Atlantic Technology advice sought

[[email protected]]

Hi,

First post here. I am on a limited budget (teacher's salary) and am
looking at the Atlantic Technology 270THX speaker system. I found
them for 1795.00 at reliableaudiovideo.com. Can anyone comment on
this particular system or any system by Atlantic Technology. I am
unable to listen to them before purchasing as this little po-dunk town
I live in has a Best Buy and a Circuit City and they of course want
you to know that Bose is the best. Yeah, uh-huh;) Anyway, any info
would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks
Mike

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message

> Hi,
>
> First post here. I am on a limited budget (teacher's salary) and am
> looking at the Atlantic Technology 270THX speaker system. I found
> them for 1795.00 at reliableaudiovideo.com. Can anyone comment on
> this particular system or any system by Atlantic Technology. I am
> unable to listen to them before purchasing as this little po-dunk town
> I live in has a Best Buy and a Circuit City and they of course want
> you to know that Bose is the best. Yeah, uh-huh;) Anyway, any info
> would be greatly appreciated.

Atlantic Technology has a decent reputation for producing good-sounding
speakers. The system you've chosen seems to be both popular and reasonably
robust. The stated price seems to be pretty typical.

Reference:
http://www.atlantictechnology.com/pub/pages/Reviews/System270_2.pdf

The S&V review from their web site includes a fair amount of factual
technical information that basically describes a really pretty good set of
speakers for the price. I'd certainly rather have these than
similarly-priced Bose!

[[email protected]]

How would they compare to AperionAudio speakers?

Mike

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 02:47:33 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

> wrote in message

>> Hi,
>>
>> First post here. I am on a limited budget (teacher's salary) and am
>> looking at the Atlantic Technology 270THX speaker system. I found
>> them for 1795.00 at reliableaudiovideo.com. Can anyone comment on
>> this particular system or any system by Atlantic Technology. I am
>> unable to listen to them before purchasing as this little po-dunk town
>> I live in has a Best Buy and a Circuit City and they of course want
>> you to know that Bose is the best. Yeah, uh-huh;) Anyway, any info
>> would be greatly appreciated.
>
>Atlantic Technology has a decent reputation for producing good-sounding
>speakers. The system you've chosen seems to be both popular and reasonably
>robust. The stated price seems to be pretty typical.
>
>Reference:
>http://www.atlantictechnology.com/pub/pages/Reviews/System270_2.pdf
>
>The S&V review from their web site includes a fair amount of factual
>technical information that basically describes a really pretty good set of
>speakers for the price. I'd certainly rather have these than
>similarly-priced Bose!
>

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message


> How would they compare to AperionAudio speakers?

Given that Aperion Audio hypes proven snake oil - namely Kimber's "DiAural"
technology, they are easy to dismiss.

[dave weil]

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 04:37:55 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

> wrote in message

>
>> How would they compare to AperionAudio speakers?
>
>Given that Aperion Audio hypes proven snake oil - namely Kimber's "DiAural"
>technology, they are easy to dismiss.

Well, that cinches it. They must have really good sounding speakers,
Mike.

[S888Wheel]

<<
Given that Aperion Audio hypes proven snake oil - namely Kimber's "DiAural"
technology, they are easy to dismiss.

Given the fact that many speaker manufacturers such as Martin Logan, Genesis,
Soundlab, Wilson Audio, and Vandersteen advocate the idea that cables make a
difference it seems unreasonable to dismiss any speaker brand just on their
position on cable sound.

[Arny Krueger]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message


> Given that Aperion Audio hypes proven snake oil - namely Kimber's
> "DiAural" technology, they are easy to dismiss.

> Given the fact that many speaker manufacturers such as Martin Logan,
> Genesis, Soundlab, Wilson Audio, and Vandersteen advocate the idea
> that cables make a difference it seems unreasonable to dismiss any
> speaker brand just on their position on cable sound.

Just goes to show how willing you are to comment on things you don't
understand, sockpuppet Wheel. You just tried to ream me out for doing this,
and now you do it yourself.

Futhermore, far be it from me to claim that speaker cables can't make a
difference. If I believed that speaker cables can't make a difference why
did I post an lengthy, detailed article about choosing speaker cables at my
www.pcavtech.com web site?

Sockpuppet Wheel, just for grins do try to find out what "DiAural" means
and what it relates to, and then get back to us with your mea culpa.

<note to lurkers - I'm not seriously expecting sockpuppet Wheel to publicly
admit his egregious error here, but then again he could start acting like a
man of integrity at any moment.>

Hint #1: "DiAural" has nothing to do with speaker cables.

Hint #2, One might find a more complete but embarrassingly laughable
description of "DiAural" at the Stereophile web site.

Hint #3, DiAural's snake oil content has been covered at length in the
google archives. The operative phrase is something like "European patent".

[MINe 109]

In article >,
(S888Wheel) wrote:

> <<
> Given that Aperion Audio hypes proven snake oil - namely Kimber's "DiAural"
> technology, they are easy to dismiss.
>
> Given the fact that many speaker manufacturers such as Martin Logan, Genesis,
> Soundlab, Wilson Audio, and Vandersteen advocate the idea that cables make a
> difference it seems unreasonable to dismiss any speaker brand just on their
> position on cable sound.

