Greg Singh, Charlatan

[Bob Morein]

"trotsky" > wrote in message
link.net...
> The site has been updated slightly, including terms and conditions,
> owner's manuals, and FAQ's. Any comments would be welcome, except those
> from certain folks who already know who they are.
>
Quoting from Greg's website,

"Yet, for some reason, the vast majority of speaker companies are so worried
about a cabinet than doesn't produce any sound of its own that they use
materials that are so inert they suck the life out of the sound, further
deviating from the live music reference."

In this single paragraph, Greg Singh, setting himself up as a pontifical
authority, puts himself above and beyond the completely established and
theoretically sound basis of modern speaker design, which begins with an
inert cabinet.

"Frequency range: 50-20,000 Hz"
These are Lafayette Radio specs. Where are the dB points, Greg? Just
guessing?

"So to make a long story short, I settled on some drivers made by a Chinese
company called Silver Flute. They make a couple of different ribbon
tweeters, and three different woofer sizes."

Greg, are you going to live on top of the factory? Do you have any idea what
the failure rate of open-market Chinese drivers is?

DID YOU KNOW, that with a bass reflex design, it is imperative to screen
each woofer you receive for the Thiele-Small parameters? Do you think the
Chinese have quality control like SEAS or Scanspeak?

"A ribbon tweeter eventually sprung to mind,"
Duh, genius at work.

"I decided on the larger of the two tweeters, and the biggest of the three
woofers to concoct a speaker that is in a way a classic design--a large
bookshelf 8 inch two way, but with the huge advantages of a ribbon tweeter
and computer designed crossover network."

WHO designed your crossover?
WHAT type is it?
WHEN was it done?
WHERE?
WHY?

"Couple that with a very solid cabinet made of 3/4" MDF,"
Heard of this before.

"excellent bi-wireable speaker terminals,"
What kind of plating, and how many microns?

"hand-soldered connections,"
waveflow is THE way, but you can't afford it. It won't fit on your kitchen
table.

"solid PVC port tube,"
If you're thinking of a bass reflex design, I strongly suggest a port with a
hole in it. A solid hunk of plastic doesn't do much.

"and real oak veneer cabinet, and you have a speaker that is exciting to
listen to and beautiful to look at."

Greg discovers the magic of wood. Overwhelming.

FRAUD! FRAUD! FRAUD!

[trotsky]

Bob Morein wrote:

> "trotsky" wrote in message
> link.net...
>
> >The site has been updated slightly, including terms and conditions,
> >owner's manuals, and FAQ's. Any comments would be welcome, except those
> >from certain folks who already know who they are.
> >
>
> Quoting from Greg's website,
>
> "Yet, for some reason, the vast majority of speaker companies are so
> worried
> about a cabinet than doesn't produce any sound of its own that they use
> materials that are so inert they suck the life out of the sound, further
> deviating from the live music reference."
>
> In this single paragraph, Greg Singh, setting himself up as a pontifical
> authority, puts himself above and beyond the completely established and
> theoretically sound basis of modern speaker design, which begins with an
> inert cabinet.
>
> "Frequency range: 50-20,000 Hz"
> These are Lafayette Radio specs. Where are the dB points, Greg? Just
> guessing?
>
> "So to make a long story short, I settled on some drivers made by a
> Chinese
> company called Silver Flute. They make a couple of different ribbon
> tweeters, and three different woofer sizes."
>
> Greg, are you going to live on top of the factory? Do you have any
> idea what
> the failure rate of open-market Chinese drivers is?
>
> DID YOU KNOW, that with a bass reflex design, it is imperative to screen
> each woofer you receive for the Thiele-Small parameters? Do you think the
> Chinese have quality control like SEAS or Scanspeak?



I'm not sure what you mean, Bob. Are you claiming the Chinese are
inferior human beings, and couldn't possibly build drivers that are of
the quality level of Europeans. That's just racist bull****, Bob.

>
>
> "A ribbon tweeter eventually sprung to mind,"
> Duh, genius at work.


Sorry for telling the truth. You are quite obsessed.

>
>
> "I decided on the larger of the two tweeters, and the biggest of the three
> woofers to concoct a speaker that is in a way a classic design--a large
> bookshelf 8 inch two way, but with the huge advantages of a ribbon tweeter
> and computer designed crossover network."
>
> WHO designed your crossover?
> WHAT type is it?
> WHEN was it done?
> WHERE?
> WHY?


I doubt you're looking to buy a pair, Bob, so I'm not sure what the
point of those questions are.

>
>
> "Couple that with a very solid cabinet made of 3/4" MDF,"
> Heard of this before.


WHERE?

>
>
> "excellent bi-wireable speaker terminals,"
> What kind of plating, and how many microns?


WHY?

>
>
> "hand-soldered connections,"
> waveflow is THE way, but you can't afford it. It won't fit on your kitchen
> table.


I must've missed the waveflow soldered speakers. Which are they?

>
>
> "solid PVC port tube,"
> If you're thinking of a bass reflex design, I strongly suggest a port
> with a
> hole in it. A solid hunk of plastic doesn't do much.


Tube only has one meaning, Bob--unless you're talking about when you and
Arny get together.

>
>
> "and real oak veneer cabinet, and you have a speaker that is exciting to
> listen to and beautiful to look at."
>
> Greg discovers the magic of wood. Overwhelming.
>
> FRAUD! FRAUD! FRAUD!



ZZZZZ.

[Bob Morein]

"trotsky" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Bob Morein wrote:
>
> > "trotsky" wrote in message
> > link.net...
> >
> > >The site has been updated slightly, including terms and conditions,
> > >owner's manuals, and FAQ's. Any comments would be welcome, except
those
> > >from certain folks who already know who they are.
> > >
> >
> > Quoting from Greg's website,
> >
> > "Yet, for some reason, the vast majority of speaker companies are so
> > worried
> > about a cabinet than doesn't produce any sound of its own that they use
> > materials that are so inert they suck the life out of the sound, further
> > deviating from the live music reference."
> >
> > In this single paragraph, Greg Singh, setting himself up as a pontifical
> > authority, puts himself above and beyond the completely established and
> > theoretically sound basis of modern speaker design, which begins with an
> > inert cabinet.
> >
> > "Frequency range: 50-20,000 Hz"
> > These are Lafayette Radio specs. Where are the dB points, Greg? Just
> > guessing?
> >
> > "So to make a long story short, I settled on some drivers made by a
> > Chinese
> > company called Silver Flute. They make a couple of different ribbon
> > tweeters, and three different woofer sizes."
> >
> > Greg, are you going to live on top of the factory? Do you have any
> > idea what
> > the failure rate of open-market Chinese drivers is?
> >
> > DID YOU KNOW, that with a bass reflex design, it is imperative to screen
> > each woofer you receive for the Thiele-Small parameters? Do you think
the
> > Chinese have quality control like SEAS or Scanspeak?
>
>
>
> I'm not sure what you mean, Bob. Are you claiming the Chinese are
> inferior human beings, and couldn't possibly build drivers that are of
> the quality level of Europeans. That's just racist bull****, Bob.
>
Greg, my poor, dear, obtuse Greg.
ALL woofers have to be screened by the enduser for bass reflex use.
This is simply doubly true for Chinese drivers.
No, I am not claiming the Chinese are inferior human being.
It is well known that most Chinese industry, being a new development, is not
up to world market specs without close supervision. Some good speakers are
being made there, but with close oversight from well established
manufacturers.

Greg, you are a charlatan.
FRAUD! FRAUD! FRAUD! FRAUD! FRAUD! FRAUD! FRAUD! FRAUD! FRAUD! FRAUD!

[trotsky]

Bob Morein wrote:

> "trotsky" wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
> >Bob Morein wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"trotsky" wrote in message
> link.net...
> >>
> >>
> >>>The site has been updated slightly, including terms and conditions,
> >>>owner's manuals, and FAQ's. Any comments would be welcome, except
>
> those
>
> >>>from certain folks who already know who they are.
> >>
> >>Quoting from Greg's website,
> >>
> >>"Yet, for some reason, the vast majority of speaker companies are so
> >>worried
> >>about a cabinet than doesn't produce any sound of its own that they use
> >>materials that are so inert they suck the life out of the sound, further
> >>deviating from the live music reference."
> >>
> >>In this single paragraph, Greg Singh, setting himself up as a pontifical
> >>authority, puts himself above and beyond the completely established and
> >>theoretically sound basis of modern speaker design, which begins with an
> >>inert cabinet.
> >>
> >>"Frequency range: 50-20,000 Hz"
> >>These are Lafayette Radio specs. Where are the dB points, Greg? Just
> >>guessing?
> >>
> >>"So to make a long story short, I settled on some drivers made by a
> >>Chinese
> >>company called Silver Flute. They make a couple of different ribbon
> >>tweeters, and three different woofer sizes."
> >>
> >>Greg, are you going to live on top of the factory? Do you have any
> >>idea what
> >>the failure rate of open-market Chinese drivers is?
> >>
> >>DID YOU KNOW, that with a bass reflex design, it is imperative to screen
> >>each woofer you receive for the Thiele-Small parameters? Do you think
>
> the
>
> >>Chinese have quality control like SEAS or Scanspeak?
> >
> >
> >
> >I'm not sure what you mean, Bob. Are you claiming the Chinese are
> >inferior human beings, and couldn't possibly build drivers that are of
> >the quality level of Europeans. That's just racist bull****, Bob.
> >
>
> Greg, my poor, dear, obtuse Greg.
> ALL woofers have to be screened by the enduser for bass reflex use.
> This is simply doubly true for Chinese drivers.
> No, I am not claiming the Chinese are inferior human being.
> It is well known that most Chinese industry, being a new development,
> is not
> up to world market specs without close supervision. Some good speakers are
> being made there, but with close oversight from well established
> manufacturers.



Oversight--right. Your use of the language is deplorable, Bob. And the
Silver Flutes are quite accurate. Buy some and find out.

[Bob Morein]

"trotsky" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Bob Morein wrote:
>
> > "trotsky" wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> >
> > >Bob Morein wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>"trotsky" wrote in message
> > link.net...
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>The site has been updated slightly, including terms and conditions,
> > >>>owner's manuals, and FAQ's. Any comments would be welcome, except
> >
> > those
> >
> > >>>from certain folks who already know who they are.
> > >>
> > >>Quoting from Greg's website,
> > >>
> > >>"Yet, for some reason, the vast majority of speaker companies are so
> > >>worried
> > >>about a cabinet than doesn't produce any sound of its own that they
use
> > >>materials that are so inert they suck the life out of the sound,
further
> > >>deviating from the live music reference."
> > >>
> > >>In this single paragraph, Greg Singh, setting himself up as a
pontifical
> > >>authority, puts himself above and beyond the completely established
and
> > >>theoretically sound basis of modern speaker design, which begins with
an
> > >>inert cabinet.
> > >>
> > >>"Frequency range: 50-20,000 Hz"
> > >>These are Lafayette Radio specs. Where are the dB points, Greg? Just
> > >>guessing?
> > >>
> > >>"So to make a long story short, I settled on some drivers made by a
> > >>Chinese
> > >>company called Silver Flute. They make a couple of different ribbon
> > >>tweeters, and three different woofer sizes."
> > >>
> > >>Greg, are you going to live on top of the factory? Do you have any
> > >>idea what
> > >>the failure rate of open-market Chinese drivers is?
> > >>
> > >>DID YOU KNOW, that with a bass reflex design, it is imperative to
screen
> > >>each woofer you receive for the Thiele-Small parameters? Do you think
> >
> > the
> >
> > >>Chinese have quality control like SEAS or Scanspeak?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >I'm not sure what you mean, Bob. Are you claiming the Chinese are
> > >inferior human beings, and couldn't possibly build drivers that are of
> > >the quality level of Europeans. That's just racist bull****, Bob.
> > >
> >
> > Greg, my poor, dear, obtuse Greg.
> > ALL woofers have to be screened by the enduser for bass reflex use.
> > This is simply doubly true for Chinese drivers.
> > No, I am not claiming the Chinese are inferior human being.
> > It is well known that most Chinese industry, being a new development,
> > is not
> > up to world market specs without close supervision. Some good speakers
are
> > being made there, but with close oversight from well established
> > manufacturers.
>
>
>
> Oversight--right. Your use of the language is deplorable, Bob. And the
> Silver Flutes are quite accurate. Buy some and find out.
>
OVERSIGHT
Pronunciation: 'owvur`sIt


WordNet Dictionary

Definition: 1.. [n] a mistake resulting from inattention
2.. [n] management by overseeing the performance or operation of a
person or group
3.. [n] an unintentional omission resulting from failure to notice
something
Definition 2 applies.

[Arny Krueger]

"trotsky" > wrote in message
nk.net

> On a related note, do you think Bob has shown himself adept with the
> language?

This is going to be funny. Two whack jobs trying to judge a real person.

;-)

[George M. Middius]

trotsky said:

> > >"I was overseeing the project."
> > >
> > >"I performed an oversight on the project."
> > >
> > >Example #2 is that of bad writing. Quit being a fool.
> >
> >
> > You're right about your silly "example #2", but that doesn't help
> > your main point. In fact, if you rewrote it in normal language, i.e.
> > "I performed oversight on the project", it is both standard and
> > easily understood by any speaker of English.
>
>
> Can you give me an example in anything written is say, the last forty
> years?

