sorting out Andre Jute

[Robert Morein]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Nonetheless they are correct regarding the fraud, mountebank, loser
> and general bum Andre(w) "Jute" McCoy. About all he hasn't claimed so
> far to be is a porn star, because the evidence clearly would never
> stand up.
>
Bret, I have to say, I haven't dissected this Andre Jute, because, with the
exception of you, he argues with the same people I argue with, and he hasn't
argued with me. I don't go over to rec.audio.tubes either.

Nevertheless, it is a bad personal philosophy to behave according to "the
enemy of my enemy is my friend."

I would appreciate if some of the more even handed indivduals on this group
would give me the low-down on the following:
1. Is "Andre Jute" the poster's actual name, or is it a sockpuppet?
2. Do people who are not terribly angry with him believe that he is using
sockpuppets? The strongest evidence for this is when new "persons" appear
who have no prior record of posting to usenet.
3. I gather that he is a subjectivist, but what is his primary rant? Is it
about feedback? or "SETs are superior...."

I see that he is mad at you, Bret, but I don't understand why. Is it an
audio issue, or is it about your reposting something from r.a.t? All usenet
posts are in the public domain.

[George M. Middius]

Robert Morein said:

> Bret, I have to say, I haven't dissected this Andre Jute, because, with the
> exception of you, he argues with the same people I argue with, and he hasn't
> argued with me. I don't go over to rec.audio.tubes either.

Yeah, that's true for most of us. In fact, the only RAO poster who we've
seen give Jute cause for his scathing attacks has been Arnii Krooborg.
Nobody embarrasses himself like Arnii "Big ****" Krooger does. ;-)

[Bret Ludwig]

I generally don't consider the people I debate with "enemies". But
Jute would be an enemy if he were not so beneath my contempt. Arny is
just a sad old guy prematurely into his dotage.

[Lionel]

Robert Morein a écrit :

> 1. Is "Andre Jute" the poster's actual name, or is it a sockpuppet?

Bad question Bob.

Dédé is a crybaby desperately looking for acknowledgment.

Nothing else than the question that usually normals people keep for
their own private meditation :
"What did I do of my life ?"

Now if you have a charitable and patient soul you can try to give him a
little help. ;-)


--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[George M. Middius]

Bret Ludwig said:

> I generally don't consider the people I debate with "enemies". But
> Jute would be an enemy if he were not so beneath my contempt. Arny is
> just a sad old guy prematurely into his dotage.

Out of curiosity, when will you be prosperous enough to buy new underwear in
a clothing store?

[Robert Morein]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Robert Morein a écrit :
>
>> 1. Is "Andre Jute" the poster's actual name, or is it a sockpuppet?
>
> Bad question Bob.
>
> Dédé is a crybaby desperately looking for acknowledgment.
>
> Nothing else than the question that usually normals people keep for their
> own private meditation :
> "What did I do of my life ?"
>
> Now if you have a charitable and patient soul you can try to give him a
> little help. ;-)
>
Lionel,
There is one thing which is quite striking. "Jute" is an exceptional
writer. I take pride in the quality of my usenet writing, but Jute's efforts
dwarf mine. Please take my word that whoever this guy is, and regardless of
his ethics, etc., this is a person who is accustomed to churning out
proposals, articles, etc., at high speed. The fact that he has the mental
energy to write stuff like this for pure amusement is quite telling. Such
abilities do not arise without practice. It indicates that in "real life",
"Jute" is an extremely active writer, probably for publication, proposals,
or both.

Now mind, I'm not saying he is a good person. I don't pay much attention
to the argument, but I am interested in the personality. It adds to my
curiosity. Whatever Jute does in the "real world" -- and it might have
nothing to do with audio -- the quality of his writing, and organizational
skills, suggest that his level of achievement may rise above the trivial.

With most of the other people around here, and I mean native English
speakers, not adventurers from another tongue like yourself, the level of
writing either indicates casual effort, or certain intellectual limitations.
Most of the guys write like typical engineers, which is to say, not very
well. Others write casually, mere jots for amusement. Some have the ability
to write formally if pushed to the wall, but with painful slowness. And then
we have a guy like "Jute", who churns this out for fun.

If "Jute" is a bad guy, it indicates that any level of ability can be
used for amoral or immoral purposes.