"DiAural" is a crossover design. You'd have to shut down the entire
industry if you outlawed proprietary names for designs.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> (S888Wheel) wrote:
>
>> <<
>> Given that Aperion Audio hypes proven snake oil - namely Kimber's
>> "DiAural" technology, they are easy to dismiss.
>>
>> Given the fact that many speaker manufacturers such as Martin Logan,
>> Genesis, Soundlab, Wilson Audio, and Vandersteen advocate the idea
>> that cables make a difference it seems unreasonable to dismiss any
>> speaker brand just on their position on cable sound.
>
> "DiAural" is a crossover design. You'd have to shut down the entire
> industry if you outlawed proprietary names for designs.

Actually you've hit on a major point. The European patent for the "Diaural"
crossover design (which I've seen), shows schematics that were familiar to
speaker designers some twenty or more years before the patent was applied
for.

It's unlikely there could ever be a U.S. patent for the "DiAural"
technology, even with the current relaxed attitude among the patent
reviewers, relating to prior art.

IOW, the "DiAural" technology is exactly as you say, a proprietary name for
technology that has been around for a long time. What's new are the claims
made for it, which are snake oil in their own right.

[George M. Middius]

MINe 109 said:

> "DiAural" is a crossover design. You'd have to shut down the entire
> industry if you outlawed proprietary names for designs.

I can just hear the "Amen!" from Goose Pointe.....

[S888Wheel]

Arny said

<<
> Given that Aperion Audio hypes proven snake oil - namely Kimber's
> "DiAural" technology, they are easy to dismiss.


I said

<<
> Given the fact that many speaker manufacturers such as Martin Logan,
> Genesis, Soundlab, Wilson Audio, and Vandersteen advocate the idea
> that cables make a difference it seems unreasonable to dismiss any
> speaker brand just on their position on cable sound.



Arny said


<<
Just goes to show how willing you are to comment on things you don't
understand, sockpuppet Wheel.

Wrong. i understood exactly what you did Arny. You dismissed a speaker company
based on thier views on cable and not on actually auditioning thier products. I
simply pointed out the falacy of your logic by pointing to excellent speaker
manufacturers that also have views on cables that run contrary to your belief
system. I completely understood what you did. It was bull****.

Arny said



<< You just tried to ream me out for doing this,
and now you do it yourself.


No Arny, I called you on your habitual thread crapping. Warning the original
poster of this thread that your suggestion for dismisal of a speaker company
based on their beliefs in cable sound was not a good idea. I supported my
position by citing a number of manufacturers of outstanding speaker systems at
many price levels that also have beliefs about cable sound that run contrary
to your beliefs.


Arny said





<<
Futhermore, far be it from me to claim that speaker cables can't make a
difference.


But you think you can dismiss a speaker manufacturer based on thier claims
about cable sound without auditioning thier speakers. hypocrite.


Arny said



<< If I believed that speaker cables can't make a difference why
did I post an lengthy, detailed article about choosing speaker cables at my
www.pcavtech.com web site?

Are you asking me to speculate on what motivates you? Stupidity, malice,
dishonestly, class envy and a complete disconnect with reality would be my
general answer. Since I don't visit your webpage, I see no point in speculating
on your motives for anything in particular you publish there.


Arny said


<<
Sockpuppet Wheel, just for grins do try to find out what "DiAural" means
and what it relates to, and then get back to us with your mea culpa.

<note to lurkers - I'm not seriously expecting sockpuppet Wheel to publicly
admit his egregious error here, but then again he could start acting like a
man of integrity at any moment.>



No error was made. You were caught making recomendations on personal prejudice
rather than empirical experience.


Arny said

<<
Hint #1: "DiAural" has nothing to do with speaker cables.

Hint #2, One might find a more complete but embarrassingly laughable
description of "DiAural" at the Stereophile web site.

Hint #3, DiAural's snake oil content has been covered at length in the
google archives. The operative phrase is something like "European patent".


Hint #4 Arny can't get around the fact that he dismissed the entire product
line of a speaker company with no empirical experience with thier products and
no substantiated technical reasons based on their design and execution. It was
pure prejudice.

[Arny Krueger]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

> Arny said
>
> <<
>> Given that Aperion Audio hypes proven snake oil - namely Kimber's
>> "DiAural" technology, they are easy to dismiss.
>
>
> I said
>
> <<
>> Given the fact that many speaker manufacturers such as Martin Logan,
>> Genesis, Soundlab, Wilson Audio, and Vandersteen advocate the idea
>> that cables make a difference it seems unreasonable to dismiss any
>> speaker brand just on their position on cable sound.
>
>
>
> Arny said
>
>
> <<
> Just goes to show how willing you are to comment on things you don't
> understand, sockpuppet Wheel.
>
> Wrong. i understood exactly what you did Arny.

<see folks, I predicted that sockpuppet wheel wouldn't admit to making a big
mistake>

> You dismissed a
> speaker company based on their views on cable and not on actually
> auditioning their products.

Still wrong, as anybody who checks my references below will see. Either
you've haven't done your homework sockpuppet wheel, or you simply can't read
and correctly perceive.

>I simply pointed out the fallacy of your
> logic by pointing to excellent speaker manufacturers that also have
> views on cables that run contrary to your belief system.

How many times do I have to prove to you that this has nothing to do with
cables, sockpuppet wheel? You're one tough nut to get through to! But, I
already knew that.

>I completely understood what you did.

If so why did you get it wrong twice, once after I proved that you were
wrong.

>It was bull****.

You're still talking irrelevant trash, sockpuppet wheel.

>
> Arny said
>
> << You just tried to ream me out for doing this,
> and now you do it yourself.

