounds like someone has been making some serious inquiries of Arny
>> and his character...his rather well-known shortcomings included. Good
>> for you. Everything's fair in love and WAR.
>
> It's interesting how dogs always seem to return to their vomit.

It's interesting to see how dogs always seem to **** in the same place.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>>
>>>>>> Please don't make the same mistake again, Graham.
>>
>>>>> Lame, very lame.
>>
>>>> You know my POV about things like this, Arny.
>>>> Would it be better if I had kept my mouth shut, so that "someone"
>>>> could claim that by my silence, I agree with his sentiments?
>>
>>> Letsee.
>>
>>> (1) Sander keeps his mouth shut.
>>> (2) Sander says something unbelievably lame.
>>
>>> How can I choose? ;-)
>>
>>
>> You don't have to, I have already.
>>
>> Are both choices considered hostile towards you, Arnold?
>
> Absolutely.

Great! Arny has just got to the nut of his personality defect.
A classic!
One cannot be on 'his side' , or even neutral, unless one stoops
to his level of vileness against his opponents.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>>
>>>>>> Please don't make the same mistake again, Graham.
>>
>>>>> Lame, very lame.
>>
>>>> You know my POV about things like this, Arny.
>>>> Would it be better if I had kept my mouth shut, so that "someone"
>>>> could claim that by my silence, I agree with his sentiments?
>>
>>> Letsee.
>>
>>> (1) Sander keeps his mouth shut.
>>> (2) Sander says something unbelievably lame.
>>
>>> How can I choose? ;-)
>>
>>
>> You don't have to, I have already.
>>
>> Are both choices considered hostile towards you, Arnold?
>
> Absolutely.

Great! Arny has just got to the nut of his personality defect.
A classic!
One cannot be on 'his side' , or even neutral, unless one stoops
to his level of vileness against his opponents.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Tom" > wrote in message
>
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote
>
>>> They've sorta signed the nutcase audiophile market over to me. ;-)
>
>> perfect.
>
> Also, a correct statement.
>
>
>>> So Atkinson, are you bringing me into to town to serve me or what?
>
>> The first step. I smell an excuse to excuse coming.
>
> Since when is not a good idea to get commitment for safe conduct, at least
> in terms of no aggression from the host or his minions?


Are you afraid of being served a subpeona or are
you afraid of being served your head on a platter?



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Tom" > wrote in message
>
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote
>
>>> They've sorta signed the nutcase audiophile market over to me. ;-)
>
>> perfect.
>
> Also, a correct statement.
>
>
>>> So Atkinson, are you bringing me into to town to serve me or what?
>
>> The first step. I smell an excuse to excuse coming.
>
> Since when is not a good idea to get commitment for safe conduct, at least
> in terms of no aggression from the host or his minions?


Are you afraid of being served a subpeona or are
you afraid of being served your head on a platter?



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>> You're making it hard for others to stand up against particular
>>>> nasties swung your way, if you immidiately start your usual garbage
>>>> routine, eh ?
>>>
>>> Thanks for blaming me for Middius' behavior, Rudy.
>>>
>> I was referring to a few posts above, vs. Scott, Arny:
>>
>> "Self-imposed ignornace is obviously a source of comfort to you"
>> "<is this guy in love with Middius, or what?>"
>>
>> that is YOUR behaviour, Arny !!
>
> It is true that I try to show love for my fellow man. With a lot of
> stretching I can recognize Middius as being close enough to human to have
> this rule applicable to him.

If hypocricy ripped your eyes out of your head and hung them
over you, so you could see how despicable you are.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...

>
> At your place I would have say the same thing, Sander, sincerely.
> You have answered, Scott Wheeler also. IMO the most important was to
> dissociate yourself from this bull****. I hope I will be able to do the
> same in every occasion.
>
> Sons of bitch like Richman, Sackman... haven't had the courage to do the
> same thing.

normally I would, but we're talking Arny here.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[[email protected]]

In article >,
(Bruce J. Richman) writes:
> Arny Krueger lied:
>
>
>>Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message

>>> Lionel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> I am not lying since *this* time you haven't emit any disapproval.
>>>> I can easily image what you would have written if Krueger have
>>>> written 10% of what Middius/Graham have written.
>>>>
>>>> You are a coward son of bitch.
>>
>>> You're full of ****, as usual. You're an anti-Semitic, lying *******.
>>
>>Say what you want about Lionel, butBrucie he's at least 100% right about
>>what you would have written about McKelvy, Tor, or I had we written what
>>Middius and Roy wrote. Bottom line Brucie baby is that you have no claim on
>>any moral high, middle or low ground around here - you've proven yourself to
>>be completely without any moral grounding.
>
> Coming from a compulsive liar like you, Krugie, the above statements have zero
> credibility. You've proven yourself totally incapable of ever condemning the
> reprehenswible false claims and libelous statements made about me by McKelvy,
> Tor, Lionel or yourself. You have no moral values whatsoever, and that's been
> proven by your reprehensible and total willingness to ignore character
> assassination and smears directed at your many RAO targets. That's why you
> have the unique distinction of having smeared and lied about more individual
> posters than any other RAO poster, Krugie, baby. Your reputation as RAO's most
> widely despised and hated poster is unchallenged.
>
> Bruce J. Richman

