Stynchie & Thingie, sittin' in a tree.... [Archive]

George M. Middius

June 30th 05, 03:58 AM

It's just so terrible that Normals mock Clerkenstein about his plagiarism.
He's a holy warrior for the Hivie cause, so he should be exempt from common
standards of decency, right?

Krooger boasting about keeping kiddie porn on his computer for years ...
silly of anybody to worry. After all, Arnii is a churchgoin', God-fearin'
Regler Murrican Guy, right?

Bwian Mc****head almost getting Phoebe Johnston fired ... well, we can't
blame Bwian for that, can we? No, let's blame George. That fits our agenda.
Blaming Bwian for his own actions would be wrong because Bwian is also a
holy warrior against the E.H.E.E.

Now let's see.... All those Normals have slandered Clerkie by rubbing his
face in his plagiarism. Naughty, naughty Normals. And they've slandered the
Kroo by calling him to account for his *****admitted****** hosting of kiddie
porn, and for his public airing of necrophilia/pedophilia/incest fantasies.
So let's attack the Normals for trying over and over to get these two
upstanding holy warriors to take responsibility for their own actions. Silly
of them, wasn't it? Clerkie and the Krooborg needn't be held accountable.
That's because they're Special Persons. Didn't you Normals realize that?

Go on now. Leave Them be.

GeoSynch

June 30th 05, 04:20 AM

'lil Georgie gurgled:

> So let's attack the Normals...

You "normal"???!!!!
Talk about Orwellian doublespeak...

GeoSynch

Clyde Slick

June 30th 05, 04:24 AM

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> It's just so terrible that Normals mock Clerkenstein about his plagiarism.
> He's a holy warrior for the Hivie cause, so he should be exempt from
> common
> standards of decency, right?
>
> Krooger boasting about keeping kiddie porn on his computer for years ...
> silly of anybody to worry. After all, Arnii is a churchgoin', God-fearin'
> Regler Murrican Guy, right?
>
> Bwian Mc****head almost getting Phoebe Johnston fired ... well, we can't
> blame Bwian for that, can we? No, let's blame George. That fits our
> agenda.
> Blaming Bwian for his own actions would be wrong because Bwian is also a
> holy warrior against the E.H.E.E.
>
> Now let's see.... All those Normals have slandered Clerkie by rubbing his
> face in his plagiarism. Naughty, naughty Normals. And they've slandered
> the
> Kroo by calling him to account for his *****admitted****** hosting of
> kiddie
> porn, and for his public airing of necrophilia/pedophilia/incest
> fantasies.
> So let's attack the Normals for trying over and over to get these two
> upstanding holy warriors to take responsibility for their own actions.
> Silly
> of them, wasn't it? Clerkie and the Krooborg needn't be held accountable.
> That's because they're Special Persons. Didn't you Normals realize that?
>
> Go on now. Leave Them be.
>

For best effect, read it as if it were presented by John Cleese.

----== 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

June 30th 05, 11:15 AM

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net> wrote in message

> And they've slandered the Kroo by calling him to account
for
> his *****admitted****** hosting of kiddie porn, and for
his
> public airing of necrophilia/pedophilia/incest fantasies.

The files in question were sent to me by unknown person(s)
who were trying to leverage off the death of my son by tying
his death to graphic sexual images. I deleted the files, but
they remained on my hard drive in Outlook Express's deleted
files folder. The files were reconstructed for examination
by an officer of the Michigan State Police, who pronounced
them to be fake kiddie porn - they were actually pictures of
adults.

As far as the public airing of necrophilia/pedophilia/incest
fantasies goes, the authors of the fantasies were mostly
Middius himself and Graham, "The Devil". The essence of my
"airing" was complaining about their many vile postings.
Again, Middius and Gragham were trying to leverage off the
death of my son by tying his name to horrific violent acts.

Why does Middius dredge all this up, so many years later? I
guess he's just trying to relive what he believes to be his
past *glories*. Very sad.

Clyde Slick

June 30th 05, 12:09 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
> [dot] net> wrote in message
>
>
>> And they've slandered the Kroo by calling him to account
> for
>> his *****admitted****** hosting of kiddie porn, and for
> his
>> public airing of necrophilia/pedophilia/incest fantasies.
>
> The files in question were sent to me by unknown person(s)
> who were trying to leverage off the death of my son by tying
> his death to graphic sexual images. I deleted the files, but
> they remained on my hard drive in Outlook Express's deleted
> files folder. The files were reconstructed for examination
> by an officer of the Michigan State Police, who pronounced
> them to be fake kiddie porn - they were actually pictures of
> adults.
>
> As far as the public airing of necrophilia/pedophilia/incest
> fantasies goes, the authors of the fantasies were mostly
> Middius himself and Graham, "The Devil". The essence of my
> "airing" was complaining about their many vile postings.
> Again, Middius and Gragham were trying to leverage off the
> death of my son by tying his name to horrific violent acts.
>
> Why does Middius dredge all this up, so many years later? I
> guess he's just trying to relive what he believes to be his
> past *glories*. Very sad.
>

The whole story is a fake. There never were any files.
There was no MSP investigation. This was a pathetic
sympathy troll that got out of hand. Each time
we caught Arny in a lie or inconsistency, he would
cover it up by making yet another lie. Arny's whole story
is one big pathetic sick exhibition of his
pyschological pathologies.

----== 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

June 30th 05, 12:12 PM

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

> The whole story is a fake. There never were any files.
> There was no MSP investigation.

Prove it.

George M. Middius

June 30th 05, 12:36 PM

The Krooborg whined:

> Why does Middius dredge all this up, so many years later?

<snicker>

It's a good thing you don't have a conscience, Turdy. Else you'd be unable
to live with yourself.

Clyde Slick

June 30th 05, 12:41 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>
>> The whole story is a fake. There never were any files.
>> There was no MSP investigation.
>
> Prove it.
>
>
You have been making these ridiculous allegations for years.
You are the one who has been accusing a multitude
of your 'enemies' of sending you kiddie porn.
You prove it! Every time you tried to, you
just kept digging a deeper hole for yourself.
Like the forged email headers you provided. Lordy,
even if the headers were true, its no proof
as to the content or attachments to the email.

You can't prove it, because it has all been a gigantic
series of dirty rotten slanderous lies, flowing
out of your sick and perverted imagination.

----== 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

June 30th 05, 01:10 PM

George M. Middius a écrit :
>
> Else you'd be unable
> to live with yourself.