> No Arny, I called you on your habitual thread crapping.

You call it crap, I call it analysis.

> Warning the
> original poster of this thread that your suggestion for dismissal of a
> speaker company based on their beliefs in cable sound was not a good
> idea.

It's such a bad idea that I never did it!

> I supported my position by citing a number of manufacturers of
> outstanding speaker systems at many price levels that also have
> beliefs about cable sound that run contrary to your beliefs.

And sockpuppet wheel I showed with independent references why you were
wrong. Heck, another poster also pointed out that this is really about
crossovers and you still don't get it!

> Arny said

> Furthermore, far be it from me to claim that speaker cables can't make
> a difference.

> But you think you can dismiss a speaker manufacturer based on their
> claims about cable sound without auditioning their speakers.

Nope.

> hypocrite.

Not nearly the hypocrite but more significantly stupid fool that you are,
sockpuppet wheel.

> Arny said

>
> << If I believed that speaker cables can't make a difference why
> did I post an lengthy, detailed article about choosing speaker cables
> at my www.pcavtech.com web site?

> Are you asking me to speculate on what motivates you?

Actually, I was looking for signs of intelligent life in your rock-hard
cranium sockpuppet wheel. Mission Impossible!


>Stupidity,
> malice, dishonestly, class envy and a complete disconnect with
> reality would be my general answer.

Since I'm known to be well-educated, document my claims with independent
sources, and clearly live in the 21st century, we can take your comments as
being autobiographical, sockpuppet wheel.

> Since I don't visit your web page,


Yup sockpuppet wheel, you're too smart to actually look at cited evidence.

> I see no point in speculating on your motives for anything in
> particular you publish there.

Perhaps actually following up on a posted link is too hard for you to do,
sockpuppet Wheel?

> Arny said
>
>
> <<
> Sockpuppet Wheel, just for grins do try to find out what "DiAural"
> means and what it relates to, and then get back to us with your mea
> culpa.

> <note to lurkers - I'm not seriously expecting sockpuppet Wheel to
> publicly admit his egregious error here, but then again he could
> start acting like a man of integrity at any moment.>
>
> No error was made.

The world should be laughing at you by now, sockpuppet wheel. Well, the tiny
part of the world that might actually care about trivial facts like your
arrogance and stupidity.

> You were caught making recommendations on personal
> prejudice rather than empirical experience.

The fact of the matter is that you're ranting and raving about cables and
anybody who looks at the evidence I cited, plus some people with familiarity
with the issue from past discussions knows that this is about crossovers.

Arny said
>
> <<
> Hint #1: "DiAural" has nothing to do with speaker cables.
>
> Hint #2, One might find a more complete but embarrassingly laughable
> description of "DiAural" at the Stereophile web site.
>
> Hint #3, DiAural's snake oil content has been covered at length in the
> google archives. The operative phrase is something like "European
> patent".

> Hint #4 Arny can't get around the fact that he dismissed the entire
> product line of a speaker company with no empirical experience with
> their products and no substantiated technical reasons based on their
> design and execution. It was pure prejudice.

Proven wrong by the fact that anybody who looks at the references knows its
about crossovers. In another post on this thread another poster made clear
references to the fact that "DiAural" is about crossovers, which is of
course the right answer.

So, there is intelligent life on RAO, just don't look for evidence of it in
the posts of sockpuppet Wheel.

Very sad. Even a bit troubling.

<BTW, I corrected about two dozen simple, consistently misspelled words in
sockpuppet wheel's post. When he's wrong, at least he's consistently wrong!>

[S888Wheel]

<<
> Arny said
>
>
> <<
> Just goes to show how willing you are to comment on things you don't
> understand, sockpuppet Wheel.


I said

<<
> Wrong. I understood exactly what you did Arny.



Arny said



<<
<see folks, I predicted that sockpuppet wheel wouldn't admit to making a big
mistake>



I see now that my presumption that cables were at issue because of the name
Kimber was a mistake on my part. Calling you on your dismissal of an entire
line of products based on prejudice rather than empirical experience was not a
mistake. Mistaken facts based on presumptions is not the same thing as a lack
of understanding.

I said


<<
> You dismissed a
> speaker company based on their views on cable and not on actually
> auditioning their products.


Arny said



<<
Still wrong, as anybody who checks my references below will see. Either
you've haven't done your homework sockpuppet wheel, or you simply can't read
and correctly perceive.

Technically I am wrong because of my mistake over cables being the issue but in
essence I am right. You have suggested that an entire line of products be
dismissed over differences in beliefs you have with the manufacturer and not
based on any meaningful experience you have with the products. I think that is
wrong of you.

I said


<<
>I completely understood what you did.


Arny said



<<
If so why did you get it wrong twice, once after I proved that you were
wrong.


I got it part wrong twice because of my presumptions formed around the name
Kimber. That doesn't excuse your dismissal of a line of products based
completely on your prejudice.



I said


<<
> No Arny, I called you on your habitual thread crapping.


Arny said



<<
You call it crap, I call it analysis.


I suppose taking unfounded prejudicial jabs at a medium that seems angers you
for irrational reasons is about as close as you will get to making any
"analysis" of the content of that thread regarding products from Simply Vinyl.
Just because it is your best effort doesn't make your thread crapping smell any
less repulsive.

[Arny Krueger]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message


> I see now that my presumption that cables were at issue because of
> the name Kimber was a mistake on my part.