Coming from a compulsive liar like you, Brucie, the above statements
have zero credibility. You've proven yourself totally incapable of
ever condemning the reprehenswible false claims and libelous
statements made about people by Middius, Clyde, Tom or yourself. You
have no moral values whatsoever, and that's been proven by your
reprehensible and total willingness to ignore character assassination
and smears directed at your many RAO targets. That's why you have the
unique distinction of having smeared and lied about more individual
posters than any other RAO poster, Brucie, baby. Your reputation as
RAO's most widely despised, hypocritical, and hated poster is
unchallenged.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> In article >,
> (Bruce J. Richman) writes:
> > Arny Krueger lied:
> >
> >
> >>Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
>
> >>> Lionel wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Bruce J. Richman a =E9crit :
> >>>>
> >>>> I am not lying since *this* time you haven't emit any
disapproval.
> >>>> I can easily image what you would have written if Krueger have
> >>>> written 10% of what Middius/Graham have written.
> >>>>
> >>>> You are a coward son of bitch.
> >>
> >>> You're full of ****, as usual. You're an anti-Semitic, lying
*******.
> >>
> >>Say what you want about Lionel, butBrucie he's at least 100% right
about
> >>what you would have written about McKelvy, Tor, or I had we written
what
> >>Middius and Roy wrote. Bottom line Brucie baby is that you have no
claim on
> >>any moral high, middle or low ground around here - you've proven
yourself to
> >>be completely without any moral grounding.
> >
> > Coming from a compulsive liar like you, Krugie, the above
statements have zero
> > credibility. You've proven yourself totally incapable of ever
condemning the
> > reprehenswible false claims and libelous statements made about me
by McKelvy,
> > Tor, Lionel or yourself. You have no moral values whatsoever, and
that's been
> > proven by your reprehensible and total willingness to ignore
character
> > assassination and smears directed at your many RAO targets. That's
why you
> > have the unique distinction of having smeared and lied about more
individual
> > posters than any other RAO poster, Krugie, baby. Your reputation
as RAO's most
> > widely despised and hated poster is unchallenged.
> >
> > Bruce J. Richman
>
> Coming from a compulsive liar like you, Brucie, the above statements
> have zero credibility. You've proven yourself totally incapable of
> ever condemning the reprehenswible false claims and libelous
> statements made about people by Middius, Clyde, Tom or yourself. You
> have no moral values whatsoever, and that's been proven by your
> reprehensible and total willingness to ignore character assassination
> and smears directed at your many RAO targets. That's why you have
the
> unique distinction of having smeared and lied about more individual
> posters than any other RAO poster, Brucie, baby. Your reputation as
> RAO's most widely despised, hypocritical, and hated poster is
> unchallenged.
>
>


LOL! Bravo!

[Bruce J. Richman]

Clyde Slick wrote:


>"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> You're making it hard for others to stand up against particular
>>>>> nasties swung your way, if you immidiately start your usual garbage
>>>>> routine, eh ?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for blaming me for Middius' behavior, Rudy.
>>>>
>>> I was referring to a few posts above, vs. Scott, Arny:
>>>
>>> "Self-imposed ignornace is obviously a source of comfort to you"
>>> "<is this guy in love with Middius, or what?>"
>>>
>>> that is YOUR behaviour, Arny !!
>>
>> It is true that I try to show love for my fellow man. With a lot of
>> stretching I can recognize Middius as being close enough to human to have
>> this rule applicable to him.
>
>If hypocricy ripped your eyes out of your head and hung them
>over you, so you could see how despicable you are.
>
>
>

Agreed. Even if that happened, Krueger would continue to blame everybody else
for the confrontational atmosphere on RAO. There is no evidence that he has
ever taken any responsibility for his own despicable history of character
assassination and lying continuously about other people. He has no conscience
and absolutely no ability to look at his own behavior objectively.







Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
>News==----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
>Newsgroups
>----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


Bruce J. Richman

[dave weil]

On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 20:31:11 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>At some point the insanity and stupidity overwhelms things, and you end up
>with a RAO. I recently found another forum that is about 25% as screwed-up
>as RAO.

Well, I'm quite sure that it won't take you long to get it up to RAO
standards.

[dave weil]

On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 20:40:06 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>Not at all. Usenet is small segement of my life and RAO is only a tiny
>fraction of the Usenet segment of my life.

These two statements are mutually exclusive, considering the amount of
posting that you do here (assuming that the last part of the sentence
is true).

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...

>
> At your place I would have say the same thing, Sander, sincerely.
> You have answered, Scott Wheeler also. IMO the most important was to
> dissociate yourself from this bull****. I hope I will be able to do the
> same in every occasion.
>
> Sons of bitch like Richman, Sackman... haven't had the courage to do the
> same thing.

normally I would, but we're talking Arny here.




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Clyde Slick]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>
>>>> (1) Sander keeps his mouth shut.
>>>> (2) Sander says something unbelievably lame.
>
>>>> How can I choose? ;-)
>
>>> You don't have to, I have already.
>
>>> Are both choices considered hostile towards you, Arnold?
>
>>Absolutely.
>
>
> OK, now we're getting somewhere.
> Let's take this one step further:
>
> Are you familiar with the concept of "a sensitive tank"?
>

I'm not. what is it?




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>> You're making it hard for others to stand up against particular
>>>> nasties swung your way, if you immidiately start your usual garbage
>>>> routine, eh ?
>>>
>>> Thanks for blaming me for Middius' behavior, Rudy.
>>>
>> I was referring to a few posts above, vs. Scott, Arny:
>>
>> "Self-imposed ignornace is obviously a source of comfort to you"
>> "<is this guy in love with Middius, or what?>"
>>
>> that is YOUR behaviour, Arny !!
>
> It is true that I try to show love for my fellow man. With a lot of
> stretching I can recognize Middius as being close enough to human to have
> this rule applicable to him.

If hypocricy ripped your eyes out of your head and hung them
over you, so you could see how despicable you are.




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Clyde Slick]

"Margaret von B." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Margaret von B. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>> "Margaret von B." > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I might just make the trip from my new outpost above the Arctic
>>>>> Circle.
>>>>> Even in the likely case of noshow by your esteemed guest, I want to
>>>>> witness it with my own eyes.
>>>>>
>>>>> LET'S GET READY TO RRRUUUUUMMMMMBBBLLLEEEEEE!
>>>>>
>>>>> Margaret
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> just in case some of us want to meet you, what color dress will you be
>>>> wearing?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>What would you like me to wear?
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>
>>>Margaret
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Didn't famed country singer Kenny Rogers once get in trouble for asking
>> that
>> question? (Or was it "tell me what you're wearing") :-) :-)
>>
>>
>>
>> Bruce J. Richman
>>
>
> Don't remember that but I do remember that he almost died from a
> liposuction. I guess they sucked out a little more than was healthy. :-)
>
> Anyway it was just Clyde being vituperative to me as is his custom.
> Personalitywise, he's just an Arny with a Dynaco. Oh well...
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Margaret
>

Sorry Maggie, I'm just playing with you. My only ill will
towards you is being turned down for a date. It has nothing
to do with audio.