You mean like in a novel, or an encyclopedia?

Why do you simply reject my own experiences out of hand? I stated a
fact: "oversight" is used commonly to have the meaning from the
dictionary. That is a fact. If you don't recognize it, isn't it
simply because your experience doesn't coincide with mine? Isn't
that at least possible?


> This is the problem: there are dictionary definitions, and then
> there is common usage.

That is exactly so. Your "common usage" excludes truly common
phrases. How do you explain that? Not to mention your favorite
"n- - - - r pile", which neither I nor, apparently, any other RAO
regulars had ever heard until you presented it here. You
characterized it as "common usage" too, yet none of us had ever
heard of it. Comments?


> Writing that is interesting in the here and now
> pays close attention to the common usage. I don't suppose I'm telling
> you anything you don't already know.

You're repeating something I do know -- that you are unable or
unwilling to grant that your own experience in language usage is not
all-inclusive. I've proven that you don't have the all-encompassing
experience you believe you have. I did that simply by citing a fact
whose reality you persist in denying. Yet you refuse to reconsider,
to re-evaluate, to retrench in any way, shape, or form. What does
that say about you?


> On a related note, do you think Bob has shown himself adept with the
> language?

Largely, yes. At least compared to the general wash of Usenet. Far
more adept than Krooger or Nousiane, for example.

[George M. Middius]

trotsky said:

> > Why do you simply reject my own experiences out of hand? I stated a
> > fact: "oversight" is used commonly to have the meaning from the
> > dictionary. That is a fact. If you don't recognize it, isn't it
> > simply because your experience doesn't coincide with mine? Isn't
> > that at least possible?

> Sure, it's possible. I'll even say it's possible that you read two or
> three times as much as me.

You should shut up now.


> But therein lies the rub. The world doesn't
> have as much to do with the written word as it did in years or decades past.

Which other RAO regular changes the subject spontaneously in order
to avoid admitting he was wrong? Hint: This individual also said
"The discussion is what I meant, not what I said".


Here's my recap: You made a stupid claim, a single person showed you
were all wet, and now you're trying to pretend you meant something
different from what you said.

Please don't call on me to support your opinions about language or
usage in the future, OK?

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message


> Please don't call on me to support your opinions about language or
> usage in the future, OK?

So let's review recent history. Once upon a time Middius had a brain fart
and actually figured out that Singh was walking, talking crap, and decided
to take a little time out from his vendetta against me to actually say so in
public.

Singh disappears for a while, and comes back with a line of alleged
loudspeakers. Suddenly Middius shows up on the Greg Singh memorial defense
team, covering Singh's butt 24/7.

It appears that brain farts can strike twice in the same place. Again,
Middius has figured out that Singh is still walking, talking crap.

[dave weil]

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 10:44:22 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"George M. Middius" > wrote in message

>
>> Please don't call on me to support your opinions about language or
>> usage in the future, OK?
>
>So let's review recent history. Once upon a time Middius had a brain fart
>and actually figured out that Singh was walking, talking crap, and decided
>to take a little time out from his vendetta against me to actually say so in
>public.
>
>Singh disappears for a while, and comes back with a line of alleged
>loudspeakers.

Why are these "alleged"? As far as I can tell, these loudspeakers
exist and can be ordered.

Of course, you can test whether or not they exist by ordering them.
We'll know in about 4 weeks, right?

[trotsky]

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> trotsky said:
>
>
> >>Why do you simply reject my own experiences out of hand? I stated a
> >>fact: "oversight" is used commonly to have the meaning from the
> >>dictionary. That is a fact. If you don't recognize it, isn't it
> >>simply because your experience doesn't coincide with mine? Isn't
> >>that at least possible?
>
>
>
> >Sure, it's possible. I'll even say it's possible that you read two or
> >three times as much as me.
>
>
> You should shut up now.


You first!

>
>
>
>
> >But therein lies the rub. The world doesn't
> >have as much to do with the written word as it did in years or
> decades past.
>
>
> Which other RAO regular changes the subject spontaneously in order
> to avoid admitting he was wrong? Hint: This individual also said
> "The discussion is what I meant, not what I said".


No. If anything, I'm repeating what I said in my last post. You can
claim that I'm coming from the dept. of redundancy dept., but I can't
see how you say I'm changing the subject. The subject is word usage in
today's society. Agree or disagree?

>
>
>
> Here's my recap: You made a stupid claim, a single person showed you
> were all wet, and now you're trying to pretend you meant something
> different from what you said.


Oh, it's like that. Sorry, George, but you're pulling a J. Oberlander
here: what are the credentials that make you the expert? If Glenn
Zelniker explains the pitfalls of audio manufacturer, he's got
credentials. Oberlander does not. You may have good grasp of the
language, but I really don't see what your credentials are. In a lot of
ways, you are an anonymouse. Is "Middius" your real name?

>
>
> Please don't call on me to support your opinions about language or
> usage in the future, OK?


I didn't call on you for support, I asked your opinion. You gave it. I
don't agree with it, but that's hardly new on this newsgroup, is it.

[Bob Morein]

"trotsky" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> George M. Middius wrote:
>
> >
> > trotsky said:
> >
> >
> > >>>"I was overseeing the project."
> > >>>
> > >>>"I performed an oversight on the project."
> > >>>
> > >>>Example #2 is that of bad writing. Quit being a fool.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>You're right about your silly "example #2", but that doesn't help
> > >>your main point. In fact, if you rewrote it in normal language, i.e.
> > >>"I performed oversight on the project", it is both standard and
> > >>easily understood by any speaker of English.
> > >
> > >
> > >Can you give me an example in anything written is say, the last forty
> > >years?
> >
> >
> > You mean like in a novel, or an encyclopedia?
> >
> > Why do you simply reject my own experiences out of hand? I stated a
> > fact: "oversight" is used commonly to have the meaning from the
> > dictionary. That is a fact. If you don't recognize it, isn't it
> > simply because your experience doesn't coincide with mine? Isn't
> > that at least possible?
>
>
>
> Sure, it's possible. I'll even say it's possible that you read two or
> three times as much as me. But therein lies the rub. The world doesn't
> have as much to do with the written word as it did in years or decades
> past. You may or may not experience other media as much as I do, or you
> may or may not have as much interaction with other people as I do. As
> it is, I feel that I have a strong knowledge of what the common or
> normal use of the word "oversight" is. I could be wrong, but I'm not
> wrong very often. Let it suffice to say that I would give more stock in
> your reporting of the word's common usage than Bob Morion's, but I would
> put the most stock in mine.
>
> As a aside, let me say that this is why Bob will never be a good writer.
> Dictionary definitions are of limited usefulness in this day and age.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >This is the problem: there are dictionary definitions, and then
> > >there is common usage.
> >
> >
> > That is exactly so. Your "common usage" excludes truly common
> > phrases. How do you explain that? Not to mention your favorite
> > "n- - - - r pile", which neither I nor, apparently, any other RAO
> > regulars had ever heard until you presented it here. You
> > characterized it as "common usage" too, yet none of us had ever
> > heard of it. Comments?
>
>
> It's a regional term. I'm been a lot of places in the U.S. and they
> don't play 16 inch softball any place but here, too. Ditto with the
> Italian beef sandwiches Jay Leno is so fond of. Regardless, I hardly
> think my use of the language is bogged down by Midwestern words and
> phrases. (Did you know it's fairly common for the average Chicagoan to
> use the non-word "irregardless", btw. Oh, and I hear "supposebly" quite
> a bit, too.) As an exercise, you or Bob could give us some examples of
> regional speech in your respective areas. That might be interesting,
> but I guarantee you Bob isn't capable of doing it.
>
Yo, Dude!
Yeah, I'm talkin to you, mofo.
Whazzat you eatin? Onna Pat's stakes? That's some good ****.
I'm gonna get me a grinder, cause I got a long haul.
You think the Eagles gotta chance this season?
Lissen, I got a job for you.
Guy named Trotsky. Real rotten character. Yeah, right, like he ****ed my
mother and he'd still be breathin. Owes me some money. You wanna collect
your ten? Alright. He's a fat Indian dude with a big mout. I got him made,
picture an all. Lives in Glendale Hts., IL 60139. I'll get you wheels.
You make that bitch take a stroll or show him some leather. He's inta
speakers kinda ****.
An I wanna put a fat lip onta that mout. Then take the speakers, I know some
guys who drive around in white vans pretty good at unloading that ****, it's
gas money.
Alright, we'll torch it later, dude. I gotta go meet my uncle at the Social
Club.
Ciao.

[George M. Middius]

trotsky said to the **** of ****s:

> Yes, very Christian.

I wouldn't call you "walking, talking crap". That's how I think of
Krooger. I think you're a crazed, possibly rabid, pit bull. I disagree
with Bobo, though -- I think Krooger is a lot more grotesque than you
are. This latest episode about your little speaker company underscores
that nicely.


Bobo, are you listening? Krooger has already claimed "been there done
that" to the question of launching an audio equipment company. I
called that bluff, and the Beast sleazed off into a dark corner of his
basement, dirty underwear and all. Now trotsky may fall flat with his
speakers, as some of you hope, but at least he's not a pathological
liar.

[Lionel Chapuis]

George M. Middius a écrit :
>...Now trotsky may fall flat with his speakers, as some of you hope,...

No really no, but he failed to demonstrate that he has any
potentialities and/or any *real* interest...

So Middius, now you have spent 48 hours at Salvation Army let us have
your feeling !

[trotsky]

Bob Morein wrote:

> "trotsky" wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
> >George M. Middius wrote:
> >
> >
> >>trotsky said:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>Oversight--right. Your use of the language is deplorable, Bob.
> >>
> >>And the
> >>
> >>>>>Silver Flutes are quite accurate. Buy some and find out.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>OVERSIGHT
> >>>> 2.. [n] management by overseeing the performance or
> >>
> >>operation of a
> >>
> >>>>person or group
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Bob, I would've thought you'd known this, but idiomatically nobody uses
> >>>that second defintion, ever.
> >>
> >>
> >>On the contrary, it's a very common usage.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>"I was overseeing the project."
> >>>
> >>>"I performed an oversight on the project."
> >>>
> >>>Example #2 is that of bad writing. Quit being a fool.
> >>
> >>
> >>You're right about your silly "example #2", but that doesn't help
> >>your main point. In fact, if you rewrote it in normal language, i.e.
> >>"I performed oversight on the project", it is both standard and
> >>easily understood by any speaker of English.
> >
> >
> >Can you give me an example in anything written is say, the last forty
> >years? This is the problem: there are dictionary definitions, and then
> >there is common usage. Writing that is interesting in the here and now
> >pays close attention to the common usage. I don't suppose I'm telling
> >you anything you don't already know.
> >
>
> A Google search on the string "management oversight" produces 1,610,000
> hits.
> Take your pick.
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=management+oversight


How many of those refer to errors? Do you even understand what is being
discussed, Bob?

Let me know when you make it through that 1.6 million hits.

[Lionel Chapuis]

George M. Middius a écrit :
>
> trotsky said:
>
>
>>>A Google search on the string "management oversight" produces 1,610,000
>>>hits.
>>>Take your pick.
>>>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=management+oversight
>
>
>
>>How many of those refer to errors? Do you even understand what is being
>>discussed, Bob?
>
>
> Nobody can really understand what happens when you try to participate
> in human discussions. This thread is the classic exemplar of the
> Trotsky Effect.
>
>
>>Let me know when you make it through that 1.6 million hits.
>
>
> Unbelievable. You're so ****ed up, you don't even know when you've
> been trampled into dust.
>
>

Middious spent so much time on RAO that he has a kind of 6th sense. Like
an animal he know before meteorologists that wind is going to change
from south to north from heat to cold.

My prediction : (LOL)
In the next days if Trotsky stay on RAO (what a pity) I predict that
Middious will be after is ass 24/24 like... Ze Pit-Bull (LOL again)

Hey Middious your life really look like a total failure...
I gess you would have been successful in politic.

WARF ! WARF ! WARF ! WARF ! WARF ! WARF ! WARF ! WARF !

[trotsky]

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> trotsky said:
>
>
> >>A Google search on the string "management oversight" produces 1,610,000
> >>hits.
> >>Take your pick.
> >>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=management+oversight
>
>
>
> >How many of those refer to errors? Do you even understand what is being
> >discussed, Bob?
>
>
> Nobody can really understand what happens when you try to participate
> in human discussions. This thread is the classic exemplar of the
> Trotsky Effect.
>
>
> >Let me know when you make it through that 1.6 million hits.
>
>
> Unbelievable. You're so ****ed up, you don't even know when you've
> been trampled into dust.


That's interesting, because I've talked to numerous folks that
frequently don't know what you're on about. Bob made a stupid
statement, I called him on it, and now you've egested this mess. In
fact, I would say that if you polled 1000 people, at least ninety
percent of them would say "management oversight" meant "management
error". Agree or disagree?

[George M. Middius]

trotsky blithered:

> > Unbelievable. You're so ****ed up, you don't even know when you've
> > been trampled into dust.

> That's interesting, because I've talked to numerous folks that
> frequently don't know what you're on about.

What are your little friends' names, Greg? How about Pottsy and Malph?

> Bob made a stupid
> statement, I called him on it, and now you've egested this mess. In
> fact, I would say that if you polled 1000 people, at least ninety
> percent of them would say "management oversight" meant "management
> error". Agree or disagree?