Experience is speaking.

George M. Middius

June 30th 05, 01:14 PM

Clyde Slick said to Turdborg:

> You can't prove it, because it has all been a gigantic
> series of dirty rotten slanderous lies, flowing
> out of your sick and perverted imagination.

.... which is not a crime, note.

Lionel

June 30th 05, 01:18 PM

George "Faust" Middius wrote :

> It's a good thing you don't have a conscience, Turdy. Else you'd be unable
> to live with yourself

Experience is speaking...
George has swapped his conscience against a second asshole. ;-)

Arny Krueger

June 30th 05, 01:21 PM

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> The whole story is a fake. There never were any files.
>>> There was no MSP investigation.
>>
>> Prove it.

> You have been making these ridiculous allegations for
years.

A fact that proves nothing.

> You are the one who has been accusing a multitude
> of your 'enemies' of sending you kiddie porn.

A fact that proves nothing.

> You prove it!

Not my job.

> Every time you tried to, you
> just kept digging a deeper hole for yourself.

A unsubstantiated opinion from a highly biased source.

> Like the forged email headers you provided.

It's like someone would send me such a thing by 100%
tracable, legitimate means.

> Lordy, even if the headers were true, its no proof
> as to the content or attachments to the email.

Not my problem, Art. You're the one who started out making
allegations this morning. I'm perfectly happy to let the
issue die. You aren't. So now, why not take responsibility
for your own actions?

> You can't prove it,

I *can* prove that Devil and Middius repeatedly posted their
necrophilia/pedophilia/incest fantasies on RAO. Why do you
give them free passes to do this, Art?

> because it has all been a gigantic
> series of dirty rotten slanderous lies,

Yup, dirty rotten slanderous lies posted on RAO by Middius
and his clique.

Clyde Slick

June 30th 05, 01:27 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> Not my problem, Art. You're the one who started out making
> allegations this morning.

A transparent LIE!

You started the morning off with this lie:
"The files in question were sent to me by unknown person(s)
who were trying to leverage off the death of my son by tying
his death to graphic sexual images."

----== 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

June 30th 05, 01:29 PM

"Lionel" > wrote in message

> George M. Middius a écrit :
>>
>> Else you'd be unable
>> to live with yourself.
>
> Experience is speaking.

Here's a couple of speculative thoughts.

(1) One of the areas where "The Tape" file that John
Atkinson sent me is incomplete, is that half of the
conversation, presumably by the caller who is known here as
"The Devil", is missing.

Obviously, the caller, who known around here as "The Devil"
feared that he would be identified based on the sound of his
voice. Whose voice would be instantly recognizable to RAO
readers, particularly at this time, particularly since the
posting of the HE2005 debate?

(2) Atkinson has long been adamant that none of his staff
ever posts on RAO. I've always contended that if people post
on RAO under aliases that Atkinson doesn't know, he can't
properly make this claim.

One way that Atkinson could know for sure that his staff
never posts on RAO is if he knows the true identity of
*every* person who posts on RAO, including say "The Devil".
One way Atkinson could know the true identity of "The Devil"
would be if "The Devil" was indeed Atkinson himself.

Arny Krueger

June 30th 05, 01:31 PM

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Not my problem, Art. You're the one who started out
making
>> allegations this morning.
>
> A transparent LIE!
>
>
> You started the morning off with this lie:
> "The files in question were sent to me by unknown
person(s)
> who were trying to leverage off the death of my son by
tying
> his death to graphic sexual images."

The thread's OP was Middius. The author of the post I
responded to was by Middius and contained the following:

George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net> wrote in message

> And they've slandered the Kroo by calling him to account
for
> his ****admitted***** hosting of kiddie porn, and for his
> public airing of necrophilia/pedophilia/incest fantasies.

Arny Krueger

June 30th 05, 01:33 PM

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net> wrote in message

> Clyde Slick said to Turdborg:
>
>> You can't prove it, because it has all been a gigantic
>> series of dirty rotten slanderous lies, flowing
>> out of your sick and perverted imagination.
>
> ... which is not a crime, note.

However, your long term habit of posting lies and slander of
me might be actionable, except for the fact that being the
coward you are Middius, you've avoided using my true name,
or admitting that the various perversions of it that you've
used were related to me.

Bascially Middius, you're just a rank coward who hides
behind a series of aliases.

Clyde Slick

June 30th 05, 01:44 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>
>> George M. Middius a écrit :
>>>
>>> Else you'd be unable
>>> to live with yourself.
>>
>> Experience is speaking.
>
> Here's a couple of speculative thoughts.
>
> (1) One of the areas where "The Tape" file that John
> Atkinson sent me is incomplete, is that half of the
> conversation, presumably by the caller who is known here as
> "The Devil", is missing.
>
> Obviously, the caller, who known around here as "The Devil"
> feared that he would be identified based on the sound of his
> voice. Whose voice would be instantly recognizable to RAO
> readers, particularly at this time, particularly since the
> posting of the HE2005 debate?
>
> (2) Atkinson has long been adamant that none of his staff
> ever posts on RAO. I've always contended that if people post
> on RAO under aliases that Atkinson doesn't know, he can't
> properly make this claim.
>
> One way that Atkinson could know for sure that his staff
> never posts on RAO is if he knows the true identity of
> *every* person who posts on RAO, including say "The Devil".
> One way Atkinson could know the true identity of "The Devil"
> would be if "The Devil" was indeed Atkinson himself.
>
>

Arny is totally UNHINGED!!!!!!!!!!
It finally happened~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

----== 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 =----

George M. Middius

June 30th 05, 01:46 PM

Clyde Slick said to Mr. ****:

> You started the morning off with this lie:
> "The files in question were sent to me by unknown person(s)
> who were trying to leverage off the death of my son by tying
> his death to graphic sexual images."

Yes, Arnii, explain how that is not a lie. It's completely untrue, as in
false, fabricated, contrary to reality. And it was said with the deliberate
attempt to deceive.

Is it your testimony that since you're a Special Person, reality doesn't
enter into your tapestry of lies? That because you're demented, you escape
being responsible for your crimes? If that's your pleading, just say so.
That will be the end of this chapter as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure the
other Normals will also be sympathetic to such a plea.

Feel free to consult with Thing and Slut if you need guidance.