[Bret Ludwig]

> There is one thing which is quite striking. "Jute" is an exceptional
> writer. I take pride in the quality of my usenet writing, but Jute's efforts
> dwarf mine. Please take my word that whoever this guy is, and regardless of
> his ethics, etc., this is a person who is accustomed to churning out
> proposals, articles, etc., at high speed. The fact that he has the mental
> energy to write stuff like this for pure amusement is quite telling. Such
> abilities do not arise without practice. It indicates that in "real life",
> "Jute" is an extremely active writer, probably for publication, proposals,
> or both.
>
> Now mind, I'm not saying he is a good person. I don't pay much attention
> to the argument, but I am interested in the personality. It adds to my
> curiosity. Whatever Jute does in the "real world" -- and it might have
> nothing to do with audio -- the quality of his writing, and organizational
> skills, suggest that his level of achievement may rise above the trivial.
>
> With most of the other people around here, and I mean native English
> speakers, not adventurers from another tongue like yourself, the level of
> writing either indicates casual effort, or certain intellectual limitations.
> Most of the guys write like typical engineers, which is to say, not very
> well. Others write casually, mere jots for amusement. Some have the ability
> to write formally if pushed to the wall, but with painful slowness. And then
> we have a guy like "Jute", who churns this out for fun.
>
> If "Jute" is a bad guy, it indicates that any level of ability can be
> used for amoral or immoral purposes.

The extreme of this phenomenon is the very well-known "idiot savant".
Less egregious examples are often reffered to as "mattoids" (cf.
Oliver,R.)

L.Ron Hubbard was one of the best examples of an individual who could
produce colossal quantities of written text, on most any subject, that
to the layman would appear cogent and sensible. Indeed some of it
actually was. Hubbard had read widely and absorbed a large quantity of
material which he could synthesize from. He was able to earn a
middle-class living before World War II as a science fiction writer,
mainly on the strength of sheer volume of work output. In terms of
quantity, only Isaac Asimov could challenge him.

The quality was another matter: much of it was pure drivel, and the
best examples of his writing are mediocre at best. But it is not
primarily as a science fiction writer hubbard is remembered: it is as
the founder of an organization that has been a thorn in the ass of
society for over five decades, namely the Church of Scientology.
Despite haviing been the target of well-organized and entirely
justifiable opprobrium, this organization continues to bilk the
gullible, attention-starved scions of upper-middle-class America of
hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
Hubbard is regarded by all sensible students of his life and work
product as a vicious fraud, a mountebank of the very first order, and a
marginally sane manipulator of people who in different circumstances
could have easily been a Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot or Mao.

But he could write.

Jute, on the other hand, is obviously nowhere in the same galaxy,
figuratively speaking, as Hubbard. But that hardly absolves him.

[Bret Ludwig]

Bret Ludwig wrote:
<<snip>>
> The extreme of this phenomenon is the very well-known "idiot savant".
> Less egregious examples are often reffered to as "mattoids" (cf.
> Oliver,R.)
>
> L.Ron Hubbard was one of the best examples of an individual who could
> produce colossal quantities of written text, on most any subject, that
> to the layman would appear cogent and sensible. Indeed some of it
> actually was. Hubbard had read widely and absorbed a large quantity of
> material which he could synthesize from. He was able to earn a
> middle-class living before World War II as a science fiction writer,
> mainly on the strength of sheer volume of work output. In terms of
> quantity, only Isaac Asimov could challenge him.
>
> The quality was another matter: much of it was pure drivel, and the
> best examples of his writing are mediocre at best. But it is not
> primarily as a science fiction writer hubbard is remembered: it is as
> the founder of an organization that has been a thorn in the ass of
> society for over five decades, namely the Church of Scientology.
> Despite haviing been the target of well-organized and entirely
> justifiable opprobrium, this organization continues to bilk the
> gullible, attention-starved scions of upper-middle-class America of
> hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

http://www.revilo-oliver.com/rpo/History_and_Biology.html

It is always helpful to reduce generalizations to specific examples.
Percy Bysshe Shelley was one of the great English poets; Albert
Einstein, although fantastically over-advertised by yellow journalism,
was a great mathematician. Both were brilliant men in more than one
field of intellectual activity (Shelley is said to have exhibited a
considerable talent for chemistry, among other things, and Einstein is
said to have done well in courses on the Classics). Both, I am sure,
would have placed themselves in the very highest bracket of any
intelligence test, and (if so minded) could have been graduated summa
cum laude from any college curriculum that you may advise. Both were,
in their judgement of social and political problems, virtually morons.
Merely a deficiency of practical common sense, you say? Yes, no doubt,
but both acted on the basis of that deficiency and used their
intellectual powers to exert a highly pernicious influence. One need
not underestimate either the beauty of Shelley's poems or the
importance of the two theories of relativity to conclude that the world
would be better off, had neither man existed.

But we must go farther than that. It is odd that most of the persons
who urge us to foster "superior intellect" and "genius," whether they
recommend eugenics or educational subsidies or other means, simply
ignore the phenomenon of the mattoid (see Lothrop Stoddard, op. cit.,
pp. 102-106, and the article by Max Nordau there cited).