Thanks for finally seeing your error.


> Calling you on your
> dismissal of an entire line of products based on prejudice rather
> than empirical experience was not a mistake.

You call it prejudice, I call it analysis.

> Mistaken facts based on
> presumptions is not the same thing as a lack of understanding.

I'll leave the mistaken facts and presumptions up to you, since they seem to
be things that you are a lot more comfortable than I am. I find it
revelatory that after you admit that you are wrong about the major point,
you then try to change the thread into a context where you somehow think you
can claim that you're right anyway. In fact you're wrong on both points, as
I'll shortly show.

> I said

>> You dismissed a
>> speaker company based on their views on cable and not on actually
>> auditioning their products.

> Arny said

> Still wrong, as anybody who checks my references below will see.
> Either you've haven't done your homework sockpuppet wheel, or you
> simply can't read and correctly perceive.

> Technically I am wrong because of my mistake over cables being the
> issue but in essence I am right.

Self-deceptive double talk.

>You have suggested that an entire
> line of products be dismissed over differences in beliefs you have
> with the manufacturer and not based on any meaningful experience you
> have with the products. I think that is wrong of you.

Sure, if you want to deceptively minimize importance of the observable
facts, which is one of your pitiful habits sockpuppet wheel, you can call it
a difference in belief. Or, one can observe that Atlantic Technology has a
track record for producing high-performance loudspeakers at a reasonable
price and has been highly reviewed by tough, factually-based reviewers. One
can also observe that Aperion Audio lacks Atlantic Technology's track
record, relies on deceptive terminology to hype their products, and note
that the only reviews they have come from lightweight subjectivist review
sources such as TAS, CNET etc.

> I said

>> I completely understood what you did.

> Arny said

> If so why did you get it wrong twice, once after I proved that you
> were wrong.

> I got it part wrong twice because of my presumptions formed around
> the name Kimber. That doesn't excuse your dismissal of a line of
> products based completely on your prejudice.

You know that same presumptions thing that got you burned once sockpuppet
wheel is burning you again. You presumed that my comparison of these two
sources was based solely on prejudice, when that wasn't the case.

Would it be a good thing if I were able to spend a week each listening to
and analyzing both systems before responding? In the sense that my opinion
would have basis rooted in detailed personal experience, yes. However in the
newsgroup context, the person asking the question would have very likely
moved on and never seen my response two weeks after he asked his question.
Also the chances that any of us would have the opportunity to actually do a
detailed evaluation like this is basically zilch.

The criteria you've set up for me sockpuppet Wheel is totally unrealistic.
It's a criteria that you won't meet. just as certainly as I won't meet it.
It's just a debating trade trick. It's deceptive.


> I said

> <<
>> No Arny, I called you on your habitual thread crapping.

> Arny said

> <<

> You call it crap, I call it analysis.

> I suppose taking unfounded prejudicial jabs at a medium that seems
> angers you for irrational reasons is about as close as you will get
> to making any "analysis" of the content of that thread regarding
> products from Simply Vinyl.

You seem to be having a problem with relevance here, sockpuppet wheel. This
isn't the Simply Vinyl thread, its the Atlantic Technology versus Aperion
Audio thread. Do try to remember where you are and what is relevant!

>Just because it is your best effort
> doesn't make your thread crapping smell any less repulsive.

You're just playing games, sockpuppet wheel. You may not have realized that
vinyl is irrelevant to virtually all audiophiles in the 21st century, but
many of the rest of us have. It's probable that the threads were contrived
to see if you could get some negative comments so that you and your thuggish
friends could have somebody to beat up on. The fact that you are now trying
to turn this thread into a continuation of that thread is very revealing.
You're not into RAO for the music, you're into it for the blood.

[Lionel]

S888Wheel wrote:

>
> I see now that my presumption that cables were at issue because of the name
> Kimber was a mistake on my part. Calling you on your dismissal of an entire
> line of products based on prejudice rather than empirical experience was not a
> mistake. Mistaken facts based on presumptions is not the same thing as a lack
> of understanding.

:o(

You made a fool of you playing "redemptor"...
Thanks for the fun !

--
"Keep the bugs off your glass and the bears off your ass"
Bad Plus

[Lionel]

George M. Middius wrote:
>
> MINe 109 said:
>
>
>>"DiAural" is a crossover design. You'd have to shut down the entire
>>industry if you outlawed proprietary names for designs.
>
>
> I can just hear the "Amen!" from Goose Pointe.....
>

Sorry Georgetta, it's too late for a rescue.
Dave's wave has already drowned your champion !

--
"Keep the bugs off your glass and the bears off your ass"
Bad Plus

[S888Wheel]

I said

<<
> I see now that my presumption that cables were at issue because of
> the name Kimber was a mistake on my part.


Arny said

<<
Thanks for finally seeing your error.


You are welcome.


I said


<<
> Calling you on your
> dismissal of an entire line of products based on prejudice rather
> than empirical experience was not a mistake.



Arny said



<<
You call it prejudice, I call it analysis.



Well, if there was any analysis going on you did it in private. All you offered
was conclusions about a product line you have never heard. Without any
description of your analysis I have to call it prejudice. If you can cite any
specific elements of the design you think would cause the entire line to be
dismissed based on experience with other speakers that share those same alleged
design flaws that would constitute analysis and may show your position has
merit.


I said


<<
> Mistaken facts based on
> presumptions is not the same thing as a lack of understanding.