Clyde Slick

June 30th 05, 01:48 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> Not my problem, Art. You're the one who started out
> making
>>> allegations this morning.
>>
>> A transparent LIE!
>>
>>
>> You started the morning off with this lie:
>> "The files in question were sent to me by unknown
> person(s)
>> who were trying to leverage off the death of my son by
> tying
>> his death to graphic sexual images."
>
> The thread's OP was Middius. The author of the post I
> responded to was by Middius and contained the following:
>
> George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
> [dot] net> wrote in message
>
>
>> And they've slandered the Kroo by calling him to account
> for
>> his ****admitted***** hosting of kiddie porn, and for his
>> public airing of necrophilia/pedophilia/incest fantasies.
>
>

Well Arny!!!
Thank you for admitting that you were lying when you said this:
" Not my problem, Art. You're the one who started out
making allegations this morning."
That is, unless you want to throw another tantrum
nd claim that George and I are the same person.

----== 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 =----

dave weil

June 30th 05, 01:49 PM

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 08:21:17 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>
>I *can* prove that Devil and Middius repeatedly posted their
>necrophilia/pedophilia/incest fantasies on RAO. Why do you
>give them free passes to do this, Art?

Why do YOU get free passes for doing the same thing?

MINe 109

June 30th 05, 01:52 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>
> > George M. Middius a écrit :
> >>
> >> Else you'd be unable
> >> to live with yourself.
> >
> > Experience is speaking.
>
> Here's a couple of speculative thoughts.
>
> (1) One of the areas where "The Tape" file that John
> Atkinson sent me is incomplete, is that half of the
> conversation, presumably by the caller who is known here as
> "The Devil", is missing.
>
> Obviously, the caller, who known around here as "The Devil"
> feared that he would be identified based on the sound of his
> voice. Whose voice would be instantly recognizable to RAO
> readers, particularly at this time, particularly since the
> posting of the HE2005 debate?

The point was that it was you on "The Tape." IIRC, that excerpt was
posted months if not years before the debate.

> (2) Atkinson has long been adamant that none of his staff
> ever posts on RAO. I've always contended that if people post
> on RAO under aliases that Atkinson doesn't know, he can't
> properly make this claim.
>
> One way that Atkinson could know for sure that his staff
> never posts on RAO is if he knows the true identity of
> *every* person who posts on RAO, including say "The Devil".
> One way Atkinson could know the true identity of "The Devil"
> would be if "The Devil" was indeed Atkinson himself.

Nope. To apply your logic, wouldn't his voice be "instantly
recognizable" to you? You've heard them both.

Here's a speculative thought: "The Devil" was right to obscure his part
of the conversation considering your unfounded speculation at this time.

Stephen

Arny Krueger

June 30th 05, 01:53 PM

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

> Thank you for admitting that you were lying when you said
this:
> " Not my problem, Art. You're the one who started out
> making allegations this morning."

It's true that sometimes I can't believe that you and
Middius are as stupid as you are, and not be the same
person. I sometimes can' imagine why anybody with a brain
would defend Middius as strongly as you do, and not be one
of his sockpuppets.

Lionel

June 30th 05, 02:00 PM

Clyde Slick a écrit :

> George and I are the same person.

That's not wrong since you are George's third asshole.

Arny Krueger

June 30th 05, 02:10 PM

"MINe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>>
>>> George M. Middius a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> Else you'd be unable
>>>> to live with yourself.
>>>
>>> Experience is speaking.
>>
>> Here's a couple of speculative thoughts.
>>
>> (1) One of the areas where "The Tape" file that John
>> Atkinson sent me is incomplete, is that half of the
>> conversation, presumably by the caller who is known here
as
>> "The Devil", is missing.
>>
>> Obviously, the caller, who known around here as "The
Devil"
>> feared that he would be identified based on the sound of
his
>> voice. Whose voice would be instantly recognizable to RAO
>> readers, particularly at this time, particularly since
the
>> posting of the HE2005 debate?

> The point was that it was you on "The Tape." IIRC, that
> excerpt was posted months if not years before the debate.

You must be privy to something I don't know, Stephen. You
also seem to think you know quite a bit about a file that
Atkinson sent me by private email. Why is that?

>> (2) Atkinson has long been adamant that none of his
staff
>> ever posts on RAO. I've always contended that if people
post
>> on RAO under aliases that Atkinson doesn't know, he can't
>> properly make this claim.
>>
>> One way that Atkinson could know for sure that his staff
>> never posts on RAO is if he knows the true identity of
>> *every* person who posts on RAO, including say "The
Devil".
>> One way Atkinson could know the true identity of "The
Devil"
>> would be if "The Devil" was indeed Atkinson himself.
>
> Nope. To apply your logic, wouldn't his voice be
"instantly
> recognizable" to you? You've heard them both.

Not in any reasonably close proximity.

> Here's a speculative thought: "The Devil" was right to
obscure
> his part of the conversation considering your unfounded
> speculation at this time.

Which unfounded speculation might that be?

Stephen, do you deny that "The Devil" and Middius posted
quite a large number of necrophilia/pedophilia/incest
fantasies on RAO?

MINe 109

June 30th 05, 02:26 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> George M. Middius a écrit :
> >>>>
> >>>> Else you'd be unable
> >>>> to live with yourself.
> >>>
> >>> Experience is speaking.
> >>
> >> Here's a couple of speculative thoughts.
> >>
> >> (1) One of the areas where "The Tape" file that John
> >> Atkinson sent me is incomplete, is that half of the
> >> conversation, presumably by the caller who is known here
> as
> >> "The Devil", is missing.
> >>
> >> Obviously, the caller, who known around here as "The
> Devil"
> >> feared that he would be identified based on the sound of
> his
> >> voice. Whose voice would be instantly recognizable to RAO
> >> readers, particularly at this time, particularly since
> the
> >> posting of the HE2005 debate?
>
> > The point was that it was you on "The Tape." IIRC, that
> > excerpt was posted months if not years before the debate.
>
> You must be privy to something I don't know, Stephen. You
> also seem to think you know quite a bit about a file that
> Atkinson sent me by private email. Why is that?

You'll find this was discussed right here on RAO.

Another point is that it's the same recording that was distributed to
many RAO regulars years ago. The only reason I haven't deleted my copy
is that it's on my old computer which hasn't been powered up since 2003
or so.