In summary (my last contribution to this exchange), I am certainly not
the one to ask for a cure. I wouldn't be surprised if a competent
doctor could readily prescribe something for you, but I have no idea
what it would be.

[Lionel Chapuis]

George M. Middius a écrit :
>
> trotsky blithered:
>
>
>>>Unbelievable. You're so ****ed up, you don't even know when you've
>>>been trampled into dust.
>
>
>
>>That's interesting, because I've talked to numerous folks that
>>frequently don't know what you're on about.
>
>
> What are your little friends' names, Greg? How about Pottsy and Malph?
>
>
>>Bob made a stupid
>>statement, I called him on it, and now you've egested this mess. In
>>fact, I would say that if you polled 1000 people, at least ninety
>>percent of them would say "management oversight" meant "management
>>error". Agree or disagree?
>
>
> In summary (my last contribution to this exchange), I am certainly not
> the one to ask for a cure. I wouldn't be surprised if a competent
> doctor could readily prescribe something for you, but I have no idea
> what it would be.
>
>
In other words : you have bubonic plague get away far from me.
Hey Middious how many people are you ready to push to suicide to save
your already dirty honnor.

Like the rats Middious is always the first to leave the boat.

Middious you have consistancy and smell of diarrhoea. If you was an
indian your parents would have named you "ill-****" !

[Arny Krueger]

"trotsky" > wrote in message
nk.net
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "George M. Middius" wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> trotsky said:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> A Google search on the string "management oversight" produces
>>>>> 1,610,000 hits.
>>>>> Take your pick.
>>>>>
>>
>>
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=management+oversi
>> ght
>>
>>>> How many of those refer to errors? Do you even understand what is
>>>> being discussed, Bob?
>>>
>>> Nobody can really understand what happens when you try to
>>> participate in human discussions. This thread is the classic
>>> exemplar of the Trotsky Effect.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Let me know when you make it through that 1.6 million hits.
>>>
>>> Unbelievable. You're so ****ed up, you don't even know when you've
>>> been trampled into dust.
>>
>>
>> Hey, Singh kept showing his face here after the cable fiasco.
>>
>> Anything is possible.

> And as a final kick in the nuts, you have Krueger chiming in.

I seriously doubt that it will be the final kick.

Rather Singh, I predict you'll ignore all the good advice you've received,
and go down the same low, garbage-strewn path you've always been on.

And then you will get kicked again... and again...

> Perfect.

Not even close.

[trotsky]

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> trotsky blithered:
>
>
> >>Unbelievable. You're so ****ed up, you don't even know when you've
> >>been trampled into dust.
>
>
>
> >That's interesting, because I've talked to numerous folks that
> >frequently don't know what you're on about.
>
>
> What are your little friends' names, Greg? How about Pottsy and Malph?



My little friends are just about anybody on rao that has communicated
with me outside the group. I can send e-mails back and forth too, you know.

>
>
>
> >Bob made a stupid
> >statement, I called him on it, and now you've egested this mess. In
> >fact, I would say that if you polled 1000 people, at least ninety
> >percent of them would say "management oversight" meant "management
> >error". Agree or disagree?
>
>
> In summary (my last contribution to this exchange), I am certainly not
> the one to ask for a cure. I wouldn't be surprised if a competent
> doctor could readily prescribe something for you, but I have no idea
> what it would be.


Lack of self awareness duly noted. You and Bob have more in common than
I thought.

[trotsky]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "trotsky" wrote in message
> nk.net
>
> >Arny Krueger wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"George M. Middius" wrote in message
>
> >>
> >>
> >>>trotsky said:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>A Google search on the string "management oversight" produces
> >>>>>1,610,000 hits.
> >>>>>Take your pick.
> >>>>>
> >>
> >>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=management+oversi
>
> >>ght
> >>
> >>
> >>>>How many of those refer to errors? Do you even understand what is
> >>>>being discussed, Bob?
> >>>
> >>>Nobody can really understand what happens when you try to
> >>>participate in human discussions. This thread is the classic
> >>>exemplar of the Trotsky Effect.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Let me know when you make it through that 1.6 million hits.
> >>>
> >>>Unbelievable. You're so ****ed up, you don't even know when you've
> >>>been trampled into dust.
> >>
> >>
> >>Hey, Singh kept showing his face here after the cable fiasco.
> >>
> >>Anything is possible.
>
>
> >And as a final kick in the nuts, you have Krueger chiming in.
>
>
> I seriously doubt that it will be the final kick.
>
> Rather Singh, I predict you'll ignore all the good advice you've received,
> and go down the same low, garbage-strewn path you've always been on.


That's weird, because I thought Mr. Zelniker was very helpful in
dispensing useful advice, from the point of view of somebody that really
knows what he's talking about. Then there's you, and your desecration
of the Christian faith. You see the distinction, don't you?

>
>
> And then you will get kicked again... and again...


Stated like the true bad Samaritan that you are. That's cute: bad
Samaritan, BS for short.

[trotsky]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "trotsky" wrote in message
> nk.net
>
>
> >That's interesting, because I've talked to numerous folks that
> >frequently don't know what you're on about. Bob made a stupid
> >statement, I called him on it, and now you've egested this mess. In
> >fact, I would say that if you polled 1000 people, at least ninety
> >percent of them would say "management oversight" meant "management
> >error". Agree or disagree?
>
>
> Violently disagree.
>
> If you researched this for even a second on google Singh, you'd see that
> usages of the phrase "Management Oversight" virtually all relate to
> overseeing management activities, not errors (oversights) by management.
>
> I just looked it up and 20 of the first 20 hits used "Management
> Oversight"
> as related to overseeing management activities.
>
> I'm not going to do any more of your homework for you, Singh.


You know, you're right Krueger. This is why Middius ducked out of the
discussion when I brought up the concept of formal vs. conversational
English. What I don't get is why people come on to discusssion groups
and are afraid to discuss things. On a similar note, I thought a guy
like you that pretends to be a Christian would be prepared to have a
theological discussion about why you're such a bad Samaritan, but I was
wrong on that front to. Oh well.

[S888Wheel]

<<
He reminds me of the knight who Cleese encounters in Monty Python's Search
for the Holy Grail.
They do battle with sword. Cleese cuts off an arm, a leg, another arm a
torso, and finally the head at the neck. Still ensconced in it's helmet, the
disconnected head stubbornly shouts challenges to battle at Cleese, as he
rides off.

This is Trotsky. We have cleaved his head off, and it lies on the ground
shrieking that I don't have any balls.

BTW, this is why I find Krueger less offensive. At least when I hit him, he
roars. Trots just keeps up the nattering yayayayaya of a head dispossessed
of its body. It's like arguing with a vocoder chip.


>>


Cleese *was* the knight that got hacked up to a torso and decided to call it
even. King Arthur, played by Graham Chapman, did the hacking up. He only had
his arms and legs cut off.

[GeoSynch]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> This is going to be funny. Two whack jobs trying to judge a real person.

How long before the Mid-Yut resorts to the Oedipus references?


GeoSynch

[GeoSynch]

trotsky

> In a lot of ways, you are an anonymouse.
> Is "Middius" your real name?

Why not call 'lil Georgie and find out:
George Middius - (301) 949-6566 - , Kensington, MD 20895

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22George+Middius%22+MD&btnG=Google+Search&pb=f


GeoSynch

[George M. Middius]

StynchBlob lurches back to his quotidian semicomatose state of being.

> > This is going to be funny. Two whack jobs trying to judge a real person.

> How long before the [Middius] resorts to the Oedipus references?

How's the diet coming, Blobbo?

Hey, I admire your honesty in admitting that you respect Krooger. That
separates you cleanly from us heathens, no question.

[GeoSynch]

Pudge does the Pee-Wee Herman schtick again:

> > How long before the Mid-Yut resorts to the Oedipus references?

Probably before week's end, lest the Pudge explode like a commode.

> How's the diet coming, Blobbo?

Jolly fatman have already asked and I've already answered.

> Hey, I admire your honesty in admitting that you respect Krooger.

Careful grasping at imaginary straws, 'lil George, lest you fall out of
your wheelchair and flat on your smug, gelatinous mug. :-)

> That separates you cleanly from us heathens, no question.

Your destination in the afterlife is guaranteed to melt all your blubber away. ;-)


GeoSynch

[Michael Mckelvy]

"trotsky" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> > "George M. Middius" wrote in message
> >
> >
> > >trotsky said:
> > >
> > >
> > >>>A Google search on the string "management oversight" produces
> > >>>1,610,000 hits.
> > >>>Take your pick.
> > >>>
> >
> >
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=management+oversi
> > ght
> >
> > >>How many of those refer to errors? Do you even understand what is
> > >>being discussed, Bob?
> > >
> > >Nobody can really understand what happens when you try to participate
> > >in human discussions. This thread is the classic exemplar of the
> > >Trotsky Effect.
> > >
> > >
> > >>Let me know when you make it through that 1.6 million hits.
> > >
> > >Unbelievable. You're so ****ed up, you don't even know when you've
> > >been trampled into dust.
> >
> >
> > Hey, Singh kept showing his face here after the cable fiasco.
> >
> > Anything is possible.
>
>
> And as a final kick in the nuts, you have Krueger chiming in. Perfect.
>
When did you get nuts?

Never mind.

[Lionel Chapuis]

Bob Morein a écrit :

> "trotsky" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"trotsky" wrote in message
nk.net
>>>
>
> [snip]
> On a similar note, I thought a guy
>
>>like you that pretends to be a Christian would be prepared to have a
>>theological discussion about why you're such a bad Samaritan, but I was
>>wrong on that front to.
>
>
> TOO, not "to."
>
>
>>Oh well.
>
> Well what?
>
>
Well Bob cruel now. No ?

[Arny Krueger]

"Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message

> "trotsky" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>> "George M. Middius" wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>> trotsky said:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> A Google search on the string "management oversight" produces
>>>>>> 1,610,000 hits.
>>>>>> Take your pick.
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=management+oversi
>>> ght
>>>
>>>>> How many of those refer to errors? Do you even understand what is
>>>>> being discussed, Bob?
>>>>
>>>> Nobody can really understand what happens when you try to
>>>> participate in human discussions. This thread is the classic
>>>> exemplar of the Trotsky Effect.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Let me know when you make it through that 1.6 million hits.
>>>>
>>>> Unbelievable. You're so ****ed up, you don't even know when you've
>>>> been trampled into dust.
>>>
>>>
>>> Hey, Singh kept showing his face here after the cable fiasco.
>>>
>>> Anything is possible.
>>
>>
>> And as a final kick in the nuts, you have Krueger chiming in.
>> Perfect.
>>
> When did you get nuts?

Singh has been nuts all along. Everybody on RAO knows that!

[Bob Morein]

"Lionel Chapuis" <lionel{dot}chapuis{at}free{dot}fr> wrote in message
...
> Bob Morein a écrit :
>
> > "trotsky" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> >
> >>Arny Krueger wrote:
[ snip]
> >
> >
> Well Bob cruel now. No ?
>
No, saving innocents from Trotsky's poorly engineered speakers.

Are you on the side of Trotsky the Aristocrat, or Robspierre?

[George M. Middius]

Bobo said to Poodleborg:

> Are you on the side of Trotsky the Aristocrat, or Robspierre?

He's on Krooger's side, just like you.

Bobo: "Krooger is dangerous!"

Poodleborg: "Krooger is greatly worthwhile!"

Some people just don't give a damn about their reputations.

[Lionel Chapuis]

Bob Morein a écrit :
> "Lionel Chapuis" <lionel{dot}chapuis{at}free{dot}fr> wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Bob Morein a écrit :
>>
>>
>>>"trotsky" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> [ snip]
>
>>>
>>Well Bob cruel now. No ?
>>
>
> No, saving innocents from Trotsky's poorly engineered speakers.
>
> Are you on the side of Trotsky the Aristocrat, or Robspierre?
>
>

One of our singer said :
"Mourir pour des idées d'accord mais de mort lente"
(to die for opinion... ok i'd like but slowly).
It was during the French war in Algeria (a kind of Irak...)

[Bob Morein]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Bobo said to Poodleborg:
>
> > Are you on the side of Trotsky the Aristocrat, or Robspierre?
>
> He's on Krooger's side, just like you.
>
> Bobo: "Krooger is dangerous!"
>
> Poodleborg: "Krooger is greatly worthwhile!"
>
> Some people just don't give a damn about their reputations.
>
I'm not on Krueger's side.
On the other hand, I'm rather suspicious of you, making Trotsky the Poster
Child of High End Audio.
Gimme a break, the guy's a fraud.
I assume you've decided to take the risk with the assumption that by this
time next year, Trotsky's enterprise will have become part of the Cretacious
sediment.

Calculating. Very calculating...

[GeoSynch]

Pudge pustulated:

> The real bonus will come if he actually sells some speakers
> 'Cause you know Gregipus will be back to gloat.

Yep, what'd I tell you - the Oedipus references would resume
before week's end. The Mid-Yut's as predictable as ever.


GeoSynch

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...

> I don't expect him to succeed, if that's what you mean.

Middius, what are your qualifications as a business analyst. I predict that
you won't answer this question because the answer would embarrass you.

>I don't think he knows what it will take to run a successful business.

I don't think he knows what it will take to design a sucessful speaker.