A mattoid is a person possessed of a mentality that is, in the strict
sense of the word, unbalanced. He is a Shelley or Einstein tilted just
a few more degrees. He exhibits an extremely high talent, often
amounting to genius, in one kind of mental activity, such as poetry or
mathematics, while the other parts of his mind are depressed to the
level of imbecility or insanity. Nordau, who was an acutely observant
physician, noted that such unbalanced beings are usually, if not
invariably, "full of organic feelings of dislike" and tend to
generalize their subjective state of resentment against the civilized
world into some cleverly devised pseudo-philosophic or pseudo-aesthetic
system that will erode the very foundations of civilized society. Since
civilized people necessarily set a high value on intellect, but are apt
to venerate "genius" uncritically and without discrimination, the
mattoid's influence can be simply deadly. Nordau, indeed, saw in the
activity of mattoids the principal reason why "people [as a whole] lose
the power of moral indignation, and accustom themselves to despise it
as something banal, unadvanced, and unintelligent."

[Robert Morein]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Bret Ludwig wrote:
> <<snip>>
>> The extreme of this phenomenon is the very well-known "idiot savant".
>> Less egregious examples are often reffered to as "mattoids" (cf.
>> Oliver,R.)
>>
I found your reference online:
http://www.revilo-oliver.com/rpo/History_and_Biology.html
It is a very interesting article, but Oliver undermines his influence with
me, at least, with the following statement:

"Both were, in their judgement of social and political problems, virtually
morons. Merely a deficiency of practical common sense, you say? Yes, no
doubt, but both acted on the basis of that deficiency and used their
intellectual powers to exert a highly pernicious influence. One need not
underestimate either the beauty of Shelley's poems or the importance of the
two theories of relativity to conclude that the world would be better off,
had neither man existed."

I am not familiar with the politics of Shelly, but as far as Einstein is
concerned, I fail to see what he did in the social sphere that deserves
condemnation. He was a womanizer, and hardly a faultless person, but I am
unaware of a "pernicious influence" such as he mentions. He also downplays
Einstein's place in modern physics. As someone familiar with Einstein's
work, I take issue with this. Einstein saw what Lorentz did not; he saw what
nobody before him could see, and began the Thirty Golden Years of physics.

Why did Oliver omit the obvious example of Ezra Pound, a great poet and
writer, antisemite, nazi, and hater, who ended his life in a cage in a
mental institution?

Although I conclude nothing with respect to "Andre Jute", I accept the
relevance of the reference with respect to the question.

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I generally don't consider the people I debate with "enemies". But
> Jute would be an enemy if he were not so beneath my contempt. Arny is
> just a sad old guy prematurely into his dotage.
>
There very likely are 2 Andre Jute's. The one who has a verifiable
bibliography and the one who posts here and on rat.

The one who posts here has some obvious gifts at turning a phrase, but very
often chooses to wite as if he were a 14 year old who has just learned to
swear.

He obviously thinks highly of himself but so far as can be verified has no
real gifts at electronics or doesn't possess any real skill.

He is enamoured of tube amps and SET's in particular.

He has stated that he is a political conservative, who has praised Maragret
Thatcher, possibly his only redeeming quality. :-)

He frequently uses sock puppets to pat himself on the back.

He lies a lot.

He whines a lot.

[Lionel]

Robert Morein a écrit :
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Robert Morein a écrit :
>>
>>
>>>1. Is "Andre Jute" the poster's actual name, or is it a sockpuppet?
>>
>>Bad question Bob.
>>
>>Dédé is a crybaby desperately looking for acknowledgment.
>>
>>Nothing else than the question that usually normals people keep for their
>>own private meditation :
>>"What did I do of my life ?"
>>
>>Now if you have a charitable and patient soul you can try to give him a
>>little help. ;-)
>>
>
> Lionel,
> There is one thing which is quite striking. "Jute" is an exceptional
> writer. I take pride in the quality of my usenet writing, but Jute's efforts
> dwarf mine. Please take my word that whoever this guy is, and regardless of
> his ethics, etc., this is a person who is accustomed to churning out
> proposals, articles, etc., at high speed. The fact that he has the mental
> energy to write stuff like this for pure amusement is quite telling. Such
> abilities do not arise without practice. It indicates that in "real life",
> "Jute" is an extremely active writer,

I would say "compulsive".


> probably for publication, proposals,
> or both.
>
> Now mind, I'm not saying he is a good person. I don't pay much attention
> to the argument, but I am interested in the personality. It adds to my
> curiosity. Whatever Jute does in the "real world" -- and it might have
> nothing to do with audio -- the quality of his writing, and organizational
> skills, suggest that his level of achievement may rise above the trivial.
>
> With most of the other people around here, and I mean native English
> speakers, not adventurers from another tongue like yourself, the level of
> writing either indicates casual effort, or certain intellectual limitations.
> Most of the guys write like typical engineers, which is to say, not very
> well. Others write casually, mere jots for amusement. Some have the ability
> to write formally if pushed to the wall, but with painful slowness. And then
> we have a guy like "Jute", who churns this out for fun.