> >> (2) Atkinson has long been adamant that none of his
> staff
> >> ever posts on RAO. I've always contended that if people
> post
> >> on RAO under aliases that Atkinson doesn't know, he can't
> >> properly make this claim.
> >>
> >> One way that Atkinson could know for sure that his staff
> >> never posts on RAO is if he knows the true identity of
> >> *every* person who posts on RAO, including say "The
> Devil".
> >> One way Atkinson could know the true identity of "The
> Devil"
> >> would be if "The Devil" was indeed Atkinson himself.
> >
> > Nope. To apply your logic, wouldn't his voice be
> "instantly
> > recognizable" to you? You've heard them both.
>
> Not in any reasonably close proximity.

All Brits sound the same to you? JA has a slight speech impediment,
according to him in posts on RAO. Proximity would not be required.

> > Here's a speculative thought: "The Devil" was right to
> obscure
> > his part of the conversation considering your unfounded
> > speculation at this time.
>
> Which unfounded speculation might that be?

Your previous post.

> Stephen, do you deny that "The Devil" and Middius posted
> quite a large number of necrophilia/pedophilia/incest
> fantasies on RAO?

It's all in Google.

Stephen

Arny Krueger

June 30th 05, 02:40 PM

"MINe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>

>>> In article >,
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> George M. Middius a écrit :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Else you'd be unable
>>>>>> to live with yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>> Experience is speaking.
>>>>
>>>> Here's a couple of speculative thoughts.
>>>>
>>>> (1) One of the areas where "The Tape" file that John
>>>> Atkinson sent me is incomplete, is that half of the
>>>> conversation, presumably by the caller who is known
here
>> as
>>>> "The Devil", is missing.
>>>>
>>>> Obviously, the caller, who known around here as "The
>> Devil"
>>>> feared that he would be identified based on the sound
of
>> his
>>>> voice. Whose voice would be instantly recognizable to
RAO
>>>> readers, particularly at this time, particularly since
>> the
>>>> posting of the HE2005 debate?
>>
>>> The point was that it was you on "The Tape." IIRC, that
>>> excerpt was posted months if not years before the
debate.
>>
>> You must be privy to something I don't know, Stephen. You
>> also seem to think you know quite a bit about a file that
>> Atkinson sent me by private email. Why is that?
>
> You'll find this was discussed right here on RAO.

Could you be less specific and informative, Stephen?

> Another point is that it's the same recording that was
> distributed to many RAO regulars years ago.

Same question. You seem to be claiming perfect knowlege
about my private email, Stephen. How do you know that the
two files are in fact identical?

> The only reason I
> haven't deleted my copy is that it's on my old computer
which
> hasn't been powered up since 2003 or so.

Irrelevant.

>>>> (2) Atkinson has long been adamant that none of his
staff
>>>> ever posts on RAO. I've always contended that if people
post
>>>> on RAO under aliases that Atkinson doesn't know, he
can't
>>>> properly make this claim.

>>>> One way that Atkinson could know for sure that his
staff
>>>> never posts on RAO is if he knows the true identity of
>>>> *every* person who posts on RAO, including say "The
Devil".
>>>> One way Atkinson could know the true identity of "The
Devil"
>>>> would be if "The Devil" was indeed Atkinson himself.

>>> Nope. To apply your logic, wouldn't his voice be
>> "instantly
>>> recognizable" to you? You've heard them both.

>> Not in any reasonably close proximity.

> All Brits sound the same to you?

Irrelevant, and insulting.

>JA has a slight speech
> impediment, according to him in posts on RAO. Proximity
would
> not be required.

I know no such thing.

Why don't know what he sounds like given that there is a
lengthy voice recording of it on the web?

>>> Here's a speculative thought: "The Devil" was right to
obscure
>>> his part of the conversation considering your unfounded
>>> speculation at this time.

>> Which unfounded speculation might that be?

> Your previous post.

Except this is just baseless name-calling on your part,
Stephen.

>> Stephen, do you deny that "The Devil" and Middius posted
>> quite a large number of necrophilia/pedophilia/incest
>> fantasies on RAO?

> It's all in Google.

It's pretty damning, isn't it?

MINe 109

June 30th 05, 03:01 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> >>
>
> >>> In article >,
> >>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> >>>>
> >>>>> George M. Middius a écrit :
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Else you'd be unable
> >>>>>> to live with yourself.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Experience is speaking.
> >>>>
> >>>> Here's a couple of speculative thoughts.
> >>>>
> >>>> (1) One of the areas where "The Tape" file that John
> >>>> Atkinson sent me is incomplete, is that half of the
> >>>> conversation, presumably by the caller who is known
> here
> >> as
> >>>> "The Devil", is missing.
> >>>>
> >>>> Obviously, the caller, who known around here as "The
> >> Devil"
> >>>> feared that he would be identified based on the sound
> of
> >> his
> >>>> voice. Whose voice would be instantly recognizable to
> RAO
> >>>> readers, particularly at this time, particularly since
> >> the
> >>>> posting of the HE2005 debate?
> >>
> >>> The point was that it was you on "The Tape." IIRC, that
> >>> excerpt was posted months if not years before the
> debate.
> >>
> >> You must be privy to something I don't know, Stephen. You
> >> also seem to think you know quite a bit about a file that
> >> Atkinson sent me by private email. Why is that?
> >
> > You'll find this was discussed right here on RAO.
>
> Could you be less specific and informative, Stephen?

Yes.

> > Another point is that it's the same recording that was
> > distributed to many RAO regulars years ago.
>
> Same question. You seem to be claiming perfect knowlege
> about my private email, Stephen. How do you know that the
> two files are in fact identical?

I assume they are not identical: one is abridged and removes or obscures
the Devil's side of the conversation.

> > The only reason I
> > haven't deleted my copy is that it's on my old computer
> which
> > hasn't been powered up since 2003 or so.
>
> Irrelevant.

It's old, old news.

> >>>> (2) Atkinson has long been adamant that none of his
> staff
> >>>> ever posts on RAO. I've always contended that if people
> post
> >>>> on RAO under aliases that Atkinson doesn't know, he
> can't
> >>>> properly make this claim.
>
> >>>> One way that Atkinson could know for sure that his
> staff
> >>>> never posts on RAO is if he knows the true identity of
> >>>> *every* person who posts on RAO, including say "The
> Devil".
> >>>> One way Atkinson could know the true identity of "The
> Devil"
> >>>> would be if "The Devil" was indeed Atkinson himself.
>
> >>> Nope. To apply your logic, wouldn't his voice be
> >> "instantly
> >>> recognizable" to you? You've heard them both.
>
> >> Not in any reasonably close proximity.
>
> > All Brits sound the same to you?
>
> Irrelevant, and insulting.