> But I also applaud the nutty little fruitcake for trying. The real bonus
> will come if he actually sells some speakers -- the Bug Eater and
> his "****head" friend Krooger will melt down.

Nahh, stranger things have happened.

> 'Cause you know Gregipus will be back to gloat.

Given Singh's unfriendly relationship with the truth, he will probably just
lie about it for the heck of it.

[Bob Morein]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Bobo inverts reality.
>
> > > > Are you on the side of Trotsky the Aristocrat, or Robspierre?
> > >
> > > He's on Krooger's side, just like you.
> > >
> > > Bobo: "Krooger is dangerous!"
> > >
> > > Poodleborg: "Krooger is greatly worthwhile!"
> > >
> > > Some people just don't give a damn about their reputations.
> > >
> > I'm not on Krueger's side.
> > On the other hand, I'm rather suspicious of you, making Trotsky the
Poster
> > Child of High End Audio.
>
> Ha! Good one.
>
> > Gimme a break, the guy's a fraud.
>
> So what? He's one little speaker company. I understand that his
> entire enterprise offends you deeply, but there are several points
> in his favor. For one, he's actually trying to make a living in
> audio.

It sounds like "making a living in audio" is a worthiness criteria for you.
I fail to see how it makes one meritorious. By itself, it means nothing.

You're not. In fact, you're nothing but a slug, nursing a
> screenplay for 20 years and trying to squeeze a victory out of a
> silly lawsuit.
> For another, you haven't even heard the speakers.
> That, by the way, is the strongest bond you have with Kroo**** --
> smugly pontificating about something you can't do yourself.

Now that's not fair.
Either Krueger, you, or I could do what Trotsky's doing. The formulas can be
evaluated on a pocket calculator. But it's well known that the formula are
only an approximation. Professionals spend six months with sawdust flying to
work the bugs out of a design. Trotsky hasn't done that.

If Trotsky had put in the work, I would respect the effort, regardless of
how odious a guy he is. You don't seem to realize that he's skipped the
design step, skipped the elbow grease.

I gather you feel that there is some chance that Trotsky hit the right
combination, either by accident, or by some process you prefer to assume
succeeded. I'm telling you that the chance of that occurence is vanishingly
small. Compare it to teaching someone creative writing without knowing
what's in Strunk's first.

Even if he DID somehow win the Publishers Clearinghouse of speaker design,
bass reflex is notoriously sensitive to driver variations. It goes boomy/
hollow with variations that occur on a regular basis with drivers of
established quality. When John Bau, a real artist, was building the TC-50,
he tested everything, and modified the drivers, even though his design was a
much less tempermental sealed box. He could have one lucky pair, and **** up
every second unit. And Chinese drivers are all over the map. They have to be
graded.

Unfortunately, I can't hear the speakers, and nobody else can, unless they
pay out $1300 for a bad bet.
There are musicians and amateurs who have built very good speakers. It takes
them forever, but patience can replace resources.

[snip]
>But I
> also applaud the nutty little fruitcake for trying. The real bonus
> will come if he actually sells some speakers -- the Bug Eater and
> his "****head" friend Krooger will melt down. 'Cause you know
> Gregipus will be back to gloat.
>
If he had put in the elbow grease, I'd be clapping too. I would not let my
personal antipathy stand in the way. You have observed that Greg prepares
his arguments poorly, appears obtuse -- you say stupid -- and generally, is
overly verbal about things he hasn't thought out. Unfortunately, this is a
general manifestation of his personality which has extended to this latest
folly. Please think about the one or two guys who could, maybe, actually
purchase the product, be unhappy, and be out of a lot of dough. Aren't the
future victims worthy of your concern?

[dave weil]

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 09:58:04 -0400, "Bob Morein" >
wrote:

>If he had put in the elbow grease, I'd be clapping too. I would not let my
>personal antipathy stand in the way. You have observed that Greg prepares
>his arguments poorly, appears obtuse -- you say stupid -- and generally, is
>overly verbal about things he hasn't thought out. Unfortunately, this is a
>general manifestation of his personality which has extended to this latest
>folly.

<irony alert>

[trotsky]

Bob Morein wrote:
> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>Bobo inverts reality.
>>
>>
>>>>>Are you on the side of Trotsky the Aristocrat, or Robspierre?
>>>>
>>>>He's on Krooger's side, just like you.
>>>>
>>>>Bobo: "Krooger is dangerous!"
>>>>
>>>>Poodleborg: "Krooger is greatly worthwhile!"
>>>>
>>>>Some people just don't give a damn about their reputations.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I'm not on Krueger's side.
>>>On the other hand, I'm rather suspicious of you, making Trotsky the
>>
> Poster
>
>>>Child of High End Audio.
>>
>>Ha! Good one.
>>
>>
>>>Gimme a break, the guy's a fraud.
>>
>>So what? He's one little speaker company. I understand that his
>>entire enterprise offends you deeply, but there are several points
>>in his favor. For one, he's actually trying to make a living in
>>audio.
>
>
> It sounds like "making a living in audio" is a worthiness criteria


Criteria is plural, Bob, and "a worthiness criteria" doesn't make sense
on several levels. Perhaps George can figure it out.

[trotsky]

dave weil wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 09:58:04 -0400, "Bob Morein" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>If he had put in the elbow grease, I'd be clapping too. I would not let my
>>personal antipathy stand in the way. You have observed that Greg prepares
>>his arguments poorly, appears obtuse -- you say stupid -- and generally, is
>>overly verbal about things he hasn't thought out. Unfortunately, this is a
>>general manifestation of his personality which has extended to this latest
>>folly.
>
>
> <irony alert>


Wouldn't it be especially ironic if he'd accused me of stealing
intellectual property?

[George M. Middius]

trotsky said:

> Criteria is plural, Bob, and "a worthiness criteria" doesn't make sense
> on several levels. Perhaps George can figure it out.

I previously instructed you not to inquire of me for support in your
language battles. Did you not understand the first time?

How 'bout that StynchBlob, eh? Seems to be cut from the same cloth
as you.

[trotsky]

George M. Middius wrote:
>
> trotsky said:
>
>
>>Criteria is plural, Bob, and "a worthiness criteria" doesn't make sense
>>on several levels. Perhaps George can figure it out.
>
>
> I previously instructed you not to inquire of me for support in your
> language battles. Did you not understand the first time?


Nobody understands you, George--how many times do I have to tell you this?

>
> How 'bout that StynchBlob, eh? Seems to be cut from the same cloth
> as you.


Except I don't do sockpuppets. Do you?

[George M. Middius]

trotsky tries facing reality again.

> > I previously instructed you not to inquire of me for support in your
> > language battles. Did you not understand the first time?

> Nobody understands you, George--how many times do I have to tell you this?

Bobo says you're arrogant. I'm trying hard to pick up the scent.


> > How 'bout that StynchBlob, eh? Seems to be cut from the same cloth
> > as you.

> Except I don't do sockpuppets. Do you?

Bobo also says you're overly imaginative to the point of paranoia.
I can't imagine how he dreams up these descriptions.

[trotsky]

George M. Middius wrote:
>
> trotsky tries facing reality again.
>
>
>>>I previously instructed you not to inquire of me for support in your
>>>language battles. Did you not understand the first time?
>>
>
>
>>Nobody understands you, George--how many times do I have to tell you this?
>
>
> Bobo says you're arrogant. I'm trying hard to pick up the scent.
>
>
>
>>>How 'bout that StynchBlob, eh? Seems to be cut from the same cloth
>>>as you.
>>
>
>
>>Except I don't do sockpuppets. Do you?
>
>
> Bobo also says you're overly imaginative to the point of paranoia.
> I can't imagine how he dreams up these descriptions.


Didn't think you'd be able to answer the question.

[Lionel Chapuis]

George M. Middius a écrit :

>
> trotsky said:
>
> [usual demented jabber]
>
> Does it bother you that at least six RAO regulars think you're just
> as crazy as Krooger?
>
>
>
>
Trotsky,
Middious propose you to join the right side of the road !
In fact he proposes you to have the same behaviour than him.
Middious is a coward so he is a "follower". He follows the rule of the
larger number which is typically a coward's behaviour.
Middious you are a *COWARD*

[trotsky]

George M. Middius wrote:
>
> trotsky said:
>
> [usual demented jabber]
>
> Does it bother you that at least six RAO regulars think you're just
> as crazy as Krooger?


That has exactly what to do with the real world?

Take as much time as you need.

[Bob Morein]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>

> You've never tried to build an audio product, either your way or
> trotsky's way. Nor have you tried to run a business. That's why you
> sound like a bitchy little wannabe.

George, the above statement is factually incorrect.
>
> > Either Krueger, you, or I could do what Trotsky's doing.
>
> Nor could you do it. I don't think you have the wherewithal to
> design a loudspeaker the way you fantasize, and I'm dead certain you
> don't have the drive to launch your own business. Nor have I, nor
> most people on this group who aren't doing so already.

As far as wherewithal, I have the same analytical equipment Stereophile
uses, only more of it. I use it for other purposes.

If I thought it were possible to provide better technology at a price point,
it would be worth a shot.

Unfortunately, even a guy like Vance Dickason, who wrote the book for home
builders, asserts that the chances of success, in terms of commercial
perfection, are remote, unless one spends an inordinate amount of effort.

>
> > The formulas can be
> > evaluated on a pocket calculator. But it's well known that the formula
are
> > only an approximation. Professionals spend six months with sawdust
flying to
> > work the bugs out of a design. Trotsky hasn't done that.
>
> You're so fixated on the underbrush that you can't see the trees,
> let alone the forest.
>
I think you're so sensitized against Krueger, you see him in every argument.
>
> > If Trotsky had put in the work, I would respect the effort, regardless
of
> > how odious a guy he is. You don't seem to realize that he's skipped the
> > design step, skipped the elbow grease.
>
> Who gives a ****? If he stumbles on a design that sounds good,
> that's all that counts.

Do you enter the Publishers Clearinghouse for financial stability?

Maybe he took a shortcut by copying a design
> of an existing speaker, and he got it right. Regardless, the design
> step that you are worshipping can be finessed. Look at Bose.

If he has copied an existing speaker, it would have to use exactly the same
drivers.
I wonder if there's a current product which fits the description.

Unless he measures the T/S parameters of each woofer, the Q/C problems will
be severe.

>
> > I gather you feel that there is some chance that Trotsky hit the right
> > combination, either by accident, or by some process you prefer to assume
> > succeeded. I'm telling you that the chance of that occurence is
vanishingly
> > small. Compare it to teaching someone creative writing without knowing
> > what's in Strunk's first.
>
> Nobody cares. (Except you and your fellow mental masturbators.)

George, this hifi stuff you listen to is a combination of engineering and
art. Neither suffices by itself.
Some people understand this, and some deny the fusion.
> [snip repetitious blather]
>
> The venture trotsky has undertaken is barely into its second phase
> (marketing). Give the boy a chance. When he flops, as most of us
> think he will, then you can laugh at his ineptitude at business.
> > [snip]
I'm more concerned about the victims. Fortunately, I don't think there will
be any. Perhaps a potential buyer has been following the brouhaha.
>
> Focus on the big picture, Bobo. He has products. You're entitled to
> hate them for whatever reason you want, but your emotions have
> nothing to do with whether trotsky will succeed.

I don't think that my emotions have anything to do with whether Trotsky will
succeed.
>
> > >But I
> > > also applaud the nutty little fruitcake for trying. The real bonus
> > > will come if he actually sells some speakers -- the Bug Eater and
> > > his "****head" friend Krooger will melt down. 'Cause you know
> > > Gregipus will be back to gloat.
> > >
> > If he had put in the elbow grease, I'd be clapping too.
>
> Apparently you think doing R&D is the only component of running a
> business that matters. How foolish.
>
I don't think that.
However, the mere fact of running a business is not virtuous. It's neutral.
There are lots of little struggling speaker makers who deserve better.
Root for them.

> > I would not let my
> > personal antipathy stand in the way. You have observed that Greg
prepares
> > his arguments poorly, appears obtuse -- you say stupid -- and generally,
is
> > overly verbal about things he hasn't thought out. Unfortunately, this is
a
> > general manifestation of his personality which has extended to this
latest
> > folly. Please think about the one or two guys who could, maybe, actually
> > purchase the product, be unhappy, and be out of a lot of dough. Aren't
the
> > future victims worthy of your concern?
>
> I believe he's going to give a money-back guarantee. Any other
> whines?

Yes. I don't believe he'll have the money to give.
>
> Now try focusing on the big picture.
>
There is no big picture. This is a folly by a very verbal guy who has
foolishness built into his genetic structure.

[Bob Morein]

Donations are now being accepted for the Trotsky Victims Fund. We are
currently accepting financial instruments, as well as hifi equipment that
would be euphonious compared to Trotsky's "Jupiter" creations. Radio Shack,
JBL ghetto blasters, and anything else that can play a tune without throwing
a voicecoil will be accepted with gratitude.
Please send all obsolete equipment freight express to the following address:
Jupiter Audio
P.O. Box 5441
Glendale Hts., IL 60139

where they will be held for distribution upon the bankruptcy of the infamous
Trotsky Speaker Scam.
Donations of money should be sent C/O of George M. Middius, who will
administer the claims procedure.