Arny said



<<
I'll leave the mistaken facts and presumptions up to you, since they seem to
be things that you are a lot more comfortable than I am.


If you want to try to rewrite this sentence so it makes sense I will happily
respond to it. As it stands it makes no sense. In light of the above sentence,
you have no business criticizing my grammar.


Arny said


<< I find it
revelatory that after you admit that you are wrong about the major point,
you then try to change the thread into a context where you somehow think you
can claim that you're right anyway.


it doesn't take a rocket science to see my general objection was to your
dismissal of a product line without any auctual experience with the product. My
mistaken presumption about the cause of your prejudice against this product
line does not change the broader problem i see with your dismissal. so, if you
really understood my point you would have seen that I was wrong about the
specifics of the minor part of my point. Until you can offer a good argument
that your dismissal was justified I stand by the major part of my point that I
find such dismissals based on prejudice instead of practical experience with
the product to be a bad idea.


Arny said


<< In fact you're wrong on both points, as
I'll shortly show.


If you do I will admit it. But you can't do it without further explanation.
Explanations that were painfully missing in other posts.



<<
Sure, if you want to deceptively minimize importance of the observable
facts, which is one of your pitiful habits sockpuppet wheel, you can call it
a difference in belief. Or, one can observe that Atlantic Technology has a
track record for producing high-performance loudspeakers at a reasonable
price and has been highly reviewed by tough, factually-based reviewers. One
can also observe that Aperion Audio lacks Atlantic Technology's track
record, relies on deceptive terminology to hype their products, and note
that the only reviews they have come from lightweight subjectivist review
sources such as TAS, CNET etc.


Well, there you have it. Your dismissal is indeed based purely on prejudice. if
this is your evidence and argument that your dismissal was based on anything
other than prejudice you failed to prove your point. You have not heard the
product and you failed to cite any design flaws that are shared by other
products with which you have had practical experience. You really have no clue
what these speakers sound like and you dismissed them. I think that is a bad
idea.

Arny said



<<
You know that same presumptions thing that got you burned once sockpuppet
wheel is burning you again. You presumed that my comparison of these two
sources was based solely on prejudice, when that wasn't the case.


so far the only evidence you offer that your dismissal was not prejudicial is
evidence that supports my claim that your dismissal was prejudicial. How is
that for irony? lets look at your evidence again. 1. a claim that Aperion lacks
a track record compared to Atlantic technology. This point is pure opinion and
says nothing about what the products actually sound like. 2.Aperion relies on
deceptive technology to hype their products. Deceptive because you say so? This
is merely evidence of your prejudice based on differing beliefs with the folks
at Aperion. 3. you don't like the magazines that have reviewed Aperion
products. This is a quintessential example of pure prejudice. How can one be
objective and scientific if one cannot see the difference between proof based
on empirical evidence and logic and proof based on pure prejudice? You were
right when you said you call it analysis and I call it prejudice.


Arny said


<<
Would it be a good thing if I were able to spend a week each listening to
and analyzing both systems before responding?


IMO it is, generally speaking, a good idea to have heard a product before
dismissing it. You always had the option to realize you lacked the requisite
experience with the products and simply refrained from dismissing one of them
out of hand.

Arny said



<< However in the
newsgroup context, the person asking the question would have very likely
moved on and never seen my response two weeks after he asked his question.

IMO this would have been better than your prejudicial dismissal no response is
usually better than an ill-informed response.


Arny said


<< Also the chances that any of us would have the opportunity to actually do a
detailed evaluation like this is basically zilch.

Better for him to move on and maybe get an informed opinion somewhere else.

Arny said



<<
The criteria you've set up for me sockpuppet Wheel is totally unrealistic.


I have not set up my criteria for you Arny. It is the same for everyone. I
think it is a bad idea for anyone to dismiss a line of speakers based on pure
prejudice. It is hardly unrealistic to expect people to keep comments on the
sonic performance of components to components that one has actually listened
to.

Arny said


<< It's a criteria that you won't meet.


bull****. Cite one example of me dismissing an entire line of speakers with no
personal experience with them. Cite one example of me doing anything like this
at all with any product I haven't listened to.


Arny said


<< just as certainly as I won't meet it.

The only way anyone won't meet my criteria for fair comment is if they feel
compelled to con others into believing they know more than they actually do.

Arny said




<< It's just a debating trade trick. It's deceptive.


Nonsense. It is a reasonable standard that anybody with integrity and a
controlled ego can live with.


I said


<<
>Just because it is your best effort
> doesn't make your thread crapping smell any less repulsive.



Arny said


<<
You're just playing games, sockpuppet wheel. You may not have realized that
vinyl is irrelevant to virtually all audiophiles in the 21st century, but
many of the rest of us have.

If you find a thread irrelevant to your interest stay the **** away from it. It
is laughable that someone who has made over 90,000 posts on Usenet would
presume to speak for other people as if you were not completely disconnected
form reality.


Arny said


<< It's probable that the threads were contrived
to see if you could get some negative comments so that you and your thuggish
friends could have somebody to beat up on.

This shows that you are driven by paranoia, stupidity and hatred. The posts
were audio related posts for people with an interest in the best issues of
certain recordings. Remember what this forum is called? Rec. audio.opinions? I
was offering opinions on audio that others seemed to find interesting and maybe
even useful. Why you felt compelled to crap on it is beyond me.