It saves time to manufacture offenses, doesn't it?

> >JA has a slight speech
> > impediment, according to him in posts on RAO. Proximity
> would
> > not be required.
>
> I know no such thing.
>
> Why don't know what he sounds like given that there is a
> lengthy voice recording of it on the web?

Maybe you can't identify voices on the phone. Your next bit is garbled,
but I don't need to know what JA sounds like to know he's not on "The
Tape."

> >>> Here's a speculative thought: "The Devil" was right to
> obscure
> >>> his part of the conversation considering your unfounded
> >>> speculation at this time.
>
> >> Which unfounded speculation might that be?
>
> > Your previous post.
>
> Except this is just baseless name-calling on your part,
> Stephen.

Except that it's not baseless and it's not name-calling.

> >> Stephen, do you deny that "The Devil" and Middius posted
> >> quite a large number of necrophilia/pedophilia/incest
> >> fantasies on RAO?
>
> > It's all in Google.
>
> It's pretty damning, isn't it?

You're in Google, too.

George Middius

June 30th 05, 03:09 PM

The Krooborg has charged up his AutoLying module.

>> And they've slandered the Kroo by calling him to account for
>> his *****admitted****** hosting of kiddie porn, and for his
>> public airing of necrophilia/pedophilia/incest fantasies.

>The files in question were sent to me

Arnii, Arnii, Arnii. It's apparent you're still ignoring your doctor's orders.
what's that? No doctor? Oh, how dreadful for you. All those years of disability
payments but no proper health care. Very sad.

I don't think there is a cure for sociopathy or paranoia, but there are
treatments to help you cope better. Are you going to postpone treatment until
your poor family have to have you confined for your own protection?

George Middius

June 30th 05, 03:11 PM

Poor little Slut. The best she can do is imitate IKYABWAIBorg's weakest
rejoinders.

>> Else you'd be unable to live with yourself.

>Experience is speaking.

Are you sticking out your tongue at the monitor as you type that, Slut?

Arny Krueger

June 30th 05, 03:12 PM

"MINe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>

>>> In article >,
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>

>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> George M. Middius a écrit :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Else you'd be unable
>>>>>>>> to live with yourself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Experience is speaking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here's a couple of speculative thoughts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (1) One of the areas where "The Tape" file that John
>>>>>> Atkinson sent me is incomplete, is that half of the
>>>>>> conversation, presumably by the caller who is known
here
>>>>>> as "The Devil", is missing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Obviously, the caller, who known around here as "The
>>>> Devil"
>>>>>> feared that he would be identified based on the sound
of
>>>>>> his voice. Whose voice would be instantly
recognizable to
>> RAO
>>>>>> readers, particularly at this time, particularly
since
>>>> the
>>>>>> posting of the HE2005 debate?
>>>>
>>>>> The point was that it was you on "The Tape." IIRC,
that
>>>>> excerpt was posted months if not years before the
>> debate.
>>>>
>>>> You must be privy to something I don't know, Stephen.
You
>>>> also seem to think you know quite a bit about a file
that
>>>> Atkinson sent me by private email. Why is that?
>>>
>>> You'll find this was discussed right here on RAO.
>>
>> Could you be less specific and informative, Stephen?
>
> Yes.

I''l bet. And to drive your point home Stephen, you make a
valiant effort at the same. Trouble is, your evasions tell a
sad story about your character, or lack thereof.

>>> Another point is that it's the same recording that was
>>> distributed to many RAO regulars years ago.

>> Same question. You seem to be claiming perfect knowlege
>> about my private email, Stephen. How do you know that the
>> two files are in fact identical?

> I assume they are not identical: one is abridged and
removes
> or obscures the Devil's side of the conversation.

Chance of story noted.

>>> The only reason I
>>> haven't deleted my copy is that it's on my old computer
>> which
>>> hasn't been powered up since 2003 or so.
>>
>> Irrelevant.

> It's old, old news.

Doooh!

>>>>>> (2) Atkinson has long been adamant that none of his
staff
>>>>>> ever posts on RAO. I've always contended that if
people post
>>>>>> on RAO under aliases that Atkinson doesn't know, he
can't
>>>>>> properly make this claim.

>>>>>> One way that Atkinson could know for sure that his
staff
>>>>>> never posts on RAO is if he knows the true identity
of
>>>>>> *every* person who posts on RAO, including say "The
Devil".
>>>>>> One way Atkinson could know the true identity of "The
Devil"
>>>>>> would be if "The Devil" was indeed Atkinson himself.

>>>>> Nope. To apply your logic, wouldn't his voice be
"instantly
>>>>> recognizable" to you? You've heard them both.

>>>> Not in any reasonably close proximity.

>>> All Brits sound the same to you?

>> Irrelevant, and insulting.

> It saves time to manufacture offenses, doesn't it?

I'll leave that to you, Stephen. You obviously tried to
manufacture this offense.

>>> JA has a slight speech
>>> impediment, according to him in posts on RAO. Proximity
>> would
>>> not be required.

>> I know no such thing.

>> Why don't know what he sounds like given that there is a
>> lengthy voice recording of it on the web?

> Maybe you can't identify voices on the phone.

Maybe I can't identify voices that are obliterated. Indeed,
its quite certain that I can't identify voices that are
obliterated.

> Your next bit is
> garbled, but I don't need to know what JA sounds like to
know
> he's not on "The Tape."

That's an interesting clam Stephen. I'll bet that you can't
clarify it very much.

>>>>> Here's a speculative thought: "The Devil" was right to
obscure
>>>>> his part of the conversation considering your
unfounded
>>>>> speculation at this time.

>>>> Which unfounded speculation might that be?

>>> Your previous post.

>> Except this is just baseless name-calling on your part,
>> Stephen.

> Except that it's not baseless and it's not name-calling.

Prove it.

>>>> Stephen, do you deny that "The Devil" and Middius
posted
>>>> quite a large number of necrophilia/pedophilia/incest
>>>> fantasies on RAO?

>>> It's all in Google.

>> It's pretty damning, isn't it?

> You're in Google, too.

So what? I'm in google as objecting to the Devil's lies and
slanders, as well as those of Middius. One thing that is
quite clear Stephen is how evasive you become when it comes
to commenting on their evil deeds. Why is that?

George Middius

June 30th 05, 03:15 PM

More empty boasting from AutoLiarBorg.