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Bobo said:
>
[snip the opinions]

>
> Money-back guarantee!
> Money-back guarantee!
> Money-back guarantee!
> Money-back guarantee!
> Money-back guarantee!
> Money-back guarantee!
>
He hasn't got the money to give!
He hasn't got the money to give!
He hasn't got the money to give!
He hasn't got the money to give!
He hasn't got the money to give!
He hasn't got the money to give!

>
> > > Focus on the big picture, Bobo. He has products. You're entitled to
> > > hate them for whatever reason you want, but your emotions have
> > > nothing to do with whether trotsky will succeed.
> >
> > I don't think that my emotions have anything to do with whether Trotsky
will
> > succeed.
>
> I think your emotions have nothing to do with whether trotsky will
> succeed.
I agree.
>
>
> > > > If he had put in the elbow grease, I'd be clapping too.
> > >
> > > Apparently you think doing R&D is the only component of running a
> > > business that matters. How foolish.
>
> > I don't think that.
>
> Yes, you do.
No I don't. Is this the room for arguments?
>
> > However, the mere fact of running a business is not virtuous. It's
neutral.
> > There are lots of little struggling speaker makers who deserve better.
> > Root for them.
>
> I'd hate to see the crap you would throw at them when they ask for
> opinions about their web sites.
>
If he had put in the elbow grease, I'd be clapping too. I would not let my
personal antipathy stand in the way. You have observed that Greg prepares
his arguments poorly, appears obtuse -- you say stupid -- and generally, is
overly verbal about things he hasn't thought out. Unfortunately, this is a
general manifestation of his personality which has extended to this latest
folly. Please think about the one or two guys who could, maybe, actually
purchase the product, be unhappy, and be out of a lot of dough. Aren't the
future victims worthy of your concern?

> Aren't
>you
>ashamed
>of the mess
>you make?

What mess?

> > > I believe he's going to give a money-back guarantee. Any other
> > > whines?
>
> > Yes. I don't believe he'll have the money to give.
>
> That's quite different from being a fraud or cheating people, isn't
> it? If he flops, he flops. People who buy speakers from basement
> operations are aware of the risk. Or maybe you believe that the
> purchasers' money should go into escrow until the trial period has
> ended.
>
Lying is so internal to Trotsky's makeup, it would take a convention of the
American Psychiatric Association to produce the world's first insanity
defense for business fraud.
"I cheated them cause I'm crazy!"
>
> > > Now try focusing on the big picture.
>
> > There is no big picture.
>
> You're a dolt, don't you know.
Thank you, darling.
>
>

[trotsky]

Bob Morein wrote:

> "trotsky" wrote in message
> ...
>
> >
> >dave weil wrote:
> >
> >>On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 09:58:04 -0400, "Bob Morein"
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>If he had put in the elbow grease, I'd be clapping too. I would not let
>
> my
>
> >>>personal antipathy stand in the way. You have observed that Greg
>
> prepares
>
> >>>his arguments poorly, appears obtuse -- you say stupid -- and
> generally,
>
> is
>
> >>>overly verbal about things he hasn't thought out. Unfortunately,
> this is
>
> a
>
> >>>general manifestation of his personality which has extended to this
>
> latest
>
> >>>folly.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >Wouldn't it be especially ironic if he'd accused me of stealing
> >intellectual property?
> >
>
> I know someone spent considerable time and effort teaching you how to
> use an
> electric screwdriver, and you're not giving him proper credit.



You know, Bob, I don't know what your specific complaint is. (Do you?)
Are you claiming that I did too good a job setting up my company, and
don't deserve the success that will undoubtedly be coming down the pike?
If not, are you saying I didn't do enough homework and hence am
destined for failure, which should be punishment enough in itself? You
constant whining about Jupiter Audio makes me think it's the former,
and, if you'll excuse another movie making term, I have to ask what your
motivation is. Another observation I have for you (I know, you're the
"writer", so you're supposed to be doing the observing) is that you
sound EXACTLY like Brian McCarty with his "fraud alerts", making you one
of the biggest hypocrites in the history of Usenet.

How do people get this ****ed up?

[Bob Morein]

"trotsky" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Bob Morein wrote:
>
> > "trotsky" wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > >
> > >dave weil wrote:
> > >
> > >>On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 09:58:04 -0400, "Bob Morein"
> > >>wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>If he had put in the elbow grease, I'd be clapping too. I would not
let
> >
> > my
> >
> > >>>personal antipathy stand in the way. You have observed that Greg
> >
> > prepares
> >
> > >>>his arguments poorly, appears obtuse -- you say stupid -- and
> > generally,
> >
> > is
> >
> > >>>overly verbal about things he hasn't thought out. Unfortunately,
> > this is
> >
> > a
> >
> > >>>general manifestation of his personality which has extended to this
> >
> > latest
> >
> > >>>folly.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >Wouldn't it be especially ironic if he'd accused me of stealing
> > >intellectual property?
> > >
> >
> > I know someone spent considerable time and effort teaching you how to
> > use an
> > electric screwdriver, and you're not giving him proper credit.
>
>
>
> You know, Bob, I don't know what your specific complaint is. (Do you?)
Yes. You are an imcompetent fool, who can't understand that I am telling him
he is an incompetent fool.
Incompetent fools should not take other people's money for equipment they
manufacture, because incompetent fools cannot make equipment competently.

[trotsky]

Bob Morein wrote:

> "trotsky" wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
> >Bob Morein wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"trotsky" wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>
> >>>dave weil wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 09:58:04 -0400, "Bob Morein"
> >>>>wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>If he had put in the elbow grease, I'd be clapping too. I would not
>
> let
>
> >>my
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>personal antipathy stand in the way. You have observed that Greg
> >>
> >>prepares
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>his arguments poorly, appears obtuse -- you say stupid -- and
> >>
> >>generally,
> >>
> >>is
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>overly verbal about things he hasn't thought out. Unfortunately,
> >>
> >>this is
> >>
> >>a
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>general manifestation of his personality which has extended to this
> >>
> >>latest
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>folly.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>Wouldn't it be especially ironic if he'd accused me of stealing
> >>>intellectual property?
> >>>
> >>
> >>I know someone spent considerable time and effort teaching you how to
> >>use an
> >>electric screwdriver, and you're not giving him proper credit.
> >
> >
> >
> >You know, Bob, I don't know what your specific complaint is. (Do you?)
>
> Yes. You are an imcompetent fool, who can't understand that I am
> telling him
> he is an incompetent fool.
> Incompetent fools should not take other people's money for equipment they
> manufacture, because incompetent fools cannot make equipment competently.



That's interesting, because I put it to you that you snipped the rest of
the post because YOU'RE incompetent. For some reason, I keep coming up
against wannabe writers here on Usenet and show them systematically that
there's no aspect of the use of words they can best me with. You're
afraid to respond to my extremely valid points, because you have
difficulty coming up with a valid point of view yourself. Why not just
slink back to whatever rat-hole you crawled out of and quit while you're
behind?

[George M. Middius]

trotsky said:

> For some reason, I keep coming up
> against wannabe writers here on Usenet and show them systematically that
> there's no aspect of the use of words they can best me with.

Just for the sake of informing anybody who doesn't know you, who
exactly is keeping score on these games where you keep besting people?
Is there a panel of judges out in cyberspace who render their opinions
directly unto you? Or do the voices originate from somewhere else?

[trotsky]

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> trotsky said:
>
>
> >For some reason, I keep coming up
> >against wannabe writers here on Usenet and show them systematically that
> >there's no aspect of the use of words they can best me with.
>
>
> Just for the sake of informing anybody who doesn't know you, who
> exactly is keeping score on these games where you keep besting people?
> Is there a panel of judges out in cyberspace who render their opinions
> directly unto you? Or do the voices originate from somewhere else?



You can be the judge if you want, George. If you feel Bob Morion has
introduce on valid criticism with respect to me, I'd like to see what it
is. Meanwhile, I can direct you to three or four direct points I raised
that left his completely constipated.

[George M. Middius]

trotsky said:

> > >For some reason, I keep coming up
> > >against wannabe writers here on Usenet and show them systematically that
> > >there's no aspect of the use of words they can best me with.

> > Just for the sake of informing anybody who doesn't know you, who
> > exactly is keeping score on these games where you keep besting people?
> > Is there a panel of judges out in cyberspace who render their opinions
> > directly unto you? Or do the voices originate from somewhere else?

> You can be the judge if you want, George. If you feel Bob Morion has
> introduce on valid criticism with respect to me, I'd like to see what it
> is.

If you could read at an adult level, you would realize that I didn't
refer specifically to him. Here, let me help you:

"... who exactly is keeping score on these games where you keep
besting people?"

You originally used plurals ("writers", "them", "they") and I
maintained the same meaning in my question ("these games", "people").

However, if you want to reverse yourself and claim you were only
talking about Bobo, now is the time to do so.


> Meanwhile, I can direct you to three or four direct points I raised
> that left his completely constipated.

As usual, you're afraid to answer the question.

[trotsky]

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> trotsky said:
>
>
> >>>For some reason, I keep coming up
> >>>against wannabe writers here on Usenet and show them systematically
> that
> >>>there's no aspect of the use of words they can best me with.
>
>
> >>Just for the sake of informing anybody who doesn't know you, who
> >>exactly is keeping score on these games where you keep besting people?
> >>Is there a panel of judges out in cyberspace who render their opinions
> >>directly unto you? Or do the voices originate from somewhere else?
>
>
> >You can be the judge if you want, George. If you feel Bob Morion has
> >introduce on valid criticism with respect to me, I'd like to see what it
> >is.
>
>
> If you could read at an adult level, you would realize that I didn't
> refer specifically to him. Here, let me help you:
>
> "... who exactly is keeping score on these games where you keep
> besting people?"


Oh, my bad, I thought you were specifically referring to the Bob Morion
phenomonon here on rao and instead you're speaking in the abstract.
Here, let me explain how Usenet works: people observe my rather pointed
remarks, and invariably try and troll me. I use whatever information I
have at hand to explain to them the various ways they are full of crap.
When they are unable to respond with even a single word, I know I've
scored. You've experienced this first hand, so you should be able to
attest to what I'm saying.


>
>
> You originally used plurals ("writers", "them", "they") and I
> maintained the same meaning in my question ("these games", "people").
>
> However, if you want to reverse yourself and claim you were only
> talking about Bobo, now is the time to do so.


What, you want a list? Try almost everyone that has ever responded to
me. A few people--and they probably know who they are--are pretty cool
and very hard for me to say anything negative about. Others--like dave
weil, for example--have gone multiple rounds with me, but ultimately
come to a stalemate. This doesn't happen very often. Usually, I allow
people to bring out the worst in themselves, and they just escalate with
hypocritical and/or untruthful statements. Again, you've experienced
this first hand.

>
>
>
>
> >Meanwhile, I can direct you to three or four direct points I raised
> >that left his completely constipated.
>
>
> As usual, you're afraid to answer the question.


Right, like that's ever happened.

[George M. Middius]

trotsky said:

> > >>>For some reason, I keep coming up
> > >>>against wannabe writers here on Usenet and show them systematically that
> > >>>there's no aspect of the use of words they can best me with.
> >
> >
> > >>Just for the sake of informing anybody who doesn't know you, who
> > >>exactly is keeping score on these games where you keep besting people?
> > >>Is there a panel of judges out in cyberspace who render their opinions
> > >>directly unto you? Or do the voices originate from somewhere else?
> >
> >
> > >You can be the judge if you want, George. If you feel Bob Morion has
> > >introduce on valid criticism with respect to me, I'd like to see what it
> > >is.
> >
> >
> > If you could read at an adult level, you would realize that I didn't
> > refer specifically to him. Here, let me help you:
> >
> > "... who exactly is keeping score on these games where you keep
> > besting people?"
>
>
> Oh, my bad, I thought you were specifically referring to the Bob Morion
> phenomonon here on rao and instead you're speaking in the abstract.

Once again, you've shown that you are indeed unable to read at an
adult level.

[snip irrelevant self-aggrandizing blather]


> > You originally used plurals ("writers", "them", "they") and I
> > maintained the same meaning in my question ("these games", "people").
> >
> > However, if you want to reverse yourself and claim you were only
> > talking about Bobo, now is the time to do so.
>
>
> What, you want a list?

No. Please take some remedial reading lessons.

The question is:

Just for the sake of informing anybody who doesn't know you, who
exactly is keeping score on these games where you keep besting people?
Is there a panel of judges out in cyberspace who render their opinions
directly unto you? Or do the voices originate from somewhere else?

If necessary, ask dave or Bruce to explain that to you.

> > As usual, you're afraid to answer the question.

> Right, like that's ever happened.

It's happened twice, today alone, in this very thread. For the fourth
time, here's the question you keep ducking:

Just for the sake of informing anybody who doesn't know you, who
exactly is keeping score on these games where you keep besting people?
Is there a panel of judges out in cyberspace who render their opinions
directly unto you? Or do the voices originate from somewhere else?

[George M. Middius]

trotsky weasels, slithers, and fumbles away.

> > Once again, you've shown that you are indeed unable to read at an
> > adult level.

> I disagree.

You disagree with almost everybody about almost everything.
Nonetheless, you've demonstrated poor reading skills in this exchange.

> "Keeping score" is often used metaphorically.

Well, at least you're finally cranking up your nerve and trying to
answer the question.


> there is no scoring system on Usenet (other than the loose one I
> outlined in this thread), as there is in, say, baseball.

You skipped the "outlined" part. You may have outlined it to yourself,
in confidence or in your imagination, but not to us real people in the
real world.