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Tom" > wrote in message
>
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote
>
>>> They've sorta signed the nutcase audiophile market over to me. ;-)
>
>> perfect.
>
> Also, a correct statement.
>
>
>>> So Atkinson, are you bringing me into to town to serve me or what?
>
>> The first step. I smell an excuse to excuse coming.
>
> Since when is not a good idea to get commitment for safe conduct, at least
> in terms of no aggression from the host or his minions?


Are you afraid of being served a subpeona or are
you afraid of being served your head on a platter?




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
>
>> Lionel > said:
>>
>>>>> Please don't make the same mistake again, Graham.
>>
>>>> Lame, very lame.
>>
>>> Lame ?
>>> No, I would say terribly sorry.
>>
>>
>> What should I have said then, Lionel?
>
> Something that includes references to unreasoning hatred and sickening
> subhuman behavior seems appropriate.

But we weren't talking about you.




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>>
>>>>>> Please don't make the same mistake again, Graham.
>>
>>>>> Lame, very lame.
>>
>>>> You know my POV about things like this, Arny.
>>>> Would it be better if I had kept my mouth shut, so that "someone"
>>>> could claim that by my silence, I agree with his sentiments?
>>
>>> Letsee.
>>
>>> (1) Sander keeps his mouth shut.
>>> (2) Sander says something unbelievably lame.
>>
>>> How can I choose? ;-)
>>
>>
>> You don't have to, I have already.
>>
>> Are both choices considered hostile towards you, Arnold?
>
> Absolutely.

Great! Arny has just got to the nut of his personality defect.
A classic!
One cannot be on 'his side' , or even neutral, unless one stoops
to his level of vileness against his opponents.




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> At some point the insanity and stupidity overwhelms things, and you end
> up with a RAO. I recently found another forum that is about 25% as
> screwed-up as RAO. Similar situation. Fortunately its rare.

You just haven't been polluting enough newsgroups. So many
newsgroups, so little time.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Lionel]

Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
> Lionel wrote:
>
>
>
>>In . com>, Bruce J. Richman
>>wrote :
>>
>>
>>>>No hell ? If this is the privilege of the idiots I'm sincerely happy
>>>
>>>to be
>>>
>>>>one of them.
>>>>Jesus said "heureux les simples d'esprit le royaume des cieux leur
>>>>appartient". :-)
>>>
>>>So you think that Jesus spoke French? Any other new discoveries to
>>>share with us, idiot?
>>
>>You seem to have serious lacks in theology
>
>
> Only in your delusional and stupid mind, Delusional French Poodle. Your
> attempts to reinvent biblical history are a joke, just like your idiotic
> babble.

Thank you for proving that I was right Jesus doesn't appear in the bible.
Jesus doesn't belong to the biblical history.
You seem to have very very serious lacks in theology, Doc.

[Bruce J. Richman]

Lionel lied:


>Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
>> Lionel wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>In . com>, Bruce J.
>Richman
>>>wrote :
>>>
>>>
>>>>>No hell ? If this is the privilege of the idiots I'm sincerely happy
>>>>
>>>>to be
>>>>
>>>>>one of them.
>>>>>Jesus said "heureux les simples d'esprit le royaume des cieux leur
>>>>>appartient". :-)
>>>>
>>>>So you think that Jesus spoke French? Any other new discoveries to
>>>>share with us, idiot?
>>>
>>>You seem to have serious lacks in theology
>>
>>
>> Only in your delusional and stupid mind, Delusional French Poodle. Your
>> attempts to reinvent biblical history are a joke, just like your idiotic
>> babble.
>
>Thank you for proving that I was right Jesus doesn't appear in the bible.
>Jesus doesn't belong to the biblical history.

Only in your delusional mind, unless you don't consider the New Testament and
Scripture to be part of the bible.

Where is the evidence that Jesus spoke French, liar?


You seem to be predictably incapable of telling the truth about the language
that Jesus spoke, Lionel.

[Lionel]

Clyde Slick a écrit :
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>At your place I would have say the same thing, Sander, sincerely.
>>You have answered, Scott Wheeler also. IMO the most important was to
>>dissociate yourself from this bull****. I hope I will be able to do the
>>same in every occasion.
>>
>>Sons of bitch like Richman, Sackman... haven't had the courage to do the
>>same thing.
>
>
> normally I would, but we're talking Arny here.

Few months ago I was *seriously* mocking Marc Phillips' wife and Krueger
has publicly written his disapprobation.

Is Arny a "friend" of Marc Phillips ?

Do you remember what I've written you concerning the behaviour of some
french people during the WWII ?

Start to prove that you are a human being before to condamn them. :-(

[Lionel]

dave weil a écrit :
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 20:40:06 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Not at all. Usenet is small segement of my life and RAO is only a tiny
>>fraction of the Usenet segment of my life.
>
>
> These two statements are mutually exclusive, considering the amount of
> posting that you do here (assuming that the last part of the sentence
> is true).

Arnold you can trust Dave Weil on this particular point...
....Since few weeks he is relarning what is a "real" life.

<chuckle>

;-)

[Lionel]

Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
> Lionel lied:
>
>
>
>>Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
>>
>>>Lionel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>In . com>, Bruce J.
>>
>>Richman
>>
>>>>wrote :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>No hell ? If this is the privilege of the idiots I'm sincerely happy
>>>>>
>>>>>to be
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>one of them.
>>>>>>Jesus said "heureux les simples d'esprit le royaume des cieux leur
>>>>>>appartient". :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>So you think that Jesus spoke French? Any other new discoveries to
>>>>>share with us, idiot?
>>>>
>>>>You seem to have serious lacks in theology
>>>
>>>
>>>Only in your delusional and stupid mind, Delusional French Poodle. Your
>>>attempts to reinvent biblical history are a joke, just like your idiotic
>>>babble.
>>
>>Thank you for proving that I was right Jesus doesn't appear in the bible.
>>Jesus doesn't belong to the biblical history.
>
>
> Only in your delusional mind, unless you don't consider the New Testament and
> Scripture to be part of the bible.