[Arny Krueger]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

> I said
>
> <<
>> I see now that my presumption that cables were at issue because of
>> the name Kimber was a mistake on my part.
>
>
> Arny said
>
> <<
> Thanks for finally seeing your error.
>
>
> You are welcome.
>
>
> I said
>
>
> <<
>> Calling you on your
>> dismissal of an entire line of products based on prejudice rather
>> than empirical experience was not a mistake.
>
>
>
> Arny said
>
>
>
> <<
> You call it prejudice, I call it analysis.
>
>
>
> Well, if there was any analysis going on you did it in private.

Well, dooh. Where is it written that I have to post a detailed analysis of
my thought processes everytime I post an opinion?

>All you offered was conclusions about a product line you have never
> heard.

I you look at the thread, nobody who posts here has ever heard it, including
yourself sockpuppet wheel.

> Without any description of your analysis I have to call it
> prejudice.

It's like you to always presume the worst about everybody except the members
of your clique, who can do no wrong.

> If you can cite any specific elements of the design you
> think would cause the entire line to be dismissed based on experience
> with other speakers that share those same alleged design flaws that
> would constitute analysis and may show your position has merit.

Still having problems with adding two and two I see. OK well let me lay it
out for you so you can **** on it, as is your accustomed style.

No self-respecting speaker designer or marketing person who follows the news
should be unaware of the unfavorable reception of the technical community to
Kimber's claims about his DiAural crossover design. Furthermore, anybody who
really understands how speakers work and reads Kimber's claims for "DiAural"
should know that they're the audio equivalent of an engine with 110%
efficiency.


> it doesn't take a rocket science to see my general objection was to
> your dismissal of a product line without any auctual experience with
> the product.

Right, but in the face of it, what do we have to go on that's useful?


>My mistaken presumption about the cause of your
> prejudice against this product line does not change the broader
> problem i see with your dismissal.

Yes, you are a very self-righteous and hypocritical person sockpuppet Wheel.
You have a long track record of setting up impossible hurdles for people you
don't like while tolerating and even congratulating highly egregious
behavior by yourself and people that you do like.

You know, I was over on the http://www.stereotimes.com/ web site thinking:
"I'll bet sockpuppet wheel eats this crap up for breakfast, lunch, and
dinner and thinks it's just great. As they say, living well is the best
revenge.

[dave weil]

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 23:25:34 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>One
>can also observe that Aperion Audio lacks Atlantic Technology's track
>record, relies on deceptive terminology to hype their products, and note
>that the only reviews they have come from lightweight subjectivist review
>sources such as TAS, CNET etc.

Sort of like getting reviews about technology from MSNBC, eh?

Get back to us when you've actually *listened* to the speakers, won't
you?

[dave weil]

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 23:25:34 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>Would it be a good thing if I were able to spend a week each listening to
>and analyzing both systems before responding? In the sense that my opinion
>would have basis rooted in detailed personal experience, yes. However in the
>newsgroup context, the person asking the question would have very likely
>moved on and never seen my response two weeks after he asked his question.
>Also the chances that any of us would have the opportunity to actually do a
>detailed evaluation like this is basically zilch.

So, you think it's better to possibly influence someone based on *no*
empirical evidence about the actual sound of the product?

Boy, if this is 'science", frankly, I'm not sure I want any part of
it.

[dave weil]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 07:42:13 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>No self-respecting speaker designer or marketing person who follows the news
>should be unaware of the unfavorable reception of the technical community to
>Kimber's claims about his DiAural crossover design.

It would be interesting to see some proof of this "unfavorable
reception" that is claimed.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 07:42:13 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> No self-respecting speaker designer or marketing person who follows
>> the news should be unaware of the unfavorable reception of the
>> technical community to Kimber's claims about his DiAural crossover
>> design.

> It would be interesting to see some proof of this "unfavorable reception"
that is claimed.

Weil, since you'll rupture youself spewing denial if I dredge it up from
google, I'll not waste my time. The topic is way over your head, anyway.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 23:25:34 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> One
>> can also observe that Aperion Audio lacks Atlantic Technology's track
>> record, relies on deceptive terminology to hype their products, and
>> note that the only reviews they have come from lightweight
>> subjectivist review sources such as TAS, CNET etc.
>
> Sort of like getting reviews about technology from MSNBC, eh?
>
> Get back to us when you've actually *listened* to the speakers, won't
> you?

Since listening to the speakers seems to be a higher priority with you and
sockpuppet Wheel Weil, I will first wait for your in-depth report comparing
the two speaker set-ups.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 23:25:34 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> Would it be a good thing if I were able to spend a week each
>> listening to and analyzing both systems before responding? In the
>> sense that my opinion would have basis rooted in detailed personal
>> experience, yes. However in the newsgroup context, the person asking
>> the question would have very likely moved on and never seen my
>> response two weeks after he asked his question. Also the chances
>> that any of us would have the opportunity to actually do a detailed
>> evaluation like this is basically zilch.

> So, you think it's better to possibly influence someone based on *no*
> empirical evidence about the actual sound of the product?

I view my advice as a "yes" for Atlantic Technology.

> Boy, if this is 'science", frankly, I'm not sure I want any part of
> it.

I'm sure you want no part of science whatsoever, Weil, You've as much as
said so here weekly for what 4 years?

[dave weil]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 08:38:18 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 07:42:13 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> No self-respecting speaker designer or marketing person who follows
>>> the news should be unaware of the unfavorable reception of the
>>> technical community to Kimber's claims about his DiAural crossover
>>> design.
>
>> It would be interesting to see some proof of this "unfavorable reception"
>that is claimed.
>
>Weil, since you'll rupture youself spewing denial if I dredge it up from
>google, I'll not waste my time. The topic is way over your head, anyway.