If you prefer the bottle to its content you would have done a bad
oenologist.

IMHO the Middius' OK, time for some 'borg "siccncciece"
perfectly fits Dédé behaviour on Usenet.



> If "Jute" is a bad guy, it indicates that any level of ability can be
> used for amoral or immoral purposes.



Jute isn't a "bad" guy. He is just requesting acknowledgment a little
bit too louder for my taste.

OTOH seems that some guys uses to read what he writes so he isn't the
most pitiful loser around here... :-D




--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Ruud Broens]

> wrote in message
nk.net...
:
: "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
: oups.com...
: > I generally don't consider the people I debate with "enemies". But
: > Jute would be an enemy if he were not so beneath my contempt. Arny is
: > just a sad old guy prematurely into his dotage.
: >
:* There very likely are 2 Andre Jute's. The one who has a verifiable
: bibliography and the one who posts here and on rat.
:
: The one who posts here has some obvious gifts at turning a phrase, but very
: often chooses to wite as if he were a 14 year old who has just learned to
: swear.

*Mickey, haven't we been through all that with Bruce ? I hope you're not
thinking of starting endless threads along those lines,
again !

R.
noise reduction expert

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> :
> : "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
> : oups.com...
> : > I generally don't consider the people I debate with "enemies". But
> : > Jute would be an enemy if he were not so beneath my contempt. Arny is
> : > just a sad old guy prematurely into his dotage.
> : >
> :* There very likely are 2 Andre Jute's. The one who has a verifiable
> : bibliography and the one who posts here and on rat.
> :
> : The one who posts here has some obvious gifts at turning a phrase, but
> very
> : often chooses to wite as if he were a 14 year old who has just learned
> to
> : swear.
>
> *Mickey, haven't we been through all that with Bruce ? I hope you're not
> thinking of starting endless threads along those lines,
> again !
>
Did Bruce go away?

Are you seriously thinking that Andre Jute is not using sockpuppets, even if
he is who he say he is?

Even if he is the real Andre Jute, how ****ed up must he be to use fake
people to try and make it sound like more people agree with him?

IMO a person with the accomplishments that are listed for the real Andre
Jute, would not need to behave the one posting here does.

Note also that I did not start this thread, and I did not track down the
posts by the sockpuppets.
I simply responded with my opinions and what I think are relevant points
about the person posting as Andre Jute. I have no idea if he is or is not
the real one, but I see no reason why a rational person would go to the
extreme lengths he has done.

What does he gain by lying about Arny.
What does he gain by using sockpuppets?
What possible benefit is there in his many pretenses?

[Bret Ludwig]

Robert Morein wrote:
> I found your reference online:
> http://www.revilo-oliver.com/rpo/History_and_Biology.html
> It is a very interesting article, but Oliver undermines his influence with
> me, at least, with the following statement:
>
> "Both were, in their judgement of social and political problems, virtually
> morons. Merely a deficiency of practical common sense, you say? Yes, no
> doubt, but both acted on the basis of that deficiency and used their
> intellectual powers to exert a highly pernicious influence. One need not
> underestimate either the beauty of Shelley's poems or the importance of the
> two theories of relativity to conclude that the world would be better off,
> had neither man existed."
>
> I am not familiar with the politics of Shelly, but as far as Einstein is
> concerned, I fail to see what he did in the social sphere that deserves
> condemnation. He was a womanizer, and hardly a faultless person, but I am
> unaware of a "pernicious influence" such as he mentions. He also downplays
> Einstein's place in modern physics. As someone familiar with Einstein's
> work, I take issue with this. Einstein saw what Lorentz did not; he saw what
> nobody before him could see, and began the Thirty Golden Years of physics.
>
> Why did Oliver omit the obvious example of Ezra Pound, a great poet and
> writer, antisemite, nazi, and hater, who ended his life in a cage in a
> mental institution?

Oliver was himself something of a nutter over "the chosen people",
even-especially-by his own definitions and standards. Indeed, I hardly
promote Oliver as an all-around Good Guy.

LaVey and others have pointed out-correctly- that names have
significance, those with specific meanings often become synonyms or
antonyms of their bearer. "Revilo" is a made-up name, "Oliver"
backwards. Nothing unheard-of there: consider Serutan, Citabria, etc.
But it is a palindrome and obviously designed as such. It is no
coincidence Oliver was indeed "reviled"-he adopted a position on a
significant issue which was obviously destined to make him an outcast.
Indeed, if not for tenure, he would have probably starved or worked at
menial labor or some such.