>I *can* prove that Devil and Middius repeatedly posted their
>necrophilia/pedophilia/incest fantasies on RAO.

Go ahead and prove it, Turdy.

MINe 109

June 30th 05, 03:19 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> >> Could you be less specific and informative, Stephen?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> I''l bet. And to drive your point home Stephen, you make a
> valiant effort at the same. Trouble is, your evasions tell a
> sad story about your character, or lack thereof.

You're making stuff up. Give it a rest.

Stephen

Arny Krueger

June 30th 05, 03:21 PM

"MINe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>>>> Could you be less specific and informative, Stephen?
>>>
>>> Yes.

>> I''l bet. And to drive your point home Stephen, you make
a
>> valiant effort at the same. Trouble is, your evasions
tell a
>> sad story about your character, or lack thereof.

> You're making stuff up. Give it a rest.

This is just another example of Stepehen's heavy-duty
evasiveness.

Probably, something about sockpuppets and guilt.

MINe 109

June 30th 05, 03:21 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> >>>>> Here's a speculative thought: "The Devil" was right to
> obscure
> >>>>> his part of the conversation considering your
> unfounded
> >>>>> speculation at this time.
>
> >>>> Which unfounded speculation might that be?
>
> >>> Your previous post.
>
> >> Except this is just baseless name-calling on your part,
> >> Stephen.
>
> > Except that it's not baseless and it's not name-calling.
>
> Prove it.

Your speculation that JA is really Graham (or vice versa) is unsupported
by your evidence and saying so isn't name-calling.

Stephen

George Middius

June 30th 05, 03:28 PM

Poor, pathetic Arnii Krooborg is grasping at the slenderest of straws.

>Obviously,

Translation: Wild speculation, based on a wisp of a shred of a ghost of
evidence, to follow.

>the caller, who known around here as "The Devil"
>feared that he would be identified based on the sound of his
>voice.

Good, Arnii. That's correct. You should stop there.

>Whose voice would be instantly recognizable to RAO
>readers, particularly at this time, particularly since the
>posting of the HE2005 debate?

LOL! You couldn't be more wrong, you raving retard.

>(2) Atkinson has long been adamant that none of his staff
>ever posts on RAO. I've always contended that if people post
>on RAO under aliases that Atkinson doesn't know, he can't
>properly make this claim.

Your paranoia gland is working overtime.

>One way that Atkinson could know for sure that his staff
>never posts on RAO is if he knows the true identity of
>*every* person who posts on RAO, including say "The Devil".
>One way Atkinson could know the true identity of "The Devil"
>would be if "The Devil" was indeed Atkinson himself.

Such desperation. What will you do when the recording becomes public?

[email protected]

June 30th 05, 03:32 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Clyde "scarecrow" Slick" > wrote in message
>
>
> > Thank you for admitting that you were lying when you said
> this:
> > " Not my problem, Art. You're the one who started out
> > making allegations this morning."
>
> It's true that sometimes I can't believe that you and
> Middius are as stupid as you are, and not be the same
> person. I sometimes can' imagine why anybody with a brain
> would defend Middius as strongly as you do, and not be one
> of his sockpuppets.
>
>
Key phrase: "anybody with a brain". I think the answer is obvious,
Arny! :-D

Lionel

June 30th 05, 04:18 PM

George Middius a écrit :
> Poor little Slut. The best she can do is imitate IKYABWAIBorg's weakest
> rejoinders.
>
>
>>>Else you'd be unable to live with yourself.
>
>
>>Experience is speaking.
>
>
> Are you sticking out your tongue at the monitor as you type that, Slut?

I fully agree this one sucks.
This is why I tried an other one :

------------------------------------------------------------------------
George "Faust" Middius wrote :

> It's a good thing you don't have a conscience, Turdy. Else
> you'd be unable to live with yourself

Experience is speaking...
George has swapped his conscience against a second asshole. ;-)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Better ?

MINe 109

June 30th 05, 04:37 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >>>> Could you be less specific and informative, Stephen?
> >>>
> >>> Yes.
>
> >> I''l bet. And to drive your point home Stephen, you make
> a
> >> valiant effort at the same. Trouble is, your evasions
> tell a
> >> sad story about your character, or lack thereof.
>
> > You're making stuff up. Give it a rest.
>
> This is just another example of Stepehen's heavy-duty
> evasiveness.
>
> Probably, something about sockpuppets and guilt.

Sigh. No one's kicked you around on RAP today, so I guess you got up on
the wrong side of the bed.

Stephen

Arny Krueger

June 30th 05, 06:45 PM

"George Middius" > wrote in
message

> ****-for-Brains tries to defend his exceedingly ****ful
self.
>
>>>> You can't prove it, because it has all been a gigantic
>>>> series of dirty rotten slanderous lies, flowing
>>>> out of your sick and perverted imagination.
>
>>> ... which is not a crime, note.
>
>> However, your long term habit of posting lies and slander
of
>> me might be actionable,
>
> You, Arnii Krooger, are a latent pedophile.

Sorry George, but the name right here on my driver's license
is Arnold Krueger.

What happens to your spelling module when you try to type it
out, Midbot?

Arny Krueger

June 30th 05, 06:45 PM

"George Middius" > wrote in
message

> More empty boasting from AutoLiarBorg.
>
>> I *can* prove that Devil and Middius repeatedly posted
their
>> necrophilia/pedophilia/incest fantasies on RAO.
>
> Go ahead and prove it, Turdy.

I think you and Stephen need to get your lies back in synch,
Middius.

Arny Krueger

June 30th 05, 06:46 PM

"MINe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>

>>> In article >,
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Could you be less specific and informative, Stephen?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes.
>>
>>>> I''l bet. And to drive your point home Stephen, you
make
>> a
>>>> valiant effort at the same. Trouble is, your evasions
>> tell a
>>>> sad story about your character, or lack thereof.
>>
>>> You're making stuff up. Give it a rest.
>>
>> This is just another example of Stepehen's heavy-duty
>> evasiveness.
>>
>> Probably, something about sockpuppets and guilt.

> Sigh. No one's kicked you around on RAP today, so I guess
you
> got up on the wrong side of the bed.

That makes even less sense than usual for you, Stephen.