I see. You can't do it.

OK.

[dave weil]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 08:39:54 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 23:25:34 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> One
>>> can also observe that Aperion Audio lacks Atlantic Technology's track
>>> record, relies on deceptive terminology to hype their products, and
>>> note that the only reviews they have come from lightweight
>>> subjectivist review sources such as TAS, CNET etc.
>>
>> Sort of like getting reviews about technology from MSNBC, eh?
>>
>> Get back to us when you've actually *listened* to the speakers, won't
>> you?
>
>Since listening to the speakers seems to be a higher priority with you and
>sockpuppet Wheel Weil, I will first wait for your in-depth report comparing
>the two speaker set-ups.

Since I didn't make any libelous claims about the speakers, your
strawman is dismissed.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 23:25:34 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> One
>> can also observe that Aperion Audio lacks Atlantic Technology's track
>> record, relies on deceptive terminology to hype their products, and
>> note that the only reviews they have come from lightweight
>> subjectivist review sources such as TAS, CNET etc.
>
> Sort of like getting reviews about technology from MSNBC, eh?

The review from MSNBC wasn't about the technology, it was about making the
technology accessible via the web.

But thanks for behaving as deceptive and smarmy as ever, Weil.

Interestingly enough the MSNBC article also announced PCABX which
subsequently got favorable reviews from a number of far more technical
publications.

<The basic fallacy of Weil and sockpuppet Wheel is that they apparently
think that no action should be taken unless it exceeds their wildest
expectations. Focus on that word "wild". You're supposed to overlook the
fact that in the real world of audio, they are both certifiable non-players.
Weil collects broken and unrepairable classic speakers, and sockpuppet wheel
is so afraid of his own shadow that he won't say much at all about what he
does.>

[dave weil]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 08:41:00 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 23:25:34 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Would it be a good thing if I were able to spend a week each
>>> listening to and analyzing both systems before responding? In the
>>> sense that my opinion would have basis rooted in detailed personal
>>> experience, yes. However in the newsgroup context, the person asking
>>> the question would have very likely moved on and never seen my
>>> response two weeks after he asked his question. Also the chances
>>> that any of us would have the opportunity to actually do a detailed
>>> evaluation like this is basically zilch.
>
>> So, you think it's better to possibly influence someone based on *no*
>> empirical evidence about the actual sound of the product?
>
>I view my advice as a "yes" for Atlantic Technology.

Then you should give it a yes without putting down a speaker that
you've never heard.

Or maybe you think that Atlantic Technology is the only choice to
make. Therefore, you can tell us all about *your* Atlantic Technology
speakers. You know, the ones you've bought because they are better
than all others.

>> Boy, if this is 'science", frankly, I'm not sure I want any part of
>> it.
>
>I'm sure you want no part of science whatsoever, Weil, You've as much as
>said so here weekly for what 4 years?

I *am* a fan of the appropriate use of commas.

And I'm a fan of science that's actually science, not your bizarro
snake oil version.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 08:38:18 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>
>>> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 07:42:13 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> No self-respecting speaker designer or marketing person who follows
>>>> the news should be unaware of the unfavorable reception of the
>>>> technical community to Kimber's claims about his DiAural crossover
>>>> design.
>>
>>> It would be interesting to see some proof of this "unfavorable
>>> reception" that is claimed.
>>
>> Weil, since you'll rupture youself spewing denial if I dredge it up
>> from google, I'll not waste my time. The topic is way over your
>> head, anyway.
>
> I see. You can't do it.

I sure can. I just tested the google search keys I mentioned yesterday, and
they worked. Just goes to show that you can lead a horse to water but...

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 08:39:54 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>
>>> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 23:25:34 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> One
>>>> can also observe that Aperion Audio lacks Atlantic Technology's
>>>> track record, relies on deceptive terminology to hype their
>>>> products, and note that the only reviews they have come from
>>>> lightweight subjectivist review sources such as TAS, CNET etc.
>>>
>>> Sort of like getting reviews about technology from MSNBC, eh?
>>>
>>> Get back to us when you've actually *listened* to the speakers,
>>> won't you?
>>
>> Since listening to the speakers seems to be a higher priority with
>> you and sockpuppet Wheel Weil, I will first wait for your in-depth
>> report comparing the two speaker set-ups.
>
> Since I didn't make any libelous claims about the speakers, your
> strawman is dismissed.

Yup, this is the new law according to Weil and sockpuppet wheel. Opinions
expressed as opinions on a forum called opinion are libel.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 08:41:00 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>
>>> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 23:25:34 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Would it be a good thing if I were able to spend a week each
>>>> listening to and analyzing both systems before responding? In the
>>>> sense that my opinion would have basis rooted in detailed personal
>>>> experience, yes. However in the newsgroup context, the person
>>>> asking the question would have very likely moved on and never seen
>>>> my response two weeks after he asked his question. Also the chances
>>>> that any of us would have the opportunity to actually do a detailed
>>>> evaluation like this is basically zilch.
>>
>>> So, you think it's better to possibly influence someone based on
>>> *no* empirical evidence about the actual sound of the product?
>>
>> I view my advice as a "yes" for Atlantic Technology.
>
> Then you should give it a yes without putting down a speaker that
> you've never heard.