The point is that Jute would like to be both loved and reviled, on his
own terms: unfortunately he isn't competent at his "profession",
something Hubbard and Oliver completely were. Oliver is widely
considered a classical scholar of the very first rank in universities
as far away as (in every sense) Israel! And Hubbard's demented cult has
amassed more money than just about any "religious" organization in
America excepting only the Catholics, Mormons and Southern Baptists,
despite there being less than fifteen thousand practicing
Scientologists at any one given time, and three-fifths of those being
impoverished org workers. Jute is too much the low grade charlatan to
work the really long con very successfully.

[GeoSynch]

Robert Morein wrote:

> I would appreciate if some of the more even handed indivduals on this group
> would give me the low-down on the following:
> 1. Is "Andre Jute" the poster's actual name, or is it a sockpuppet?
> 2. Do people who are not terribly angry with him believe that he is using
> sockpuppets? The strongest evidence for this is when new "persons" appear who
> have no prior record of posting to usenet.
> 3. I gather that he is a subjectivist, but what is his primary rant? Is it
> about feedback? or "SETs are superior...."

> I see that he is mad at you, Bret, but I don't understand why. Is it an audio
> issue, or is it about your reposting something from r.a.t? All usenet posts
> are in the public domain.

He is an author http://www.writersbookcase.com.au/product.asp?PID=443
which would explain the vast stream of prose in his posts, and his ultra-
sensitivity to having his writings plagiarized by others ... well, "at least" it
wasn't Ferstler this time 'round.


GeoSynch

[Lionel]

GeoStink a écrit :

> Robert Morein wrote:
>
>
>>I would appreciate if some of the more even handed indivduals on this group
>>would give me the low-down on the following:
>>1. Is "Andre Jute" the poster's actual name, or is it a sockpuppet?
>>2. Do people who are not terribly angry with him believe that he is using
>>sockpuppets? The strongest evidence for this is when new "persons" appear who
>>have no prior record of posting to usenet.
>>3. I gather that he is a subjectivist, but what is his primary rant? Is it
>>about feedback? or "SETs are superior...."
>
>
>>I see that he is mad at you, Bret, but I don't understand why. Is it an audio
>>issue, or is it about your reposting something from r.a.t? All usenet posts
>>are in the public domain.
>
>
> He is an author http://www.writersbookcase.com.au/product.asp?PID=443


Easier than to trace correctly a simple IP address but considering your
intellectual potential it's a good job anyway.
Thank you GeoGoogle.


--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...

> I would appreciate if some of the more even handed indivduals on this
> group would give me the low-down on the following:

> 1. Is "Andre Jute" the poster's actual name, or is it a sockpuppet?

Asked and answered.

> 2. Do people who are not terribly angry with him believe that he is using
> sockpuppets? The strongest evidence for this is when new "persons" appear
> who have no prior record of posting to usenet.

The strongest evidence for a sockpuppet is when the posting style is very
much like some other poster.

> 3. I gather that he is a subjectivist, but what is his primary rant? Is it
> about feedback? or "SETs are superior...."

The Jute sockpuppet is obviously a troll. Therefore, its primary rant
relates to gathering attention from one and all.

[dave weil]

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 13:06:40 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:

>GeoStink a écrit :

Steals from Sander, steals from George.

I guess it's because his wife steals from him...

[Lionel]

dave "deaf" weil wrote :

> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 13:06:40 +0100, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>>GeoStink a écrit :
>
> Steals from Sander, steals from George.

We need to know Dave, Sander or George ?
What did I "steal" Dave ?
The "geostink" nickname for your fascist friend ?

I have done a quick google search and a lot of people seems to have stole it
before me : Middius, Sackman, Richman, Pinkerton, Sandman...


> I guess it's because his wife steals from him...

Says the poor lonesome cowboy.
BTW thank you for them.

--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[Sander deWaal]

Lionel > said:

>>>GeoStink a écrit :

>> Steals from Sander, steals from George.

>We need to know Dave, Sander or George ?
>What did I "steal" Dave ?
>The "geostink" nickname for your fascist friend ?

>I have done a quick google search and a lot of people seems to have stole it
>before me : Middius, Sackman, Richman, Pinkerton, Sandman...


But not Sander.
Apart from Arny and Howard, I don't think I called anyone names.

Phil Allison doesn't count :-)

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

[Lionel]

In >, Sander deWaal wrote :

> Lionel > said:
>
>>>>GeoStink a écrit :
>
>>> Steals from Sander, steals from George.
>
>>We need to know Dave, Sander or George ?
>>What did I "steal" Dave ?
>>The "geostink" nickname for your fascist friend ?
>
>>I have done a quick google search and a lot of people seems to have stole
>>it before me : Middius, Sackman, Richman, Pinkerton, Sandman...
>
>
> But not Sander.
> Apart from Arny and Howard, I don't think I called anyone names.


Not really a surprise, Dave Weil is a proven liar.


> Phil Allison doesn't count :-)

--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[George M. Middius]

dave weil said:

> >GeoStink

> Steals from Sander, steals from George.