> Thus you're

Got those world-class language skills working yet? ;-)

> question, literally speaking, didn't make much sense.

Why would you be "literally speaking" when my question was figurative?
You're not insane, are you?

> In fact, despite your alleged conciliatory e-mails,

You're the one who makes that allegation, pussy-boy. Nobody else has
ever characterized any emails as "conciliatory". While we're on the
subject, why would anybody offer, or desire to receive, conciliation?
That part has always been Trotsky's Little Secret. Please explain now,
unless, as usual, you're unable to answer the question.

> I can say honestly that your
> questions don't make sense in many cases.

Of course not, dear thing. There there.

> Did you think there was some
> sort of Wizard of Oz sitting behind a curtain somewhere keeping a
> literal score of my Usenet altercations? Alternately, did you think you
> had set some sort of trap by asking me that question?

The latter is much closer than the former. As to a "trap", not
hardly(TM). Merely a bit of pointed sarcasm.

> What was the possible outcome of "who's keeping score?"

If you were sane, you'd realize that your constant and arbitrary
proclamations of victory are the height of foolishness. As it is,
though, you've apparently tried very hard to "make sense" of
figurative questions and interpret them "literally", including a
"literal score". All of which makes you look foolish.

> > Just for the sake of informing anybody who doesn't know you, who
> > exactly is keeping score on these games where you keep besting people?
> > Is there a panel of judges out in cyberspace who render their opinions
> > directly unto you? Or do the voices originate from somewhere else?

> I have a talking dog.

Now you're getting the picture.

> > Just for the sake of informing anybody who doesn't know you, who
> > exactly is keeping score on these games where you keep besting people?
> > Is there a panel of judges out in cyberspace who render their opinions
> > directly unto you? Or do the voices originate from somewhere else?

> Uh, can this be multiple choice, so we can learn just what the **** kind
> of answer might appease your hyper fastidiousness?

I don't have "hyper fastidiousness", Mr. Language Abuse Person.

If you want to answer in a way that would please me, you could
suddenly realize, and admit to the rest of us, that your frequent
claims of victory are ludicrous, that you can barely follow any
discussions on Usenet without resorting to insults, and that most of
the time, you honestly don't know who's winning and who's losing.

Failing that, appease this! ;-)

[trotsky]

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> trotsky weasels, slithers, and fumbles away.
>
>
> >>Once again, you've shown that you are indeed unable to read at an
> >>adult level.
>
>
>
> >I disagree.
>
>
> You disagree with almost everybody about almost everything.
> Nonetheless, you've demonstrated poor reading skills in this exchange.


According to whom, George? Are you 'keeping score' this time?

>
>
>
> >"Keeping score" is often used metaphorically.
>
>
> Well, at least you're finally cranking up your nerve and trying to
> answer the question.


Hyper fastidiousness duly noted. It is a very pithy, scintillating set
of questions, too.

>
>
>
>
> >there is no scoring system on Usenet (other than the loose one I
> >outlined in this thread), as there is in, say, baseball.
>
>
> You skipped the "outlined" part. You may have outlined it to yourself,
> in confidence or in your imagination, but not to us real people in the
> real world.


No, that's a lie. I explained *clearly* that if I make a pointed
observation, and the observee is unable to acknowledge it, then I have
scored. I suggested that you had first hand knowledge of this. I claim
that you are now ducking the issue. It sure is hard work keeping you
entertained when Krueger isn't around for you to obsess over.

>
>
>
> >Thus you're
>
>
> Got those world-class language skills working yet? ;-)


Actually, since I frequently interchange the same two words by mistake,
I don't think language skills are at issue. I claim you are lying for
trolling purposes.

>
>
>
> >question, literally speaking, didn't make much sense.
>
>
> Why would you be "literally speaking" when my question was figurative?
> You're not insane, are you?


Please explain what you mean in detail by the concept of "figurative
people keeping score". I claim that this is a nonsense statement.


> >In fact, despite your alleged conciliatory e-mails,
>
>
> You're the one who makes that allegation, pussy-boy.


I do like pussy, that's for sure. You're welcome to hold this against
me if need be.


> Nobody else has
> ever characterized any emails as "conciliatory".


Agreed. I do have my own style, although others frequently copy it.


> While we're on the
> subject, why would anybody offer, or desire to receive, conciliation?
> That part has always been Trotsky's Little Secret. Please explain now,
> unless, as usual, you're unable to answer the question.


I'm not sure. What description would you prefer: hand holding? Dick
sucking? "Conciliatory" was about the nicest way I could think of to
put it. Ain't that a bitch, I'm now frowned upon for being nice.

>
>
>
> >I can say honestly that your
> >questions don't make sense in many cases.
>
>
> Of course not, dear thing. There there.
>
>
> >Did you think there was some
> >sort of Wizard of Oz sitting behind a curtain somewhere keeping a
> >literal score of my Usenet altercations? Alternately, did you think you
> >had set some sort of trap by asking me that question?
>
>
> The latter is much closer than the former. As to a "trap", not
> hardly(TM). Merely a bit of pointed sarcasm.


Maybe in your hyper fastidious mind. Or did you get e-mails from "eight
people" telling you how nice and pointed your sarcasm was?

>
>
>
> >What was the possible outcome of "who's keeping score?"
>
>
> If you were sane, you'd realize that your constant and arbitrary
> proclamations of victory are the height of foolishness. As it is,
> though, you've apparently tried very hard to "make sense" of
> figurative questions and interpret them "literally", including a
> "literal score". All of which makes you look foolish.


Now that's just queer. My detractors, recently, on this group, have
been Oberlander, McKelvy, and Morion. That might as well be the three
stooges. If you are going to sit there and tell me there is a shred of
credibility between the three of them I will then call you an idiot.

>
>
>
> >>Just for the sake of informing anybody who doesn't know you, who
> >>exactly is keeping score on these games where you keep besting people?
> >>Is there a panel of judges out in cyberspace who render their opinions
> >>directly unto you? Or do the voices originate from somewhere else?
>
>
>
> >I have a talking dog.
>
>
> Now you're getting the picture.


That makes one of us!

>
>
>
> >>Just for the sake of informing anybody who doesn't know you, who
> >>exactly is keeping score on these games where you keep besting people?
> >>Is there a panel of judges out in cyberspace who render their opinions
> >>directly unto you? Or do the voices originate from somewhere else?
>
>
>
> >Uh, can this be multiple choice, so we can learn just what the **** kind
> >of answer might appease your hyper fastidiousness?
>
>
> I don't have "hyper fastidiousness", Mr. Language Abuse Person.


I'm trying to be politically correct and not just say "gay".

>
>
> If you want to answer in a way that would please me,


Why on Earth would I give a rat's ass about that?

> you could
> suddenly realize, and admit to the rest of us, that your frequent
> claims of victory are ludicrous, that you can barely follow any
> discussions on Usenet without resorting to insults, and that most of
> the time, you honestly don't know who's winning and who's losing.
>
> Failing that, appease this! ;-)


Clearly I missed the point of this whole exercise. Obviously the peanut
gallery that is responsible for keeping the score around these parts are
those eight people sending you the conciliatory e-mails. I now claim
that you are a hypocrite.

[George M. Middius]

trotsky said:

> > You skipped the "outlined" part. You may have outlined it to yourself,
> > in confidence or in your imagination, but not to us real people in the
> > real world.
>
>
> No, that's a lie. I explained *clearly* that if I make a pointed
> observation, and the observee is unable to acknowledge it, then I have
> scored.

Aha. So this is the mysterious scoring system.

Let me ask you something about your system: When "the observee" does
not answer your question, how do you know *why* he didn't do so? IOW,
you claim you "have scored" when somebody "is unable to answer". How
about when he chooses not to answer?

[George M. Middius]

trotsky said:

> > >In fact, despite your alleged conciliatory e-mails,

> > You're the one who makes that allegation, pussy-boy.

> I do like pussy, that's for sure. You're welcome to hold this against
> me if need be.

Is that a world-class bit of wordplay? To me, it reeks of cowardice
and insecurity.

> > Nobody else has
> > ever characterized any emails as "conciliatory".

> Agreed. I do have my own style, although others frequently copy it.

That is a nonsequitur. Are you proud of your language skills, or would
you prefer to gloat about scoring?


> > While we're on the
> > subject, why would anybody offer, or desire to receive, conciliation?
> > That part has always been Trotsky's Little Secret. Please explain now,
> > unless, as usual, you're unable to answer the question.

> I'm not sure. What description would you prefer: hand holding? Dick
> sucking? "Conciliatory" was about the nicest way I could think of to
> put it. Ain't that a bitch, I'm now frowned upon for being nice.

And yet you have produced no evidence to support your claim of
conciliation, either given or requested. It exists only in your mind.

I will share something with you though. Emails that I have with other
people, insofar as they touch directly on RAO stuff, take the form of
laughing at you. (And others such as Krooger and Nousiane, of course.)
Nobody offers conciliation; we usually marvel at how far gone you are,
or make lighthearted bets about when you'll be confined in a loony
bin, or share the wish that you would either absent yourself from RAO
or drop dead. IOW, pretty much the same kind of stuff we say about
Krooger.

I will go further: I have never offered nor received any form of
conciliation in my email exchanges with other RAO participants. In
fact, sometimes I've been chided by others for not simply ignoring
you. The people who have said that sort of thing view you as pathetic
and underpowered for the exchanges you initiate.

No conciliation. Got it? None.

[George M. Middius]

trotsky said:

> > The latter is much closer than the former. As to a "trap", not
> > hardly(TM). Merely a bit of pointed sarcasm.

> Maybe in your hyper fastidious mind.

One day perhaps you'll be able to explain what that means.

> Or did you get e-mails from "eight
> people" telling you how nice and pointed your sarcasm was?

No, stupid. I characterized my *intent* in writing those three
sentences. If you are so intellectually stunted that you think you can
be trapped by a challenge to your mental acuity, then you need some
more quality time with Mama Singh. Or whatever you do when you feel
like weeping.

[Lionel]

George M. Middius a écrit :
>
> trotsky said:
>
>
>>>>Thus you're
>
>
>>>Got those world-class language skills working yet? ;-)
>
>
>
>>Actually, since I frequently interchange the same two words by mistake,
>>I don't think language skills are at issue.
>
>
> So you're saying you make the same mistake frequently, but that lack
> of knowledge doesn't reflect on your language skill.
>
> If that made any less sense, I'd keep worrying you about the point.
>
>
George, frequently has "spatial" interchanges. He uses to take his anus
for his mouth. Hopefully here on RAO we don't suffer of the
consequences... :o)

--
Lionel J. M. Chapuis
Unemployed Clown

(signed this way because of pending libel suit against Krueger scheduled
to begin on 9/20/03 per Mr. Wheeler - and the need to possibly provide
supportive documentary evidence that Mr. George M. Middius' daily
incitement to hatred, suicide, slandering, insults, murder is the real
guilty of Mr.Wheeler's grievances.)

[George M. Middius]

trotsky said:

> > If you were sane, you'd realize that your constant and arbitrary
> > proclamations of victory are the height of foolishness. As it is,
> > though, you've apparently tried very hard to "make sense" of
> > figurative questions and interpret them "literally", including a
> > "literal score". All of which makes you look foolish.

> Now that's just queer. My detractors, recently, on this group, have
> been Oberlander, McKelvy, and Morion. That might as well be the three
> stooges. If you are going to sit there and tell me there is a shred of
> credibility between the three of them I will then call you an idiot.

I don't have the faintest idea what you're babbling about. But I'll
respond on your wavelength: I agree that those three make posts that
are largely trash. (duh-Mikey's are 100% garbage.)

However, you've been equally obnoxious and idiotic with several people
who are much more lucid and incisive, including John Atkinson, dave
weil, and Bruce Richman. John and dave in particular have been dogged
and direct, to your great detriment. The exchanges you've had with
them, much like this one, have shown you coming unglued, swatting at
flying pink dragonflies, and arbitrarily claiming victory when your
guts are spilled all over the RAO battlefield. You've seldom been
dealt with as effectively as by those two. Also, occasionally I've
tuned in to your lunatic rants on other newsgroups, and various people
there have exposed your crapola for what it is.

[George M. Middius]

trotsky said:

> > I don't have "hyper fastidiousness", Mr. Language Abuse Person.

> I'm trying to be politically correct and not just say "gay".

I'm sure it's entirely healthy in your world to hate and fear gays. No
doubt you have other hangups about people who are in some way
different from you.

[George M. Middius]

trotsky said:

> > you could
> > suddenly realize, and admit to the rest of us, that your frequent
> > claims of victory are ludicrous, that you can barely follow any
> > discussions on Usenet without resorting to insults, and that most of
> > the time, you honestly don't know who's winning and who's losing.
> >
> > Failing that, appease this! ;-)

> Clearly I missed the point of this whole exercise. Obviously the peanut
> gallery that is responsible for keeping the score around these parts are
> those eight people sending you the conciliatory e-mails. I now claim
> that you are a hypocrite.

You mean for both spelling out what I think of you and continuing to
reply to your gibberish? Maybe you're right. I do think the world
should ignore you, and yet I can't help but make fun of your ceaseless
clatter of unlogic.