Arny Krueger

June 30th 05, 06:46 PM

"MINe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>>>>>>> Here's a speculative thought: "The Devil" was right
to
>> obscure
>>>>>>> his part of the conversation considering your
>> unfounded
>>>>>>> speculation at this time.
>>
>>>>>> Which unfounded speculation might that be?
>>
>>>>> Your previous post.
>>
>>>> Except this is just baseless name-calling on your part,
>>>> Stephen.
>>
>>> Except that it's not baseless and it's not name-calling.
>>
>> Prove it.
>
> Your speculation that JA is really Graham (or vice versa)
is
> unsupported by your evidence and saying so isn't
name-calling.

Prove it.

[email protected]

June 30th 05, 06:47 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "George Middius" > wrote in
> message
>
> > More empty boasting from AutoLiarBorg.
> >
> >> I *can* prove that Devil and Middius repeatedly posted
> their
> >> necrophilia/pedophilia/incest fantasies on RAO.
> >
> > Go ahead and prove it, Turdy.
>
> I think you and Stephen need to get your lies back in synch,
> Middius.
>
>
So many lies, so little time!

MINe 109

June 30th 05, 07:15 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >>>>>>> Here's a speculative thought: "The Devil" was right
> to
> >> obscure
> >>>>>>> his part of the conversation considering your
> >> unfounded
> >>>>>>> speculation at this time.
> >>
> >>>>>> Which unfounded speculation might that be?
> >>
> >>>>> Your previous post.
> >>
> >>>> Except this is just baseless name-calling on your part,
> >>>> Stephen.
> >>
> >>> Except that it's not baseless and it's not name-calling.
> >>
> >> Prove it.
> >
> > Your speculation that JA is really Graham (or vice versa)
> is
> > unsupported by your evidence and saying so isn't
> name-calling.
>
> Prove it.

The original statement, in your formatting:

"Here's a speculative thought: "The Devil" was right
> to
> >> obscure
> >>>>>>> his part of the conversation considering your
> >> unfounded
> >>>>>>> speculation at this time."

Your speculation, not you, is unfounded. QED.

Stephen

Arny Krueger

June 30th 05, 07:39 PM

"MINe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>

>>> In article >,
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which unfounded speculation might that be?
>>>>
>>>>>>> Your previous post.
>>>>
>>>>>> Except this is just baseless name-calling on your
part,
>>>>>> Stephen.
>>>>
>>>>> Except that it's not baseless and it's not
name-calling.
>>>>
>>>> Prove it.
>>>
>>> Your speculation that JA is really Graham (or vice
versa) is
>>> unsupported by your evidence and saying so isn't
>>> name-calling.
>>
>> Prove it.

> The original statement, in your formatting:

> "Here's a speculative thought: "The Devil" was right
> > to
> > >> obscure
> > >>>>>>> his part of the conversation considering your
> > >> unfounded
> > >>>>>>> speculation at this time."

Interesting. My newsreader formats it as follows:

>>>>>>>>> Here's a speculative thought: "The Devil" was
right to
>>>>>>>>> obscure his part of the conversation considering
your
>>>>>>>>> unfounded speculation at this time.

> Your speculation, not you, is unfounded. QED.

It's just the usual self-centered gibberish, no proof.

MINe 109

June 30th 05, 07:42 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> >>
>
> >>> In article >,
> >>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> Which unfounded speculation might that be?
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Your previous post.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Except this is just baseless name-calling on your
> part,
> >>>>>> Stephen.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Except that it's not baseless and it's not
> name-calling.
> >>>>
> >>>> Prove it.
> >>>
> >>> Your speculation that JA is really Graham (or vice
> versa) is
> >>> unsupported by your evidence and saying so isn't
> >>> name-calling.
> >>
> >> Prove it.
>
> > The original statement, in your formatting:
>
> > "Here's a speculative thought: "The Devil" was right
> > > to
> > > >> obscure
> > > >>>>>>> his part of the conversation considering your
> > > >> unfounded
> > > >>>>>>> speculation at this time."
>
> Interesting. My newsreader formats it as follows:
>
> >>>>>>>>> Here's a speculative thought: "The Devil" was
> right to
> >>>>>>>>> obscure his part of the conversation considering
> your
> >>>>>>>>> unfounded speculation at this time.
>
> > Your speculation, not you, is unfounded. QED.
>
> It's just the usual self-centered gibberish, no proof.

The proof that I didn't call you is name is the fact that I didn't call
you a name. Your speculation is unfounded; I didn't call you a name.

Stephen

Arny Krueger

June 30th 05, 07:53 PM

"MINe 109" > wrote in message

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

>> It's just the usual self-centered gibberish, no proof.

> The proof that I didn't call you is name is the fact that
I
> didn't call you a name. Your speculation is unfounded; I
> didn't call you a name.

OK, Stephen, in your elevated state of self-righteousness,
you can't figure things out without a detailed explanation.
The name-calling was your implication that I was such a fool
that I thought that all brits sounded the same.

Its just like your belief that just because your newsreader
portrays gibberish, that's what everybody's newsreader does.

You wouldn't happen to be into Scientology, would you?

[email protected]

June 30th 05, 08:31 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> >> It's just the usual self-centered gibberish, no proof.
>
> > The proof that I didn't call you is name is the fact that
> I
> > didn't call you a name. Your speculation is unfounded; I
> > didn't call you a name.
>
> OK, Stephen, in your elevated state of self-righteousness,
> you can't figure things out without a detailed explanation.
> The name-calling was your implication that I was such a fool
> that I thought that all brits sounded the same.
>
> Its just like your belief that just because your newsreader
> portrays gibberish, that's what everybody's newsreader does.
>
> You wouldn't happen to be into Scientology, would you?
>
>
It's worse than that, Arny. Poor Stephen is into Linn-ology and the
cult of Ivor Tiefenbrun. Tiefunbrun used to maintain that wearing a
digital watch would ruin the sound of one of his all analog Linn
systems. ;-) I'll bet Tiefenbrun and Atkinson are fast friends!

George Middius

June 30th 05, 08:32 PM

CowardlyBorg beats a hasty retreat.

>> ****-for-Brains tries to defend his exceedingly ****ful self.

>>> your long term habit of posting lies and slander of
>>> me might be actionable,

>> You, Arnii Krooger, are a latent pedophile.

>Sorry George, but the name right here on my driver's license
>is Arnold Krueger.

Translation: bawk-buk-buk-BUK! BAWK!

George Middius

June 30th 05, 08:33 PM

That "debating trade" stuff is simply marvelous.

>> More empty boasting from AutoLiarBorg.