I call Stynchie "Stynchblob". Slight difference.

> I guess it's because his wife steals from him...

Yes, but she gave him a nice gift of crabs.

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> dave "deaf" weil wrote :
>
>> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 13:06:40 +0100, Lionel >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>GeoStink a écrit :
>>
>> Steals from Sander, steals from George.
>
> We need to know Dave, Sander or George ?
> What did I "steal" Dave ?
> The "geostink" nickname for your fascist friend ?
>
> I have done a quick google search and a lot of people seems to have stole
> it
> before me : Middius, Sackman, Richman, Pinkerton, Sandman...
>

what did I steal before you got a chance to steal it?
Whatever it is, if I'm finished with it, I can mail it to you.
that way, you don't have to steal another one; we don't
want to see you in jail.

[dave weil]

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 23:03:02 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:

>dave "deaf" weil wrote :
>
>> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 13:06:40 +0100, Lionel >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>GeoStink a écrit :
>>
>> Steals from Sander, steals from George.
>
>We need to know Dave, Sander or George ?

Hmmmm, I'll steal from you now. "We"? Are you now stealing from the
people that you accuse of meglomania?

>What did I "steal" Dave ?

Sorry you are too much of a pinhead to figure it out.

>The "geostink" nickname for your fascist friend ?

Ahhh, such a literal "thinker". What a bore...

>I have done a quick google search and a lot of people seems to have stole it
>before me : Middius, Sackman, Richman, Pinkerton, Sandman...

Nope, doesn't get it...

>> I guess it's because his wife steals from him...
>
>Says the poor lonesome cowboy.

To the cuckold.

Glad to allow you vent for your frustrations...

[dave weil]

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 23:12:49 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:

>In >, Sander deWaal wrote :
>
>> Lionel > said:
>>
>>>>>GeoStink a écrit :
>>
>>>> Steals from Sander, steals from George.
>>
>>>We need to know Dave, Sander or George ?
>>>What did I "steal" Dave ?
>>>The "geostink" nickname for your fascist friend ?
>>
>>>I have done a quick google search and a lot of people seems to have stole
>>>it before me : Middius, Sackman, Richman, Pinkerton, Sandman...
>>
>>
>> But not Sander.
>> Apart from Arny and Howard, I don't think I called anyone names.

Look at the bottom of Lionel's posts to see what he's stolen from you.
He's not very original...

>Not really a surprise, Dave Weil is a proven liar.

What a moron.

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> I would appreciate if some of the more even handed indivduals on this
>> group would give me the low-down on the following:
>
>> 1. Is "Andre Jute" the poster's actual name, or is it a sockpuppet?
>
> Asked and answered.
>
>> 2. Do people who are not terribly angry with him believe that he is using
>> sockpuppets? The strongest evidence for this is when new "persons" appear
>> who have no prior record of posting to usenet.
>
> The strongest evidence for a sockpuppet is when the posting style is very
> much like some other poster.
>
>> 3. I gather that he is a subjectivist, but what is his primary rant? Is
>> it about feedback? or "SETs are superior...."
>
> The Jute sockpuppet is obviously a troll. Therefore, its primary rant
> relates to gathering attention from one and all.
>
Said by a true mattoid.

[Lionel]

Clyde Slick a écrit :
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>dave "deaf" weil wrote :
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 13:06:40 +0100, Lionel >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>GeoStink a écrit :
>>>
>>>Steals from Sander, steals from George.
>>
>>We need to know Dave, Sander or George ?
>>What did I "steal" Dave ?
>>The "geostink" nickname for your fascist friend ?
>>
>>I have done a quick google search and a lot of people seems to have stole
>>it
>>before me : Middius, Sackman, Richman, Pinkerton, Sandman...
>>
>
>
> what did I steal before you got a chance to steal it?


IMHO nothing but to be sure you should ask to Dave Weil who is at the
origin of this post.


> Whatever it is, if I'm finished with it, I can mail it to you.

No thanks.
I don't what to be obliged to pay during the next centuries for one of
you gift.


> that way, you don't have to steal another one; we don't
> want to see you in jail.


20 years of jail are so sweet compare to 1 hour with you.


--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Lionel]

dave "deaf" weil a écrit :


> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 23:03:02 +0100, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>dave "deaf" weil wrote :
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 13:06:40 +0100, Lionel >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>GeoStink a écrit :
>>>
>>>Steals from Sander, steals from George.
>>
>>We need to know Dave, Sander or George ?
>
>
> Hmmmm, I'll steal from you now. "We"? Are you now stealing from the
> people that you accuse of meglomania?
>
>
>>What did I "steal" Dave ?
>
>
> Sorry you are too much of a pinhead to figure it out.
>
>
>>The "geostink" nickname for your fascist friend ?
>
>
> Ahhh, such a literal "thinker". What a bore...