For *you*, Gospel doesn't belong to the Bible.
Jewish's bible is composed of only 24 books, 73 for the Catholic one.

When I say that you have serious lacks in theology I must have said that
you don't know anything about.

> Where is the evidence that Jesus spoke French, liar?
> You seem to be predictably incapable of telling the truth about the language
> that Jesus spoke, Lionel.

Unfortunatly for you he was also speaking the Serbo-Croate, and several
African dialects. ;-)
This is written in the book. You should read it.

;-)

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Bruce J. Richman a écrit :

>> Only in your delusional and stupid mind, Delusional French Poodle. Your
>> attempts to reinvent biblical history are a joke, just like your idiotic
>> babble.
>
> Thank you for proving that I was right Jesus doesn't appear in the bible.
> Jesus doesn't belong to the biblical history.
> You seem to have very very serious lacks in theology, Doc.

Fool!




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> dave weil a écrit :
>> On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 20:40:06 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Not at all. Usenet is small segement of my life and RAO is only a tiny
>>>fraction of the Usenet segment of my life.
>>
>>
>> These two statements are mutually exclusive, considering the amount of
>> posting that you do here (assuming that the last part of the sentence
>> is true).
>
> Arnold you can trust Dave Weil on this particular point...
> ...Since few weeks he is relarning what is a "real" life.
>

Always good to hear from my larned conehead friend from
a small town in France.




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...

>
> Few months ago I was *seriously* mocking Marc Phillips' wife and Krueger
> has publicly written his disapprobation.
>
> Is Arny a "friend" of Marc Phillips ?
>
> Do you remember what I've written you concerning the behaviour of some
> french people during the WWII ?
>
> Start to prove that you are a human being before to condamn them. :-(

Oh, you want me to be like Arny?
ok, here we go:
I don't condamn anybody.




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Lionel]

Clyde Slick a écrit :
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
>
>
>>>Only in your delusional and stupid mind, Delusional French Poodle. Your
>>>attempts to reinvent biblical history are a joke, just like your idiotic
>>>babble.
>>
>>Thank you for proving that I was right Jesus doesn't appear in the bible.
>>Jesus doesn't belong to the biblical history.
>>You seem to have very very serious lacks in theology, Doc.
>
>
> Fool!

You are the guy who made the confusion between Noriega and Allende... So
I have serious doubt about you knowledge. Historic or theologic... ;-)

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:


>> We condemn actions by our "'enemies", we don't say anything when it
>> comes from our "allies" .

>Just because you're pretty much describing yourself Sander doesn't mean that
>you're describing everybody.


I think this goes for all of us, some don't realize it though.

I'm happy to be aware of how I am, makes life a bit easier.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:


>> I think Arny is his own worst enemy.

>Not at all. Usenet is small segement of my life and RAO is only a tiny
>fraction of the Usenet segment of my life.


I'm happy for you that your RAO persona differs from how you really
are.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:


>> Remember, I'm able to look past my monitor into people's minds.

>I see no evidence of any special skills along those lines on your part.

>> I know you're very sceptical about such claims, but you'll have to
>> trust me on this one.

>I'll just watch and wait for you to prove your claims, or not.


I've heard people describe me as "slightly deranged", you will note.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Sander deWaal]

"Clyde Slick" > said:

>> Are you familiar with the concept of "a sensitive tank"?

>I'm not. what is it?


It's an Abrams with advanced sensors.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>Hypersensitivity isn't the problem here. The core problem is the desire to
>ruin the conference for everybody because a few people with divergent
>beliefs and opinions are here. There is a difference between
>hypersensitivity and complete intolerance compounded a near-total lack of
>moral scruples. I don't have to mention names because the names are pretty
>obvious.


It seems we're in agreement here.


>One way of describing the problem hwere is lack of a sense of community. A
>number of the main contributors here could never be productive members of
>any community because they don't know how to cooperate or make compromises.
>They are also willing to do a variety of reprehensible things with the
>stated goal of getting their way, even though they haven't been able to get
>their way for by doing things like these for 6 or more years. In short, they
>have shown themselves to be incapable of learning from their experiences.


I have no way to tell whether people will act the same IRL as they do
on RAO.


>At some point the insanity and stupidity overwhelms things, and you end up
>with a RAO. I recently found another forum that is about 25% as screwed-up
>as RAO. Similar situation. Fortunately its rare.


I found that most newsgroups these days are filled with trolls.
I've seen examples where RAO is a paragon of truth and sanity.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Sander deWaal]

George M. Middius > said:

>> >Are you a barrister, love?

>> As a matter of fact, I have one in my spare parts box.
>> It's a C8 surge barrister, actually.

>Sounds daring. You're a bit scary some times.


I know. Just let me switch off that Tesla coil for a moment, the glow
will fade away and things will look a bit less scary that way.

<flicks a switch>

There. Better?


>> >Ooh... very Zen. Now me: The **** may not stink, but the Kroo surely does.
>> >A round trip ticket may cost more than a one-way. When the piggy bank is
>> >smashed, orphans will still be begging.

>> On the way to the bank, many laughs were heard.
>> Fat businessman steps out of a big Lincoln, gets shot at the stairs.
>> Weasel-faced assassin runs away in the alleys.

>> Who was laughing?

>The Piccolo man? He should have been wearing his green trenchcoat, but he
>accidentally put on a feather boa, and it tickled, so he laughed.


Almost right. It was the taxi driver who found the wallet.


>> >Thanks, I needed that. ;-)

>> You're welcome.
>> I'm off to Burma for retraite now.

>Bon voyage!


I'm back already. Travelling at the speed of light has its advantages,
you will note.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Margaret von B.]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Sander deWaal said to Krooger:
>
>> I'm happy for you that your RAO persona differs from how you really are.
>
> Yes, imagine going through real life with everybody likening you to feces.
>

Well, actually George, I know a couple of people who either know or know of
him and...ehh.......can you guess the rest?