[Lionel]

George M. Middius a écrit :

> I will go further: I have never offered nor received any form of
> conciliation in my email exchanges with other RAO participants. In
> fact, sometimes I've been chided by others for not simply ignoring
> you. The people who have said that sort of thing view you as pathetic
> and underpowered for the exchanges you initiate.
>
> No conciliation. Got it? None.
>
Today George could **** elsewhere than in his trousers.
Since five minutes his nurse has helped him to return on his wheel
chair. He is again, and for few hours, the king of the world !

--
Lionel J. M. Chapuis
Unemployed Clown

(signed this way because of pending libel suit against Krueger scheduled
to begin on 9/20/03 per Mr. Wheeler - and the need to possibly provide
supportive documentary evidence that Mr. George M. Middius' daily
incitement to hatred, suicide, slandering, insults, murder is the real
guilty of Mr.Wheeler's grievances.)

[trotsky]

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> trotsky said:
>
>
> >>You skipped the "outlined" part. You may have outlined it to yourself,
> >>in confidence or in your imagination, but not to us real people in the
> >>real world.
> >
> >
> >No, that's a lie. I explained *clearly* that if I make a pointed
> >observation, and the observee is unable to acknowledge it, then I have
> >scored.
>
>
> Aha. So this is the mysterious scoring system.
>
> Let me ask you something about your system: When "the observee" does
> not answer your question, how do you know *why* he didn't do so? IOW,
> you claim you "have scored" when somebody "is unable to answer". How
> about when he chooses not to answer?



I've told you four times that you've had first hand experience with
this. I remember *specifically* asking you, for example, how your borg
campaign is coming along lo these many years, and got crickets chirping
as a reply. Moreover, I said that if you wanted to rid the group of
Krueger there was one way to do so, which I've already shown you:
criticize his complete and utter lack of Christian morals. You were
unable to comment on this either, other than perhaps saying there were
eight people that e-mailed you saying I was "insane". You have a very
poor showing here and I doubt you'll yet be able to comment cogently on
this.

[trotsky]

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> trotsky said:
>
>
> >>>Thus you're
>
>
> >>Got those world-class language skills working yet? ;-)
>
>
>
> >Actually, since I frequently interchange the same two words by mistake,
> >I don't think language skills are at issue.
>
>
> So you're saying you make the same mistake frequently, but that lack
> of knowledge doesn't reflect on your language skill.
>
> If that made any less sense, I'd keep worrying you about the point.



I've already explained this at length. I'm hardly readying my posts for
publication, but if I were to do so, they would be letter perfect. You
may say, in rebuttal, that my website has some errors which I have yet
to correct, but the copy that I turned in didn't have those errors, so
I'll get around to playing copy editor sometime soon.

[trotsky]

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> trotsky said:
>
>
> >>Why would you be "literally speaking" when my question was figurative?
> >>You're not insane, are you?
>
>
>
> >Please explain what you mean in detail by the concept of "figurative
> >people keeping score". I claim that this is a nonsense statement.
>
>
> I agree -- it's nonsense. Why did you say it? I certainly didn't.
>

Explain what you were trying to say to us laymen. The way I read your
comment it was nonsense, I suspect it still is by the way you're ducking
the issue.

[trotsky]

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> trotsky said:
>
>
> >>>In fact, despite your alleged conciliatory e-mails,
>
>
> >>You're the one who makes that allegation, pussy-boy.
>
>
>
> >I do like pussy, that's for sure. You're welcome to hold this against
> >me if need be.
>
>
> Is that a world-class bit of wordplay? To me, it reeks of cowardice
> and insecurity.


Hardly. You made an insidious comment, and I turned it back around on
you. I do find it curious that the euphemism "pussy" is okay, but the
euphemism "****** pile" is not, in your fragile little eggshell mind.

>
>
>
> >> Nobody else has
> >>ever characterized any emails as "conciliatory".
>
>
>
> >Agreed. I do have my own style, although others frequently copy it.
>
>
> That is a nonsequitur. Are you proud of your language skills, or would
> you prefer to gloat about scoring?


Both. Oh, and for your own edification, dictionary.com says you can
spell "non sequitur" as either two words or a hyphenated word, but what
the hell, it's all Greek to me, right?


>
>
>
>
> >> While we're on the
> >>subject, why would anybody offer, or desire to receive, conciliation?
> >>That part has always been Trotsky's Little Secret. Please explain now,
> >>unless, as usual, you're unable to answer the question.
>
>
>
> >I'm not sure. What description would you prefer: hand holding? Dick
> >sucking? "Conciliatory" was about the nicest way I could think of to
> >put it. Ain't that a bitch, I'm now frowned upon for being nice.
>
>
> And yet you have produced no evidence to support your claim of
> conciliation, either given or requested. It exists only in your mind.
>
> I will share something with you though. Emails that I have with other
> people, insofar as they touch directly on RAO stuff, take the form of
> laughing at you. (And others such as Krooger and Nousiane, of course.)
> Nobody offers conciliation; we usually marvel at how far gone you are,
> or make lighthearted bets about when you'll be confined in a loony
> bin, or share the wish that you would either absent yourself from RAO
> or drop dead. IOW, pretty much the same kind of stuff we say about
> Krooger.


That's weird, because all the players on the group have wished me well
either privately, or on the group, or both. Personally, you're either
lying, or you're talking to some very two-faced individuals, neither of
which bode well for you.

>
>
> I will go further: I have never offered nor received any form of
> conciliation in my email exchanges with other RAO participants. In
> fact, sometimes I've been chided by others for not simply ignoring
> you. The people who have said that sort of thing view you as pathetic
> and underpowered for the exchanges you initiate.
>
> No conciliation. Got it? None.


Again, that's weird, because dictionary.com says a synomnym of the
intransitive form of the word is "pacify", and that certainly seems to
be what's happening in your real or imagined e-mails. I'm starting to
get the vibe that similar to Krueger's making up the Bible's teachings
as he goes along, you do the same with dictionary definitions.

[trotsky]

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> trotsky said:
>
>
> >>The latter is much closer than the former. As to a "trap", not
> >>hardly(TM). Merely a bit of pointed sarcasm.
>
>
>
> >Maybe in your hyper fastidious mind.
>
>
> One day perhaps you'll be able to explain what that means.



As many on this group know, it's a little hard to describe exactly
what's wrong with you. Part of it is obsessive-compulsive neurosis in
the extreme, such that if even a single *word* is used in a manner that
doesn't suit you you start screaming. But there's something else, and
it's a little hard to figure. The bottom line is that nobody knows a
whole lot about your existence, so what your specific foibles are are a
little difficult to categorize.

>
>
>
> >Or did you get e-mails from "eight
> >people" telling you how nice and pointed your sarcasm was?
>
>
> No, stupid. I characterized my *intent* in writing those three
> sentences. If you are so intellectually stunted that you think you can
> be trapped by a challenge to your mental acuity, then you need some
> more quality time with Mama Singh. Or whatever you do when you feel
> like weeping.



You've lost me, George. I have no doubt in your mind a hair is out of
place somewhere, but it really isn't interesting enough to try and
figure out.

[trotsky]

Lionel wrote:

> George M. Middius a écrit :
>
> >
> > trotsky said:
> >
> >
> >>>> Thus you're
> >
> >
> >
> >>> Got those world-class language skills working yet? ;-)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> Actually, since I frequently interchange the same two words by
> >> mistake, I don't think language skills are at issue.
> >
> >
> >
> > So you're saying you make the same mistake frequently, but that lack
> > of knowledge doesn't reflect on your language skill.
> >
> > If that made any less sense, I'd keep worrying you about the point.
> >
> >
> George, frequently has "spatial" interchanges. He uses to take his anus
> for his mouth. Hopefully here on RAO we don't suffer of the
> consequences... :o)


I knew something about him reminded me of a dimensional wormhole, but I
wasn't sure what.

[trotsky]

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> trotsky said:
>
>
> >>If you were sane, you'd realize that your constant and arbitrary
> >>proclamations of victory are the height of foolishness. As it is,
> >>though, you've apparently tried very hard to "make sense" of
> >>figurative questions and interpret them "literally", including a
> >>"literal score". All of which makes you look foolish.
>
>
>
> >Now that's just queer. My detractors, recently, on this group, have
> >been Oberlander, McKelvy, and Morion. That might as well be the three
> >stooges. If you are going to sit there and tell me there is a shred of
> >credibility between the three of them I will then call you an idiot.
>
>
> I don't have the faintest idea what you're babbling about.


No, you wouldn't. You either don't reply, or you say something similar
to the above. That's when I know I've "scored".


> But I'll
> respond on your wavelength: I agree that those three make posts that
> are largely trash. (duh-Mikey's are 100% garbage.)
>
> However, you've been equally obnoxious and idiotic with several people
> who are much more lucid and incisive, including John Atkinson, dave
> weil, and Bruce Richman.


Those are all three completely different cases. In fact, I'm not sure
if you know this, but since the world is made up of individuals, normal
humans tend to respond to them in different ways.


> John and dave in particular have been dogged
> and direct, to your great detriment. The exchanges you've had with
> them, much like this one, have shown you coming unglued, swatting at
> flying pink dragonflies, and arbitrarily claiming victory when your
> guts are spilled all over the RAO battlefield. You've seldom been
> dealt with as effectively as by those two. Also, occasionally I've
> tuned in to your lunatic rants on other newsgroups, and various people
> there have exposed your crapola for what it is.


dave and I have largely had disagreements that are reminiscent of the
movie "Grumpy Old Men", but with Atkinson it's different. (There's that
word again!) The situation with him can largely be boiled down to the
Recommended Components List intro., and I have to say in a large part
the "sensible" guys on the group behaved abominably. I was right, they
were wrong, and instead of just admitted this and moving on, I instead
got treated to weeks and even months of wriggling. Atkinson, of course,
could've ended the wriggling with a single post, and of course did not.
In a way I don't blame him--nobody likes to have his livelihood put
under the microscope--but at some point the facts have to count for
something. Not in your Mad Hatter world, though.

[George M. Middius]

trotsky said:

> > Let me ask you something about your system: When "the observee" does
> > not answer your question, how do you know *why* he didn't do so? IOW,
> > you claim you "have scored" when somebody "is unable to answer". How
> > about when he chooses not to answer?

> I've told you four times that you've had first hand experience with
> this. I remember *specifically* asking you, for example, how your borg
> campaign is coming along lo these many years, and got crickets chirping
> as a reply.

Inability to answer the question noted.

> Moreover, I said that if you wanted to rid the group of
> Krueger there was one way to do so, which I've already shown you:
> criticize his complete and utter lack of Christian morals.

Inability to answer the question noted.
Fatuous blowhard BS noted.

> You were unable to comment on this

Prove it.

Let me ask you something about your system: When "the observee" does
not answer your question, how do you know *why* he didn't do so? IOW,
you claim you "have scored" when somebody "is unable to answer". How
about when he chooses not to answer?

[George M. Middius]

trotsky said:

> > >>>Thus you're

> > >>Got those world-class language skills working yet? ;-)

> > >Actually, since I frequently interchange the same two words by mistake,
> > >I don't think language skills are at issue.

> > So you're saying you make the same mistake frequently, but that lack
> > of knowledge doesn't reflect on your language skill.

> > If that made any less sense, I'd keep worrying you about the point.

> I've already explained this at length. I'm hardly readying my posts for
> publication, but if I were to do so, they would be letter perfect.

That's Krooger's excuse.

How's this for hypocrisy, hypocrite: You constantly bleat about
others' lack of proficiency with language, but when called on a
blatant, stupid error that your average 8-year-old doesn't make, you
whine and say you *could* do better, but you don't care. Who are you
to judge how much others care about their errors when you don't care
about your own? That is the point, hypocrite.

[George M. Middius]

trotsky said:

> > >> While we're on the
> > >>subject, why would anybody offer, or desire to receive, conciliation?
> > >>That part has always been Trotsky's Little Secret. Please explain now,
> > >>unless, as usual, you're unable to answer the question.

> > >I'm not sure. What description would you prefer: hand holding? Dick
> > >sucking? "Conciliatory" was about the nicest way I could think of to
> > >put it. Ain't that a bitch, I'm now frowned upon for being nice.
> >
> >
> > And yet you have produced no evidence to support your claim of
> > conciliation, either given or requested. It exists only in your mind.
> >
> > I will share something with you though. Emails that I have with other
> > people, insofar as they touch directly on RAO stuff, take the form of
> > laughing at you. (And others such as Krooger and Nousiane, of course.)
> > Nobody offers conciliation; we usually marvel at how far gone you are,
> > or make lighthearted bets about when you'll be confined in a loony
> > bin, or share the wish that you would either absent yourself from RAO
> > or drop dead. IOW, pretty much the same kind of stuff we say about
> > Krooger.
>
>
> That's weird, because all the players on the group have wished me well
> either privately, or on the group, or both. Personally, you're either
> lying, or you're talking to some very two-faced individuals, neither of
> which bode well for you.

Once again, you've missed the correct answer, which is that you are
mad as a hatter.

> > I will go further: I have never offered nor received any form of
> > conciliation in my email exchanges with other RAO participants. In
> > fact, sometimes I've been chided by others for not simply ignoring
> > you. The people who have said that sort of thing view you as pathetic
> > and underpowered for the exchanges you initiate.
> >
> > No conciliation. Got it? None.
>
>
> Again, that's weird, because dictionary.com says a synomnym of the
> intransitive form of the word is "pacify", and that certainly seems to
> be what's happening in your real or imagined e-mails.

