Re: Congratulations to Thing

[Tom]

http://www.nationalmssociety.org/arr/event/event_photo_all.asp?e=6077&p=27&g=21

[Tom]

http://www.nationalmssociety.org/arr/event/event_photo_all.asp?e=6077&p=50&g=41

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message


>
.. You embraced the seemingly
> bizarre notion that the Krooborg and its "objectivist" ilk have a
> meaningful viewpoint,

This statement is so flawed that it can't be a mere grotesque error.

First off, I'm not an objectivist, I'm a subjectivist. I'm simply a
subjectivist who has progressed far enough beyond the absolute and total
naiveté that Middius preaches, to see some value in considering issues
relating to the reliability of human perceptions.

Secondly, the idea that the objectivists lack a meaningful viewpoint is
falsified by the years of effort that Middius has put into attacking it. Or
perhaps Middius wants us to believe that he truly is the reincarnation of
Don Quixote, and his zillions of diatribes against mainstream scientific
thought as applied to audio are simply jousts with slow-moving windmill
blades.

[[email protected]]

the nutball posting as "George M. Middius" ranted:
>
>
> Thing, you've outdone yourself. Really. I'm referring to your
fantastical
> hypothesizing about JA's "true" motivation for inviting the Krooborg
to a
> one-on-one debate. You embraced the seemingly bizarre notion that the
> Krooborg and its "objectivist" ilk have a meaningful viewpoint, and
you
> presented it entirely seriously. No trace of humor, irony, or satire
could
> be found. The juxtaposition of creativity and a serious tone served
to
> reinforce your peculiar notion that the Krooborg is worth saving, and
also
> attempted to demean Stereophile and, by extension, the entire
E.H.E.E. It
> was very creative of you, especially considering how grim and
pugnacious
> you usually are.
>
> If it had been me, I couldn't have restrained myself from adding some
> humor. I might've referred to JA's imagined army of spin doctors,
working
> overtime to protect the cash cow that is the E.H.E.E. from the
ravages of
> the "debating trade". I'd have said the livelihoods and profit
margins of
> a huge array of greedy con artists are at risk of being exposed by
the
> merciless assault of Kroologic and spontaneous factuation. I'd have
hinted
> at dark doings on the part of the E.H.E.E.'s contingent of fixers,
who had
> "obviously" been dispatched to spread bribes throughout the ranks of
> overpaid audio journalists in order to mute their reporting of the
> ferocious assault to be wreaked by the Krooborg. And I'd do it all
with
> galloping, overreaching, run-on sentences to convey the enormity of
the
> conspiracy and the widespread panic now rippling throughout the
E.H.E.E.
>
> But not you. In a tastefully understated presentation, you simply put
> forward your ideas, banking on the inherent beauty of their
truthfulness
> to propel them through the currents of controversy. Well done, Thing.
May
> your respirator function flawlessly for the remainder of your
existence.
>
>

So saith Lord Atkinson, "my invitation is to debate me in person,
something you have wished for and I have felt necessary":
>
>
http://tinyurl.com/4khyj
>
>

Right there in Google, from the horse's mouth, "George": "necessary".
>
>
Enjoy!;-)

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
>
>
> >
> . You embraced the seemingly
> > bizarre notion that the Krooborg and its "objectivist" ilk have a
> > meaningful viewpoint,
>
> This statement is so flawed that it can't be a mere grotesque error.
>
> First off, I'm not an objectivist, I'm a subjectivist. I'm simply a
> subjectivist who has progressed far enough beyond the absolute and
total
> naivet=E9 that Middius preaches, to see some value in considering
issues
> relating to the reliability of human perceptions.
>
> Secondly, the idea that the objectivists lack a meaningful viewpoint
is
> falsified by the years of effort that Middius has put into attacking
it. Or
> perhaps Middius wants us to believe that he truly is the
reincarnation of
> Don Quixote, and his zillions of diatribes against mainstream
scientific
> thought as applied to audio are simply jousts with slow-moving
windmill
> blades.
>
>


Notice that "George M. Middius" ran away from that quote where Atkinson
said he felt the debate with you was "necessary"?

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
ups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>>
>> . You embraced the seemingly
>>> bizarre notion that the Krooborg and its "objectivist" ilk have a
>>> meaningful viewpoint,
>>
>> This statement is so flawed that it can't be a mere grotesque error.
>>
>> First off, I'm not an objectivist, I'm a subjectivist. I'm simply a
>> subjectivist who has progressed far enough beyond the absolute and total
>> naiveté that Middius preaches, to see some value in considering issues
>> relating to the reliability of human perceptions.

>> Secondly, the idea that the objectivists lack a meaningful viewpoint is
>> falsified by the years of effort that Middius has put into attacking it.
>> Or
>> perhaps Middius wants us to believe that he truly is the reincarnation
>> of
>> Don Quixote, and his zillions of diatribes against mainstream scientific
>> thought as applied to audio are simply jousts with slow-moving windmill
>> blades.

> Notice that "George M. Middius" ran away from that quote where
> Atkinson said he felt the debate with you was "necessary"?