I hope I didn't shock you. :-)

Cheers,

Margaret

[Bruce J. Richman]

Sander deWaal wrote:


>Arny Krueger" > said:
>
>
>>> We condemn actions by our "'enemies", we don't say anything when it
>>> comes from our "allies" .
>
>>Just because you're pretty much describing yourself Sander doesn't mean that
>
>>you're describing everybody.
>

Sander did not claim he was describing everybody, so therefore, krueger's
criiticism is meaningless.

However, Sander's statement is also quite accurate. A lot of people on RAO
chose sides a long time ago, and basically support and their friends and attack
their enemies. For Krueger to try and deny this is just another indication of
his disconnect from reality and chronic lying.







>
>I think this goes for all of us, some don't realize it though.
>
>I'm happy to be aware of how I am, makes life a bit easier.
>
>--
>Sander de Waal
>" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


Bruce J. Richman

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick a écrit :
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
>>
>>
>>>>Only in your delusional and stupid mind, Delusional French Poodle. Your
>>>>attempts to reinvent biblical history are a joke, just like your idiotic
>>>>babble.
>>>
>>>Thank you for proving that I was right Jesus doesn't appear in the bible.
>>>Jesus doesn't belong to the biblical history.
>>>You seem to have very very serious lacks in theology, Doc.
>>
>>
>> Fool!
>
> You are the guy who made the confusion between Noriega and Allende... So I
> have serious doubt about you knowledge. Historic or theologic... ;-)

I acknowledged my momentary lapse into confusion.
You continually wallow in your ignorance.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Margaret von B.]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Margaret von B. said:
>
>> >> I'm happy for you that your RAO persona differs from how you really
>> >> are.
>
>> > Yes, imagine going through real life with everybody likening you to
>> > feces.
>
>> Well, actually George, I know a couple of people who either know or know
>> of
>> him and...ehh.......can you guess the rest?
>
>> I hope I didn't shock you. :-)
>
> Not at all. In fact, I have to say I'm not surprised. I know from a
> certain recording that the RAO Krooger is the real Krooger.
>

What exactly is this recording? Is it "the tape"? Where can one obtain a
copy?

Cheers,

Margaret

[Bruce J. Richman]

Clyde Slick wrote:


> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Clyde Slick a =E9crit :
> >> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>
> >>>Bruce J. Richman a =E9crit :
> >>
> >>
> >>>>Only in your delusional and stupid mind, Delusional French
Poodle. Your
> >>>>attempts to reinvent biblical history are a joke, just like your
idiotic
> >>>>babble.
> >>>
> >>>Thank you for proving that I was right Jesus doesn't appear in the
bible.
> >>>Jesus doesn't belong to the biblical history.
> >>>You seem to have very very serious lacks in theology, Doc.
> >>
> >>
> >> Fool!
> >
> > You are the guy who made the confusion between Noriega and
Allende... So I
> > have serious doubt about you knowledge. Historic or theologic...
;-)
>
> I acknowledged my momentary lapse into confusion.
> You continually wallow in your ignorance.
>

He's known for a combination of pathological lying and consistent
stupidity.






>
>
> ----=3D=3D Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News=3D=3D----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
120,000+ Newsgroups
> ----=3D East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=3D----

[Lionel]

Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>
>
>
>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>Clyde Slick a écrit :
>>>
>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Only in your delusional and stupid mind, Delusional French
>
> Poodle. Your
>
>>>>>>attempts to reinvent biblical history are a joke, just like your
>
> idiotic
>
>>>>>>babble.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thank you for proving that I was right Jesus doesn't appear in the
>
> bible.
>
>>>>>Jesus doesn't belong to the biblical history.
>>>>>You seem to have very very serious lacks in theology, Doc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Fool!
>>>
>>>You are the guy who made the confusion between Noriega and
>
> Allende... So I
>
>>>have serious doubt about you knowledge. Historic or theologic...
>
> ;-)
>
>>I acknowledged my momentary lapse into confusion.
>>You continually wallow in your ignorance.


I am at your disposal to discuss my alleged "ignorance".... Cum' on Baby

> He's known for a combination of pathological lying and consistent
> stupidity.


Have you read the Book ?
Are you convinced now that Jesus was also speaking French ?

[Lionel]

Clyde Slick a écrit :
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Clyde Slick a écrit :
>>
>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Only in your delusional and stupid mind, Delusional French Poodle. Your
>>>>>attempts to reinvent biblical history are a joke, just like your idiotic
>>>>>babble.
>>>>
>>>>Thank you for proving that I was right Jesus doesn't appear in the bible.
>>>>Jesus doesn't belong to the biblical history.
>>>>You seem to have very very serious lacks in theology, Doc.
>>>
>>>
>>>Fool!
>>
>>You are the guy who made the confusion between Noriega and Allende... So I
>>have serious doubt about you knowledge. Historic or theologic... ;-)
>
>
> I acknowledged my momentary lapse into confusion.
> You continually wallow in your ignorance.

My answer is 5-6 messages above.

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
>> Clyde Slick wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>Clyde Slick a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Only in your delusional and stupid mind, Delusional French
>>
>> Poodle. Your
>>
>>>>>>>attempts to reinvent biblical history are a joke, just like your
>>
>> idiotic
>>
>>>>>>>babble.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thank you for proving that I was right Jesus doesn't appear in the
>>
>> bible.
>>
>>>>>>Jesus doesn't belong to the biblical history.
>>>>>>You seem to have very very serious lacks in theology, Doc.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Fool!
>>>>
>>>>You are the guy who made the confusion between Noriega and
>>
>> Allende... So I
>>
>>>>have serious doubt about you knowledge. Historic or theologic...
>>
>> ;-)
>>
>>>I acknowledged my momentary lapse into confusion.
>>>You continually wallow in your ignorance.
>
>
> I am at your disposal to discuss my alleged "ignorance".... Cum' on Baby
>
>> He's known for a combination of pathological lying and consistent
>> stupidity.
>
>
> Have you read the Book ?
> Are you convinced now that Jesus was also speaking French ?