Once again, you've missed the correct explanation, which is that your
"thought" processes resemble those of a Jovian slugworm.

It's hard to express how preposterous you are. And the sad thing is
you're so ****ed in the head, you'll never catch on.

[George M. Middius]

trotsky said:

> > I don't have the faintest idea what you're babbling about.

> No, you wouldn't. You either don't reply, or you say something similar
> to the above. That's when I know I've "scored".

Ah, a new wrinkle to the mysterious Trotsky Scoring System. You
babble something incomprehensible, and no matter what the reply,
you've "scored".

You probably have no idea how ridiculous you are.

[trotsky]

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> trotsky said:
>
>
> >>Let me ask you something about your system: When "the observee" does
> >>not answer your question, how do you know *why* he didn't do so? IOW,
> >>you claim you "have scored" when somebody "is unable to answer". How
> >>about when he chooses not to answer?
>
>
>
> >I've told you four times that you've had first hand experience with
> >this. I remember *specifically* asking you, for example, how your borg
> >campaign is coming along lo these many years, and got crickets chirping
> >as a reply.
>
>
> Inability to answer the question noted.



False. I gave *you* the chance to explain your own actions, and you can't.

> >Moreover, I said that if you wanted to rid the group of
> >Krueger there was one way to do so, which I've already shown you:
> >criticize his complete and utter lack of Christian morals.
>
>
> Inability to answer the question noted.
> Fatuous blowhard BS noted.


Zzzz. You don't want to admit the truth, that's fine with me.

>
>
>
> >You were unable to comment on this
>
>
> Prove it.
>
> Let me ask you something about your system: When "the observee" does
> not answer your question, how do you know *why* he didn't do so? IOW,
> you claim you "have scored" when somebody "is unable to answer". How
> about when he chooses not to answer?


As the Rush song goes, "When you choose not to decide, you still have
made a choice".

[trotsky]

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> trotsky said:
>
>
> >>>>Why would you be "literally speaking" when my question was figurative?
> >>>>You're not insane, are you?
>
>
> >>>Please explain what you mean in detail by the concept of "figurative
> >>>people keeping score". I claim that this is a nonsense statement.
>
>
> >>I agree -- it's nonsense. Why did you say it? I certainly didn't.
>
>
>
> >Explain what you were trying to say to us laymen. The way I read your
> >comment it was nonsense, I suspect it still is by the way you're ducking
> >the issue.
>
>
> Except you "quoted" a comment you made, not one that I made.



That's because you refuse to communicate in a language normal humans can
understand. I attempted to summarize what I believe it was you were
trying to say, but apparently the summary wasn't to your liking. That
was pretty predictable.

>
>
> Ask me about what *I* said, not what *you* said. Idiot.


That presupposes that somebody would give a goddamn what you were trying
to say, which is a false claim.

[George M. Middius]

trotsky said:

> > >>Let me ask you something about your system: When "the observee" does
> > >>not answer your question, how do you know *why* he didn't do so? IOW,
> > >>you claim you "have scored" when somebody "is unable to answer". How
> > >>about when he chooses not to answer?

> > >I've told you four times that you've had first hand experience with
> > >this. I remember *specifically* asking you, for example, how your borg
> > >campaign is coming along lo these many years, and got crickets chirping
> > >as a reply.

> > Inability to answer the question noted.

> False.

Then where is your answer to the question, Dr. Eggshells?


> > >You were unable to comment on this

> > Prove it.

Lack of response noted.

Do you have any idea how many times you've made the absurd
accusation that this or that poster was "unable" to answer one of
your asinine questions?


> > Let me ask you something about your system: When "the observee" does
> > not answer your question, how do you know *why* he didn't do so? IOW,
> > you claim you "have scored" when somebody "is unable to answer". How
> > about when he chooses not to answer?

> As the Rush song goes, "When you choose not to decide, you still have
> made a choice".

Pathetic -- quoting lyrics from a silly song. By your "logic",
there is no such thing as free will. Every question is some sort
of "command" to answer, and the lack of response can only stem
from an "inability" to answer. That's totally ****ed.

And you're still unable to answer the question.

[George M. Middius]

trotsky said:

> > How's this for hypocrisy, hypocrite: You constantly bleat about
> > others' lack of proficiency with language, but when called on a
> > blatant, stupid error that your average 8-year-old doesn't make, you
> > whine and say you *could* do better, but you don't care. Who are you
> > to judge how much others care about their errors when you don't care
> > about your own? That is the point, hypocrite.

> I'm writing in plain
> English; anybody can read and understand what I'm trying to say.

Geez, Greggy, you take my breath away. "Anybody" can understand your
insane blather? For the human race in the real world, "anybody"
means just that -- any person you might choose at random. It does
not mean "nobody", which is basically the opposite.

In the real world, nobody understands you. You are a hypocrite of
Kroogerian proportions, and everybody sees it (except you, I guess).

[trotsky]

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> trotsky said:
>
>
> >>>>While we're on the
> >>>>subject, why would anybody offer, or desire to receive, conciliation?
> >>>>That part has always been Trotsky's Little Secret. Please explain now,
> >>>>unless, as usual, you're unable to answer the question.
>
>
> >>>I'm not sure. What description would you prefer: hand holding? Dick
> >>>sucking? "Conciliatory" was about the nicest way I could think of to
> >>>put it. Ain't that a bitch, I'm now frowned upon for being nice.
> >>
> >>
> >>And yet you have produced no evidence to support your claim of
> >>conciliation, either given or requested. It exists only in your mind.
> >>
> >>I will share something with you though. Emails that I have with other
> >>people, insofar as they touch directly on RAO stuff, take the form of
> >>laughing at you. (And others such as Krooger and Nousiane, of course.)
> >>Nobody offers conciliation; we usually marvel at how far gone you are,
> >>or make lighthearted bets about when you'll be confined in a loony
> >>bin, or share the wish that you would either absent yourself from RAO
> >>or drop dead. IOW, pretty much the same kind of stuff we say about
> >>Krooger.
> >
> >
> >That's weird, because all the players on the group have wished me well
> >either privately, or on the group, or both. Personally, you're either
> >lying, or you're talking to some very two-faced individuals, neither of
> >which bode well for you.
>
>
> Once again, you've missed the correct answer, which is that you are
> mad as a hatter.



Yes, no doubt. I'm sure you have all the answers worked out on a
bulletin board or chalkboard or something, with flow charts and suitable
footnotes and everything. I'm sure you feel it is very interesting.


>
>
>
> >>I will go further: I have never offered nor received any form of
> >>conciliation in my email exchanges with other RAO participants. In
> >>fact, sometimes I've been chided by others for not simply ignoring
> >>you. The people who have said that sort of thing view you as pathetic
> >>and underpowered for the exchanges you initiate.
> >>
> >>No conciliation. Got it? None.
> >
> >
> >Again, that's weird, because dictionary.com says a synomnym of the
> >intransitive form of the word is "pacify", and that certainly seems to
> >be what's happening in your real or imagined e-mails.
>
>
> Once again, you've missed the correct explanation, which is that your
> "thought" processes resemble those of a Jovian slugworm.


Yeah, that's just terrible. George has given me a failing grade. I'm
nonplussed.


> It's hard to express how preposterous you are. And the sad thing is
> you're so ****ed in the head, you'll never catch on.


Right back at ya, Georgie-porgie. Preposterousness is in the eye of the
beholder, and all that.

[trotsky]

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> trotsky said:
>
>
> >>>Maybe in your hyper fastidious mind.
>
>
> >>One day perhaps you'll be able to explain what that means.
>
>
>
> >As many on this group know, it's a little hard to describe exactly
> >what's wrong with you. Part of it is obsessive-compulsive neurosis in
> >the extreme, such that if even a single *word* is used in a manner that
> >doesn't suit you you start screaming. But there's something else, and
> >it's a little hard to figure. The bottom line is that nobody knows a
> >whole lot about your existence, so what your specific foibles are are a
> >little difficult to categorize.
>
>
> I'll stipulate that you hold me in low esteem and even lower amity.



I really don't give it that much thought. You're a little too strange
to try and contemplate. You feel that you're totally normal though, right?

>
>
> Nonetheless, you are clearly unable to answer the question (again).
>
> Oops -- before your punctilious neuroses kick in, I have to amend
> that: You are unable to answer the implied question.
>
> Why are you so helpless in the face of direct questions, mother****er?


There's no question posed in this post, George, other than my rhetorical
one.

[trotsky]

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> trotsky said:
>
>
> >>I don't have the faintest idea what you're babbling about.
>
>
>
> >No, you wouldn't. You either don't reply, or you say something similar
> >to the above. That's when I know I've "scored".
>
>
> Ah, a new wrinkle to the mysterious Trotsky Scoring System. You
> babble something incomprehensible, and no matter what the reply,
> you've "scored".
>
> You probably have no idea how ridiculous you are.



That's pretty ironic.

[George M. Middius]

trotsky said:

> > Why are you so helpless in the face of direct questions, mother****er?

> There's no question posed in this post, George, other than my rhetorical
> one.

Again I have no comment to add.

[trotsky]

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> trotsky said:
>
>
> >>>>Let me ask you something about your system: When "the observee" does
> >>>>not answer your question, how do you know *why* he didn't do so? IOW,
> >>>>you claim you "have scored" when somebody "is unable to answer". How
> >>>>about when he chooses not to answer?
>
>
> >>>I've told you four times that you've had first hand experience with
> >>>this. I remember *specifically* asking you, for example, how your borg
> >>>campaign is coming along lo these many years, and got crickets chirping
> >>>as a reply.
>
>
> >>Inability to answer the question noted.
>
>
>
> >False.
>
>
> Then where is your answer to the question, Dr. Eggshells?



I see two questions in the quoted text above. Which did you want answered?

>
>
>
>
> >>>You were unable to comment on this
>
>
> >>Prove it.
>
>
> Lack of response noted.


You're not making sense again, George: why would you note a lack of
response if nothing can be derived from it? Takes as much time as you need.

>
>
> Do you have any idea how many times you've made the absurd
> accusation that this or that poster was "unable" to answer one of
> your asinine questions?


No, but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if you had the definitive
figure on this.


> >>Let me ask you something about your system: When "the observee" does
> >>not answer your question, how do you know *why* he didn't do so? IOW,
> >>you claim you "have scored" when somebody "is unable to answer". How
> >>about when he chooses not to answer?
>
>
>
> >As the Rush song goes, "When you choose not to decide, you still have
> >made a choice".
>
>
> Pathetic -- quoting lyrics from a silly song. By your "logic",
> there is no such thing as free will. Every question is some sort
> of "command" to answer, and the lack of response can only stem
> from an "inability" to answer. That's totally ****ed.
>
> And you're still unable to answer the question.



As soon as you can tell me what the question is I'll be happy to answer.

[trotsky]

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> trotsky said:
>
>
> >>How's this for hypocrisy, hypocrite: You constantly bleat about
> >>others' lack of proficiency with language, but when called on a
> >>blatant, stupid error that your average 8-year-old doesn't make, you
> >>whine and say you *could* do better, but you don't care. Who are you
> >>to judge how much others care about their errors when you don't care
> >>about your own? That is the point, hypocrite.
>
>
>
> >I'm writing in plain
> >English; anybody can read and understand what I'm trying to say.
>
>
> Geez, Greggy, you take my breath away. "Anybody" can understand your
> insane blather? For the human race in the real world, "anybody"
> means just that -- any person you might choose at random. It does
> not mean "nobody", which is basically the opposite.
>
> In the real world, nobody understands you. You are a hypocrite of
> Kroogerian proportions, and everybody sees it (except you, I guess).



Show me one person that backs you on this. Good luck!

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message


> However, you've been equally obnoxious and idiotic with several people
> who are much more lucid and incisive, including John Atkinson, dave
> weil, and Bruce Richman. John and dave in particular have been dogged
> and direct, to your great detriment.

Neo-cryptic delusional birds of a feather who flock together.

>The exchanges you've had with
> them, much like this one, have shown you coming unglued, swatting at
> flying pink dragonflies, and arbitrarily claiming victory when your
> guts are spilled all over the RAO battlefield.

Speaking as an uninvolved observer, it must be what watching a dog fight is
like.

> You've seldom been
> dealt with as effectively as by those two.

Singh was eviscerated by the Borg Empire long before the Masters of Delusion
even saw him as a problem to be dealt with.

>Also, occasionally I've
> tuned in to your lunatic rants on other newsgroups, and various people
> there have exposed your crapola for what it is.

One reason why Middius rarely strays from RAO. He'd get the same treatment,
only with more feeling. When he tried to stray from RAO in the past, that's
what happened.

[Arny Krueger]

"Bob Morein" > wrote in message


> Donations are now being accepted for the Trotsky Victims Fund. We are
> currently accepting financial instruments, as well as hifi equipment
> that would be euphonious compared to Trotsky's "Jupiter" creations.
> Radio Shack, JBL ghetto blasters, and anything else that can play a
> tune without throwing a voicecoil will be accepted with gratitude.
> Please send all obsolete equipment freight express to the following
> address: Jupiter Audio
> P.O. Box 5441
> Glendale Hts., IL 60139
>
> where they will be held for distribution upon the bankruptcy of the
> infamous Trotsky Speaker Scam.
> Donations of money should be sent C/O of George M. Middius, who will
> administer the claims procedure.

LOL!