Apparently Middius and Sander are also in my case.
Perhaps you have a problem in writing ? ;-)


>>I have done a quick google search and a lot of people seems to have stole it
>>before me : Middius, Sackman, Richman, Pinkerton, Sandman...
>
>
> Nope, doesn't get it...


Neither Middius and Sander...


>>>I guess it's because his wife steals from him...
>>
>>Says the poor lonesome cowboy.
>
>
> To the cuckold.
>
> Glad to allow you vent for your frustrations...


Says the poor lonesome cowboy. :-D


--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Lionel]

In which Dave "deaf" Weil imagine he is the Sphinx...


dave "deaf" weil a écrit :


> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 23:03:02 +0100, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>dave "deaf" weil wrote :
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 13:06:40 +0100, Lionel >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>GeoStink a écrit :
>>>
>>>Steals from Sander, steals from George.
>>
>>We need to know Dave, Sander or George ?
>
>
> Hmmmm, I'll steal from you now. "We"? Are you now stealing from the
> people that you accuse of meglomania?


I speak for people like George and Sander... for example.


>>What did I "steal" Dave ?
>
>
> Sorry you are too much of a pinhead to figure it out.

George and Sander either...


>>The "geostink" nickname for your fascist friend ?
>
>
> Ahhh, such a literal "thinker". What a bore...


George and Sander too...
Perhaps an other evidence that you have serious problem in writing.
Don't be surprise if "Nobody seemes to have actaully read what you wrote".


>>I have done a quick google search and a lot of people seems to have stole it
>>before me : Middius, Sackman, Richman, Pinkerton, Sandman...
>
>
> Nope, doesn't get it...


George and Sander either


>>>I guess it's because his wife steals from him...
>>
>>Says the poor lonesome cowboy.
>
>
> To the cuckold.
>
> Glad to allow you vent for your frustrations...


Say the poor lonesome cowboy.




--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Lionel]

dave weil a écrit :


> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 23:12:49 +0100, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>In >, Sander deWaal wrote :
>>
>>
>>>Lionel > said:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>GeoStink a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Steals from Sander, steals from George.
>>>
>>>>We need to know Dave, Sander or George ?
>>>>What did I "steal" Dave ?
>>>>The "geostink" nickname for your fascist friend ?
>>>
>>>>I have done a quick google search and a lot of people seems to have stole
>>>>it before me : Middius, Sackman, Richman, Pinkerton, Sandman...
>>>
>>>
>>>But not Sander.
>>>Apart from Arny and Howard, I don't think I called anyone names.
>
>
> Look at the bottom of Lionel's posts to see what he's stolen from you.
> He's not very original...


Neither the 1000s of people on Usenet who use this feature...
Poor Dave.


>>Not really a surprise, Dave Weil is a proven liar.
>
>
> What a moron.


"At least" I never try such grotesque attempt to wit...

--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[dave weil]

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:12:04 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:

>Says the poor lonesome cowboy

With all of the sexual partners.

[dave weil]

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:12:04 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:

>Says the poor lonesome cowboy

But not from Brokeback Mountain.

[dave weil]

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:18:33 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:


>George and Sander either...

>George and Sander too...

>George and Sander either

You seem stuck...

[dave weil]

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:22:47 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:

>"At least" I never try such grotesque attempt to wit...

Since you're only a half-wit, that's good...

[Clyde Slick]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:18:33 +0100, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>George and Sander either...
>
>>George and Sander too...
>
>>George and Sander either
>
> You seem stuck...

he is either stuck or too stuck.

[Lionel]

dave "rocco" weil a écrit :

> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:12:04 +0100, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Says the poor lonesome cowboy
>
>
> With all of the sexual partners.


In his dreams... :-)



--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Lionel]

dave weil a écrit :
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:12:04 +0100, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Says the poor lonesome cowboy
>
>
> But not from Brokeback Mountain.


No, from the capital of the marshmallow music.


--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Lionel]

dave weil a écrit :
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:18:33 +0100, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>George and Sander either...
>
>
>>George and Sander too...
>
>
>>George and Sander either
>
>
> You seem stuck...


Since you have it in the ass. :-)


--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Lionel]

dave "deaf" weil a écrit :


> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:22:47 +0100, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>"At least" I never try such grotesque attempt to wit...
>
>
> Since you're only a half-wit, that's good...


Blah, blah, blah...

Zzzzzzz.



--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[dave weil]

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 22:16:54 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:

>dave weil a écrit :
>> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:12:04 +0100, Lionel >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Says the poor lonesome cowboy
>>
>>
>> But not from Brokeback Mountain.
>
>
>No, from the capital of the marshmallow music.

Better than the muzak that you listen to...