IDIOT!!!!!!
In Jesus' time, not even the French were barely speaking French yet!!!!!
They spoke a *******ized and simplified version of Latin
called Vulgar Latin. Something that can remotely
be called similar to modern French came about a few hundred years later,
and further evolved.

Here is some info:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8716/langue.html





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Lionel]

In >, Clyde Slick wrote :

>
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
>>> Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>>Clyde Slick a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Only in your delusional and stupid mind, Delusional French
>>>
>>> Poodle. Your
>>>
>>>>>>>>attempts to reinvent biblical history are a joke, just like your
>>>
>>> idiotic
>>>
>>>>>>>>babble.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Thank you for proving that I was right Jesus doesn't appear in the
>>>
>>> bible.
>>>
>>>>>>>Jesus doesn't belong to the biblical history.
>>>>>>>You seem to have very very serious lacks in theology, Doc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Fool!
>>>>>
>>>>>You are the guy who made the confusion between Noriega and
>>>
>>> Allende... So I
>>>
>>>>>have serious doubt about you knowledge. Historic or theologic...
>>>
>>> ;-)
>>>
>>>>I acknowledged my momentary lapse into confusion.
>>>>You continually wallow in your ignorance.
>>
>>
>> I am at your disposal to discuss my alleged "ignorance".... Cum' on Baby
>>
>>> He's known for a combination of pathological lying and consistent
>>> stupidity.
>>
>>
>> Have you read the Book ?
>> Are you convinced now that Jesus was also speaking French ?
>
>
> IDIOT!!!!!!
> In Jesus' time, not even the French were barely speaking French yet!!!!!
> They spoke a *******ized and simplified version of Latin
> called Vulgar Latin. Something that can remotely
> be called similar to modern French came about a few hundred years later,
> and further evolved.
>
> Here is some info:

[snip useless info]

Have you read the BOOK ?
In the book it is written that Jesus was also speaking Serbo-Croate,
Chinese, Huitotos, Papuan, Japanese... but also *French*.

Read the BOOK first and come back to me for more consistant discussion.

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> In >, Clyde Slick wrote :
>
>>
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
>>>> Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>>Clyde Slick a écrit :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Only in your delusional and stupid mind, Delusional French
>>>>
>>>> Poodle. Your
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>attempts to reinvent biblical history are a joke, just like your
>>>>
>>>> idiotic
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>babble.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Thank you for proving that I was right Jesus doesn't appear in the
>>>>
>>>> bible.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>Jesus doesn't belong to the biblical history.
>>>>>>>>You seem to have very very serious lacks in theology, Doc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Fool!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You are the guy who made the confusion between Noriega and
>>>>
>>>> Allende... So I
>>>>
>>>>>>have serious doubt about you knowledge. Historic or theologic...
>>>>
>>>> ;-)
>>>>
>>>>>I acknowledged my momentary lapse into confusion.
>>>>>You continually wallow in your ignorance.
>>>
>>>
>>> I am at your disposal to discuss my alleged "ignorance".... Cum' on Baby
>>>
>>>> He's known for a combination of pathological lying and consistent
>>>> stupidity.
>>>
>>>
>>> Have you read the Book ?
>>> Are you convinced now that Jesus was also speaking French ?
>>
>>
>> IDIOT!!!!!!
>> In Jesus' time, not even the French were barely speaking French yet!!!!!
>> They spoke a *******ized and simplified version of Latin
>> called Vulgar Latin. Something that can remotely
>> be called similar to modern French came about a few hundred years later,
>> and further evolved.
>>
>> Here is some info:
>
> [snip useless info]
>
> Have you read the BOOK ?
> In the book it is written that Jesus was also speaking Serbo-Croate,
> Chinese, Huitotos, Papuan, Japanese... but also *French*.
>
> Read the BOOK first and come back to me for more consistant discussion.

READ MY LIPS
French had not been invented yet.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Lionel]

In >, Clyde Slick wrote :

>
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In >, Clyde Slick wrote :
>>
>>>
>>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
>>>>> Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Clyde Slick a écrit :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Only in your delusional and stupid mind, Delusional French
>>>>>
>>>>> Poodle. Your
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>attempts to reinvent biblical history are a joke, just like your
>>>>>
>>>>> idiotic
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>babble.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Thank you for proving that I was right Jesus doesn't appear in the
>>>>>
>>>>> bible.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Jesus doesn't belong to the biblical history.
>>>>>>>>>You seem to have very very serious lacks in theology, Doc.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Fool!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You are the guy who made the confusion between Noriega and
>>>>>
>>>>> Allende... So I
>>>>>
>>>>>>>have serious doubt about you knowledge. Historic or theologic...
>>>>>
>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>>I acknowledged my momentary lapse into confusion.
>>>>>>You continually wallow in your ignorance.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am at your disposal to discuss my alleged "ignorance".... Cum' on
>>>> Baby
>>>>
>>>>> He's known for a combination of pathological lying and consistent
>>>>> stupidity.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Have you read the Book ?
>>>> Are you convinced now that Jesus was also speaking French ?
>>>
>>>
>>> IDIOT!!!!!!
>>> In Jesus' time, not even the French were barely speaking French yet!!!!!
>>> They spoke a *******ized and simplified version of Latin
>>> called Vulgar Latin. Something that can remotely
>>> be called similar to modern French came about a few hundred years later,
>>> and further evolved.
>>>
>>> Here is some info:
>>
>> [snip useless info]
>>
>> Have you read the BOOK ?
>> In the book it is written that Jesus was also speaking Serbo-Croate,
>> Chinese, Huitotos, Papuan, Japanese... but also *French*.
>>
>> Read the BOOK first and come back to me for more consistant discussion.
>
> READ MY LIPS
> French had not been invented yet.

I read you lips and I understand tha tyou haven't read the BOOK.
Why are you still commenting about a book that you haven't even read ?

May I comment about an audio system that I have never heard ?

Follow my advice, read the book first and I will authorize you to look
intelligent just after.