What is new? It's a given that if you back Middius or Atkinson into a
corner, one of their dumbed-down buddies like Sackman, Scott, Weil, Rudy,
Borgma or whoever will chime in with some stupid retort.

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >> . You embraced the seemingly
> >>> bizarre notion that the Krooborg and its "objectivist" ilk have a
> >>> meaningful viewpoint,
> >>
> >> This statement is so flawed that it can't be a mere grotesque
error.
> >>
> >> First off, I'm not an objectivist, I'm a subjectivist. I'm simply
a
> >> subjectivist who has progressed far enough beyond the absolute and
total
> >> naivet=E9 that Middius preaches, to see some value in considering
issues
> >> relating to the reliability of human perceptions.
>
> >> Secondly, the idea that the objectivists lack a meaningful
viewpoint is
> >> falsified by the years of effort that Middius has put into
attacking it.
> >> Or
> >> perhaps Middius wants us to believe that he truly is the
reincarnation
> >> of
> >> Don Quixote, and his zillions of diatribes against mainstream
scientific
> >> thought as applied to audio are simply jousts with slow-moving
windmill
> >> blades.
>
> > Notice that "George M. Middius" ran away from that quote where
> > Atkinson said he felt the debate with you was "necessary"?
>
> What is new? It's a given that if you back Middius or Atkinson into a

> corner, one of their dumbed-down buddies like Sackman, Scott, Weil,
Rudy,
> Borgma or whoever will chime in with some stupid retort.
>
>

This debate is turning out to be quite a debacle for "Middius". First,
his prediction and wager that you would never agree to appear for the
debate now makes him appear to be an ass. Next, his hero, "Lord
Atkinson" (a "Middius term, BTW) admits that he feels the debate is
necessary, not something Atkinson deigns to do so he can trifle with
you.
>
>
No wonder "Middius" disappeared! ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ups.com
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
>>>>

>>>> . You embraced the seemingly
>>>>> bizarre notion that the Krooborg and its "objectivist" ilk have a
>>>>> meaningful viewpoint,

>>>> This statement is so flawed that it can't be a mere grotesque error.

>>>> First off, I'm not an objectivist, I'm a subjectivist. I'm simply a
>>>> subjectivist who has progressed far enough beyond the absolute and
>>>> total
>>>> naiveté that Middius preaches, to see some value in considering issues
>>>> relating to the reliability of human perceptions.

>>>> Secondly, the idea that the objectivists lack a meaningful viewpoint
>>>> is
>>>> falsified by the years of effort that Middius has put into attacking
>>>> it.

>>>> Or perhaps Middius wants us to believe that he truly is the
>>>> reincarnation of
>>>> Don Quixote, and his zillions of diatribes against mainstream
>>>> scientific
>>>> thought as applied to audio are simply jousts with slow-moving windmill
>>>> blades.

>>> Notice that "George M. Middius" ran away from that quote where
>>> Atkinson said he felt the debate with you was "necessary"?

>> What is new? It's a given that if you back Middius or Atkinson into a
>> corner, one of their dumbed-down buddies like Sackman, Scott, Weil,
>> Rudy,
>> Borgma or whoever will chime in with some stupid retort.

That this didn't happen yet is an indication that either they are all
sockpuppets animated by the same person who is indisposed, or that Atkinson
has pulled the prerequisite strings and is keeping them quiet to keep my
prediction from coming true this one time.

> This debate is turning out to be quite a debacle for "Middius". First,
> his prediction and wager that you would never agree to appear for the
> debate now makes him appear to be an ass.

I think you're being way too kind. Middius is well beyond the simple
appearance of being an ass. His recent claim that I murdered my son might
have been contrived to give Atkinson to finally do the right thing after how
many years of standing idly by while Briggs/England and Middius attacked and
attacked and attacked and attacked. I suspect that Atkinson knows who
animates the Middius and Briggs/England sockpuppets, and has long had
private communications with them relating to their reprehensible activities
on RAO.

>Next, his hero, "Lord
> Atkinson" (a "Middius term, BTW) admits that he feels the debate is
> necessary, not something Atkinson deigns to do so he can trifle with
> you.

Frankly, I still don't get it but what the hey? I'm just a wild and crazy
guy (Do you remember how his caused Zelniker to go off, one of the last
times I used this common figure of speech?)

[Michael McKelvy]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
>
>
>>
> . You embraced the seemingly
>> bizarre notion that the Krooborg and its "objectivist" ilk have a
>> meaningful viewpoint,
>
> This statement is so flawed that it can't be a mere grotesque error.
>
> First off, I'm not an objectivist, I'm a subjectivist. I'm simply a
> subjectivist who has progressed far enough beyond the absolute and total
> naiveté that Middius preaches, to see some value in considering issues
> relating to the reliability of human perceptions.
>
> Secondly, the idea that the objectivists lack a meaningful viewpoint is
> falsified by the years of effort that Middius has put into attacking it.
> Or perhaps Middius wants us to believe that he truly is the reincarnation
> of Don Quixote, and his zillions of diatribes against mainstream
> scientific thought as applied to audio are simply jousts with slow-moving
> windmill blades.
>
>
Nah, he's just a putz with a keyboard.