[dave weil]

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 22:17:18 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:

>dave weil a écrit :
>> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:18:33 +0100, Lionel >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>George and Sander either...
>>
>>
>>>George and Sander too...
>>
>>
>>>George and Sander either
>>
>>
>> You seem stuck...
>
>
>Since you have it in the ass. :-)

Your beret is too tight. It's cutting off the circulation to your
brain...

[dave weil]

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 22:20:35 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:

>
>dave "deaf" weil a écrit :
>
>
>> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:22:47 +0100, Lionel >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"At least" I never try such grotesque attempt to wit...
>>
>>
>> Since you're only a half-wit, that's good...
>
>
>Blah, blah, blah...
>
>Zzzzzzz.

You lose.

Again.

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> dave weil a écrit :
>> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:12:04 +0100, Lionel >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Says the poor lonesome cowboy
>>
>>
>> But not from Brokeback Mountain.
>
>
> No, from the capital of the marshmallow music.
>

That would be New Zealand

http://store.nzmusic.com/cd/30859

[Lionel]

Clyde "Arthur Tsechmeister" Slick a écrit :


> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>dave weil a écrit :
>>
>>>On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:12:04 +0100, Lionel >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Says the poor lonesome cowboy
>>>
>>>
>>>But not from Brokeback Mountain.
>>
>>
>>No, from the capital of the marshmallow music.
>>
>
>
> That would be New Zealand
>
> http://store.nzmusic.com/cd/30859


Wrong Arthur.
Even Olivia Newton-John knows that. :-)



--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde "Arthur Tsechmeister" Slick a écrit :
>

How is the Chapuis family dong today?

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> How is the Chapuis family dong today?

Sluttie is more concerned about mine than his own. That's all he could
think of when I mentioned I'd lost some weight.

[Lionel]

Clyde "Arthur Tsechmeister" Slick wrote :

>
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...


>> Clyde "Arthur Tsechmeister" Slick a écrit :
>>
>
> How is the Chapuis family dong today?

Which one ? There are three.


--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[Lionel]

George Minus Middius wrote :

>
>
> Clyde Slick said:
>
>> How is the Chapuis family dong today?
>
> Sluttie is more concerned about mine than his own. That's all he could
> think of when I mentioned I'd lost some weight.

That's a lie.
You told me that you have lost weight and I just answer you :

"can you see your dick now ?"

My question mainly concerns your big fat belly.


PS : your killfile is leaking... :-D



--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde "Arthur Tsechmeister" Slick wrote :
>
>>
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>
>>> Clyde "Arthur Tsechmeister" Slick a écrit :
>>>
>>
>> How is the Chapuis family dong today?
>
> Which one ? There are three.
>

The short one.

[Lionel]

In >, Clyde Slick wrote :

>
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Clyde "Arthur Tsechmeister" Slick wrote :
>>
>>>
>>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>
>>
>>>> Clyde "Arthur Tsechmeister" Slick a écrit :
>>>>
>>>
>>> How is the Chapuis family dong today?
>>
>> Which one ? There are three.
>>
>
> The short one.


Unlike you I don't spend my time to watch children penis.


--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> In >, Clyde Slick wrote :
>
>>
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Clyde "Arthur Tsechmeister" Slick wrote :
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Clyde "Arthur Tsechmeister" Slick a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How is the Chapuis family dong today?
>>>
>>> Which one ? There are three.
>>>
>>
>> The short one.
>
>
> Unlike you I don't spend my time to watch children penis.
>

Just look in a mirror.

[Lionel]

Arthur "Sackman" Tsechmeister a écrit :

> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>In >, Clyde Slick wrote :
>>
>>
>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>Clyde "Arthur Tsechmeister" Slick wrote :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Clyde "Arthur Tsechmeister" Slick a écrit :
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>How is the Chapuis family dong today?
>>>>
>>>>Which one ? There are three.
>>>>
>>>
>>>The short one.
>>
>>
>>Unlike you I don't spend my time to watch children penis.
>>
>
>
> Just look in a mirror.


LOL ! A dick contest !!!
Ok Arthur, but you need to publish objective datas for comparison purpose.
....A picture certified by local attorney will be enough. :-D


--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Arthur "Sackman" Tsechmeister a écrit :
>
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>In >, Clyde Slick wrote :
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>>Clyde "Arthur Tsechmeister" Slick wrote :
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Clyde "Arthur Tsechmeister" Slick a écrit :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How is the Chapuis family dong today?
>>>>>
>>>>>Which one ? There are three.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The short one.
>>>
>>>
>>>Unlike you I don't spend my time to watch children penis.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Just look in a mirror.
>
>
> LOL ! A dick contest !!!
> Ok Arthur, but you need to publish objective datas for comparison purpose.
> ...A picture certified by local attorney will be enough. :-D
>

LOL!

Our local attorneys are about as honest as Arny.
They cannot be trusted to judge your family competition.