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> In >, Clyde Slick wrote :
>
>>
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
>>>> Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>>Clyde Slick a écrit :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Only in your delusional and stupid mind, Delusional French
>>>>
>>>> Poodle. Your
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>attempts to reinvent biblical history are a joke, just like your
>>>>
>>>> idiotic
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>babble.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Thank you for proving that I was right Jesus doesn't appear in the
>>>>
>>>> bible.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>Jesus doesn't belong to the biblical history.
>>>>>>>>You seem to have very very serious lacks in theology, Doc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Fool!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You are the guy who made the confusion between Noriega and
>>>>
>>>> Allende... So I
>>>>
>>>>>>have serious doubt about you knowledge. Historic or theologic...
>>>>
>>>> ;-)
>>>>
>>>>>I acknowledged my momentary lapse into confusion.
>>>>>You continually wallow in your ignorance.
>>>
>>>
>>> I am at your disposal to discuss my alleged "ignorance".... Cum' on Baby
>>>
>>>> He's known for a combination of pathological lying and consistent
>>>> stupidity.
>>>
>>>
>>> Have you read the Book ?
>>> Are you convinced now that Jesus was also speaking French ?
>>
>>
>> IDIOT!!!!!!
>> In Jesus' time, not even the French were barely speaking French yet!!!!!
>> They spoke a *******ized and simplified version of Latin
>> called Vulgar Latin. Something that can remotely
>> be called similar to modern French came about a few hundred years later,
>> and further evolved.
>>
>> Here is some info:
>
> [snip useless info]
>
> Have you read the BOOK ?
> In the book it is written that Jesus was also speaking Serbo-Croate,
> Chinese, Huitotos, Papuan, Japanese... but also *French*.
>
> Read the BOOK first and come back to me for more consistant discussion.

Ah, but "War and Peace" said he didn't, READ THE BOOK, all of it,
and come back for discussin. Oh, of course, you'll have to figure
out what page its on for yourseld, IDIOT!!!!



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> In >, Clyde Slick wrote :
>
>>
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In >, Clyde Slick wrote :
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
>>>>>> Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Clyde Slick a écrit :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Only in your delusional and stupid mind, Delusional French
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Poodle. Your
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>attempts to reinvent biblical history are a joke, just like your
>>>>>>
>>>>>> idiotic
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>babble.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Thank you for proving that I was right Jesus doesn't appear in the
>>>>>>
>>>>>> bible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Jesus doesn't belong to the biblical history.
>>>>>>>>>>You seem to have very very serious lacks in theology, Doc.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Fool!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You are the guy who made the confusion between Noriega and
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Allende... So I
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>have serious doubt about you knowledge. Historic or theologic...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I acknowledged my momentary lapse into confusion.
>>>>>>>You continually wallow in your ignorance.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am at your disposal to discuss my alleged "ignorance".... Cum' on
>>>>> Baby
>>>>>
>>>>>> He's known for a combination of pathological lying and consistent
>>>>>> stupidity.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you read the Book ?
>>>>> Are you convinced now that Jesus was also speaking French ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> IDIOT!!!!!!
>>>> In Jesus' time, not even the French were barely speaking French
>>>> yet!!!!!
>>>> They spoke a *******ized and simplified version of Latin
>>>> called Vulgar Latin. Something that can remotely
>>>> be called similar to modern French came about a few hundred years
>>>> later,
>>>> and further evolved.
>>>>
>>>> Here is some info:
>>>
>>> [snip useless info]
>>>
>>> Have you read the BOOK ?
>>> In the book it is written that Jesus was also speaking Serbo-Croate,
>>> Chinese, Huitotos, Papuan, Japanese... but also *French*.
>>>
>>> Read the BOOK first and come back to me for more consistant discussion.
>>
>> READ MY LIPS
>> French had not been invented yet.
>
> I read you lips and I understand tha tyou haven't read the BOOK.
> Why are you still commenting about a book that you haven't even read ?
>
> May I comment about an audio system that I have never heard ?
>
> Follow my advice, read the book first and I will authorize you to look
> intelligent just after.

Have you finished Was and Peace yet? If you read it previously,
read it again and report back to me, IDIOT!!!!!!



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Bruce J. Richman]

Art wrote:


>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>> In >, Clyde Slick wrote :
>>
>>>
>>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
>>>>> Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Clyde Slick a écrit :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Only in your delusional and stupid mind, Delusional French
>>>>>
>>>>> Poodle. Your
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>attempts to reinvent biblical history are a joke, just like your
>>>>>
>>>>> idiotic
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>babble.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Thank you for proving that I was right Jesus doesn't appear in the
>>>>>
>>>>> bible.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Jesus doesn't belong to the biblical history.
>>>>>>>>>You seem to have very very serious lacks in theology, Doc.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Fool!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You are the guy who made the confusion between Noriega and
>>>>>
>>>>> Allende... So I
>>>>>
>>>>>>>have serious doubt about you knowledge. Historic or theologic...
>>>>>
>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>>I acknowledged my momentary lapse into confusion.
>>>>>>You continually wallow in your ignorance.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am at your disposal to discuss my alleged "ignorance".... Cum' on Baby
>>>>
>>>>> He's known for a combination of pathological lying and consistent
>>>>> stupidity.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Have you read the Book ?
>>>> Are you convinced now that Jesus was also speaking French ?
>>>
>>>
>>> IDIOT!!!!!!
>>> In Jesus' time, not even the French were barely speaking French yet!!!!!
>>> They spoke a *******ized and simplified version of Latin
>>> called Vulgar Latin. Something that can remotely
>>> be called similar to modern French came about a few hundred years later,
>>> and further evolved.
>>>
>>> Here is some info:
>>
>> [snip useless info]
>>
>> Have you read the BOOK ?
>> In the book it is written that Jesus was also speaking Serbo-Croate,
>> Chinese, Huitotos, Papuan, Japanese... but also *French*.
>>
>> Read the BOOK first and come back to me for more consistant discussion.
>
>READ MY LIPS
>French had not been invented yet.
>
>
>
>----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
>News==----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
>Newsgroups
>----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
>
>

Please don't confuse Lionel with factual information. The shock might prove to
be too much for him to handle.