>>> I *can* prove that Devil and Middius repeatedly posted their
>>> necrophilia/pedophilia/incest fantasies on RAO.

>> Go ahead and prove it, Turdy.

>I think you and Stephen need to get your lies back in synch[sic]

Thanks for admitting Mr. Krooborg that you were lying about having proof of your
silly klaim.

MINe 109

June 30th 05, 09:36 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> >> It's just the usual self-centered gibberish, no proof.
>
> > The proof that I didn't call you is name is the fact that
> I
> > didn't call you a name. Your speculation is unfounded; I
> > didn't call you a name.
>
> OK, Stephen, in your elevated state of self-righteousness,
> you can't figure things out without a detailed explanation.
> The name-calling was your implication that I was such a fool
> that I thought that all brits sounded the same.

That's not name-calling. I can't help it if you pretend I'm calling you
names when I'm not.

"The Tape" shows that you've had conversations with both JA and The
Devil at different times. Why you try to pretend that JA could have
called you as "The Devil" but that you wouldn't recognize his voice at a
later date defies reason.

Do we have your tacit admission it is you on that recording?

> Its just like your belief that just because your newsreader
> portrays gibberish, that's what everybody's newsreader does.

This belief works for spelling, too.

> You wouldn't happen to be into Scientology, would you?

Working hard to manufacture offense, aren't you...

Stephen

Arny Krueger

June 30th 05, 10:32 PM

"George Middius" > wrote in
message

> CowardlyBorg beats a hasty retreat.
>
>>> ****-for-Brains tries to defend his exceedingly ****ful
self.
>
>>>> your long term habit of posting lies and slander of
>>>> me might be actionable,
>
>>> You, Arnii Krooger, are a latent pedophile.
>
>> Sorry George, but the name right here on my driver's
license
>> is Arnold Krueger.
>
> Translation: bawk-buk-buk-BUK! BAWK!

George, you're so cute when you are externalizing. In fact
you are unwilling to use my proper name because you fear the
possible consequences.

Clyde Slick

June 30th 05, 11:39 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...

> I sometimes can' imagine why anybody with a brain
> would defend Middius as strongly as you do, and not be one
> of his sockpuppets.
>

You've been imaging a lot of things lately.

----== 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.

June 30th 05, 11:50 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>
>> Thank you for admitting that you were lying when you said
> this:
>> " Not my problem, Art. You're the one who started out
>> making allegations this morning."
>
> It's true that sometimes I can't believe that you and
> Middius are as stupid as you are, and not be the same
> person. I sometimes can' imagine why anybody with a brain
> would defend Middius as strongly as you do, and not be one
> of his sockpuppets.
>

Speaking of, Arny..... I cannot imagine why anybody would embrace a "thing"
that posts links to child pornography and not be likeminded. Wait! Weren't
there some accusationsin the past....

:-(

Margaret

Arny Krueger

June 30th 05, 11:52 PM

"Margaret von B." > wrote
in
message
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> Thank you for admitting that you were lying when you
said
>> this:
>>> " Not my problem, Art. You're the one who started out
>>> making allegations this morning."
>>
>> It's true that sometimes I can't believe that you and
>> Middius are as stupid as you are, and not be the same
>> person. I sometimes can' imagine why anybody with a brain
>> would defend Middius as strongly as you do, and not be
one
>> of his sockpuppets.
>>
>
> Speaking of, Arny..... I cannot imagine why anybody would
> embrace a "thing" that posts links to child pornography
and
> not be likeminded. Wait! Weren't there some accusationsin
the
> past....

Do you seriously think that I follow up on all those links?

Margaret von B.

July 1st 05, 12:12 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Margaret von B." > wrote
> in
> message
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>> Thank you for admitting that you were lying when you
> said
>>> this:
>>>> " Not my problem, Art. You're the one who started out
>>>> making allegations this morning."
>>>
>>> It's true that sometimes I can't believe that you and
>>> Middius are as stupid as you are, and not be the same
>>> person. I sometimes can' imagine why anybody with a brain
>>> would defend Middius as strongly as you do, and not be
> one
>>> of his sockpuppets.
>>>
>>
>> Speaking of, Arny..... I cannot imagine why anybody would
>> embrace a "thing" that posts links to child pornography
> and
>> not be likeminded. Wait! Weren't there some accusationsin
> the
>> past....
>
> Do you seriously think that I follow up on all those links?
>

Did you tell God the same thing?

Cheers,

Margaret

Arny Krueger

July 1st 05, 12:18 AM

"Margaret von B." > wrote
in
message
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Margaret von B." >
wrote
>> in
>> message
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for admitting that you were lying when you
said
>>>>> this: " Not my problem, Art. You're the one who
started out
>>>>> making allegations this morning."
>>>>
>>>> It's true that sometimes I can't believe that you and
>>>> Middius are as stupid as you are, and not be the same
>>>> person. I sometimes can' imagine why anybody with a
brain
>>>> would defend Middius as strongly as you do, and not be
one
>>>> of his sockpuppets.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Speaking of, Arny..... I cannot imagine why anybody
would
>>> embrace a "thing" that posts links to child pornography
and
>>> not be likeminded. Wait! Weren't there some
accusationsin the
>>> past....
>>
>> Do you seriously think that I follow up on all those
links?
>>
>
> Did you tell God the same thing?

Do you even believe in God, Maggie?

Margaret von B.

July 1st 05, 12:36 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Margaret von B." > wrote
> in
> message
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Margaret von B." >
> wrote
>>> in
>>> message
>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you for admitting that you were lying when you
> said
>>>>>> this: " Not my problem, Art. You're the one who
> started out
>>>>>> making allegations this morning."
>>>>>
>>>>> It's true that sometimes I can't believe that you and
>>>>> Middius are as stupid as you are, and not be the same
>>>>> person. I sometimes can' imagine why anybody with a
> brain
>>>>> would defend Middius as strongly as you do, and not be
> one
>>>>> of his sockpuppets.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Speaking of, Arny..... I cannot imagine why anybody
> would
>>>> embrace a "thing" that posts links to child pornography
> and
>>>> not be likeminded. Wait! Weren't there some
> accusationsin the
>>>> past....
>>>
>>> Do you seriously think that I follow up on all those
> links?
>>>
>>
>> Did you tell God the same thing?
>
> Do you even believe in God, Maggie?
>
>

God only knows!

BTW, I notice your failure to answer a direct question - again. Too
painful - again?

Cheers,

Margaret