Perhaps in France the movie, "The Passion of the Christ" is shown without
translation and/or subtitles, since according to Lionel, Jesus was speaking
French.



Bruce J. Richman

[Lionel]

Bruce J. Richman a écrit :

> Lionel wrote:

Google isn't Gospel.

Have you read Gospel ?

If you have read Gospel you surely know that Jesus was also speaking
French, Italian, Dutch, German, Esperanto, Portugese, Finnish,
Mongolian, Arab...

Why don't you want to read Gospel !
Believe me, forget Google, all you need to know about Jesus language is
in the book. :-)

[Lionel]

Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
> Art wrote:
>
>
>
>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>In >, Clyde Slick wrote :
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>>Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Clyde Slick a écrit :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Only in your delusional and stupid mind, Delusional French
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Poodle. Your
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>attempts to reinvent biblical history are a joke, just like your
>>>>>>
>>>>>>idiotic
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>babble.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Thank you for proving that I was right Jesus doesn't appear in the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>bible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Jesus doesn't belong to the biblical history.
>>>>>>>>>>You seem to have very very serious lacks in theology, Doc.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Fool!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You are the guy who made the confusion between Noriega and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Allende... So I
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>have serious doubt about you knowledge. Historic or theologic...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I acknowledged my momentary lapse into confusion.
>>>>>>>You continually wallow in your ignorance.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I am at your disposal to discuss my alleged "ignorance".... Cum' on Baby
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>He's known for a combination of pathological lying and consistent
>>>>>>stupidity.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Have you read the Book ?
>>>>>Are you convinced now that Jesus was also speaking French ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>IDIOT!!!!!!
>>>>In Jesus' time, not even the French were barely speaking French yet!!!!!
>>>>They spoke a *******ized and simplified version of Latin
>>>>called Vulgar Latin. Something that can remotely
>>>>be called similar to modern French came about a few hundred years later,
>>>>and further evolved.
>>>>
>>>>Here is some info:
>>>
>>>[snip useless info]
>>>
>>>Have you read the BOOK ?
>>>In the book it is written that Jesus was also speaking Serbo-Croate,
>>>Chinese, Huitotos, Papuan, Japanese... but also *French*.
>>>
>>>Read the BOOK first and come back to me for more consistant discussion.
>>
>>READ MY LIPS
>>French had not been invented yet.
>>
>>
>>
>>----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
>>News==----
>>http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
>>Newsgroups
>>----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
>>
>>
>
>
> Please don't confuse Lionel with factual information. The shock might prove to
> be too much for him to handle.
>
> Perhaps in France the movie, "The Passion of the Christ" is shown without
> translation and/or subtitles, since according to Lionel, Jesus was speaking
> French.

You say that because you haven't read the Book Doc.
If you read the Book you will understand your error and you will die of
shame...
....Please read the Book ASAP. ;-)

[Lionel_Chapuis]

George M. Middius wrote:

>
>
> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > Lionel is a stupid asshole for asserting that Jesus spoke French. At the
> > time of Jesus' life, the French in France didn't even speak French, it hadn't
> > even been invented yet!!!!!!
>
> Then how did they say "head cheese" in what was to become France?

"Tête de fromage" ?
Seems that you haven't read the Book, eh George ?




----------
Sent via SPRACI - http://www.spraci.com/ - Parties,Raves,Clubs,Festivals

[Lionel_Chapuis]

George M. Middius wrote:

>
>
> Clyde Slick said:
>
>




----------
Sent via SPRACI - http://www.spraci.com/ - Parties,Raves,Clubs,Festivals

[Lionel_Chapuis]

George M. Middius wrote:

>
>
> Clyde Slick said:
>
>




----------
Sent via SPRACI - http://www.spraci.com/ - Parties,Raves,Clubs,Festivals

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
>> Art wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>In >, Clyde Slick wrote :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>>Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Clyde Slick a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Only in your delusional and stupid mind, Delusional French
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Poodle. Your
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>attempts to reinvent biblical history are a joke, just like your
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>idiotic
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>babble.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Thank you for proving that I was right Jesus doesn't appear in
>>>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>bible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Jesus doesn't belong to the biblical history.
>>>>>>>>>>>You seem to have very very serious lacks in theology, Doc.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Fool!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You are the guy who made the confusion between Noriega and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Allende... So I
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>have serious doubt about you knowledge. Historic or theologic...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I acknowledged my momentary lapse into confusion.
>>>>>>>>You continually wallow in your ignorance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I am at your disposal to discuss my alleged "ignorance".... Cum' on
>>>>>>Baby
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>He's known for a combination of pathological lying and consistent
>>>>>>>stupidity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Have you read the Book ?
>>>>>>Are you convinced now that Jesus was also speaking French ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>IDIOT!!!!!!
>>>>>In Jesus' time, not even the French were barely speaking French
>>>>>yet!!!!!
>>>>>They spoke a *******ized and simplified version of Latin
>>>>>called Vulgar Latin. Something that can remotely
>>>>>be called similar to modern French came about a few hundred years
>>>>>later,
>>>>>and further evolved.
>>>>>
>>>>>Here is some info:
>>>>
>>>>[snip useless info]
>>>>
>>>>Have you read the BOOK ?
>>>>In the book it is written that Jesus was also speaking Serbo-Croate,
>>>>Chinese, Huitotos, Papuan, Japanese... but also *French*.
>>>>
>>>>Read the BOOK first and come back to me for more consistant discussion.
>>>
>>>READ MY LIPS
>>>French had not been invented yet.
>>>
>>>
>>>----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
>>>News==----
>>>http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
>>>Newsgroups
>>>----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
>>>=----
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Please don't confuse Lionel with factual information. The shock might
>> prove to
>> be too much for him to handle.
>>
>> Perhaps in France the movie, "The Passion of the Christ" is shown
>> without
>> translation and/or subtitles, since according to Lionel, Jesus was
>> speaking
>> French.
>
> You say that because you haven't read the Book Doc.
> If you read the Book you will understand your error and you will die of
> shame...
> ...Please read the Book ASAP. ;-)

Have you read War and Peace yet, to find the one page
with the information you should see?



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----