Big lie #2, I didn't put down any particular Aperion Audio speaker.

> Or maybe you think that Atlantic Technology is the only choice to
> make.

Can't read can you Weil? I said I'd rather have Atlantic Technology than
Bose and Aperion. I guess in Weil World, there are just three speaker
manufacturers, Atlantic Technology, Bose and Aperion.

>Therefore, you can tell us all about *your* Atlantic Technology
> speakers. You know, the ones you've bought because they are better
> than all others.

Inability to read and comprehend simple English noted.

>>> Boy, if this is 'science", frankly, I'm not sure I want any part of
>>> it.

>> I'm sure you want no part of science whatsoever, Weil, You've as
>> much as said so here weekly for what 4 years?

> I *am* a fan of the appropriate use of commas.

Too bad you aren't rigorous about English style in your own posts, Weil.
Another example of your hypocrisy.

> And I'm a fan of science that's actually science, not your bizarro
> snake oil version.

If irony killed...

[dave weil]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 08:51:23 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 23:25:34 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> One
>>> can also observe that Aperion Audio lacks Atlantic Technology's track
>>> record, relies on deceptive terminology to hype their products, and
>>> note that the only reviews they have come from lightweight
>>> subjectivist review sources such as TAS, CNET etc.
>>
>> Sort of like getting reviews about technology from MSNBC, eh?
>
>The review from MSNBC wasn't about the technology, it was about making the
>technology accessible via the web.

Which is by definition about technology.

>But thanks for behaving as deceptive and smarmy as ever, Weil.
>
>Interestingly enough the MSNBC article also announced PCABX which
>subsequently got favorable reviews from a number of far more technical
>publications.

They also used the word "internet", which has been used by far more
technical publications.

><The basic fallacy of Weil and sockpuppet Wheel is that they apparently
>think that no action should be taken unless it exceeds their wildest
>expectations. Focus on that word "wild". You're supposed to overlook the
>fact that in the real world of audio, they are both certifiable non-players.
>Weil collects broken and unrepairable classic speakers, and sockpuppet wheel
>is so afraid of his own shadow that he won't say much at all about what he
>does.>

Let's see. How many lies can we find in the preceding paragraph? I see
at least one which is indisputably a lie.

I wonder how many non-working components Arnold might have in his
possession.

[dave weil]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 08:52:33 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 08:38:18 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 07:42:13 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> No self-respecting speaker designer or marketing person who follows
>>>>> the news should be unaware of the unfavorable reception of the
>>>>> technical community to Kimber's claims about his DiAural crossover
>>>>> design.
>>>
>>>> It would be interesting to see some proof of this "unfavorable
>>>> reception" that is claimed.
>>>
>>> Weil, since you'll rupture youself spewing denial if I dredge it up
>>> from google, I'll not waste my time. The topic is way over your
>>> head, anyway.
>>
>> I see. You can't do it.
>
>I sure can. I just tested the google search keys I mentioned yesterday, and
>they worked. Just goes to show that you can lead a horse to water but...

I guess you can't do it.

<shrug>

I'm not all that surprised, since you've had problems with search
engines in the past.

[dave weil]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 08:53:55 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 08:39:54 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 23:25:34 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> One
>>>>> can also observe that Aperion Audio lacks Atlantic Technology's
>>>>> track record, relies on deceptive terminology to hype their
>>>>> products, and note that the only reviews they have come from
>>>>> lightweight subjectivist review sources such as TAS, CNET etc.
>>>>
>>>> Sort of like getting reviews about technology from MSNBC, eh?
>>>>
>>>> Get back to us when you've actually *listened* to the speakers,
>>>> won't you?
>>>
>>> Since listening to the speakers seems to be a higher priority with
>>> you and sockpuppet Wheel Weil, I will first wait for your in-depth
>>> report comparing the two speaker set-ups.
>>
>> Since I didn't make any libelous claims about the speakers, your
>> strawman is dismissed.
>
>Yup, this is the new law according to Weil and sockpuppet wheel. Opinions
>expressed as opinions on a forum called opinion are libel.

Strawman.

<s******>

[dave weil]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 08:58:41 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 08:41:00 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 23:25:34 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Would it be a good thing if I were able to spend a week each
>>>>> listening to and analyzing both systems before responding? In the
>>>>> sense that my opinion would have basis rooted in detailed personal
>>>>> experience, yes. However in the newsgroup context, the person
>>>>> asking the question would have very likely moved on and never seen
>>>>> my response two weeks after he asked his question. Also the chances
>>>>> that any of us would have the opportunity to actually do a detailed
>>>>> evaluation like this is basically zilch.
>>>
>>>> So, you think it's better to possibly influence someone based on
>>>> *no* empirical evidence about the actual sound of the product?
>>>
>>> I view my advice as a "yes" for Atlantic Technology.
>>
>> Then you should give it a yes without putting down a speaker that
>> you've never heard.
>
>Big lie #2, I didn't put down any particular Aperion Audio speaker.

Yes you did.

>> Or maybe you think that Atlantic Technology is the only choice to
>> make.
>
>Can't read can you Weil? I said I'd rather have Atlantic Technology than
>Bose and Aperion.

No you didn't. You said *this:

"Given that Aperion Audio hypes proven snake oil - namely Kimber's
"DiAural" technology, they are easy to dismiss".

And that was just the opening salvo.

> I guess in Weil World, there are just three speaker
>manufacturers, Atlantic Technology, Bose and Aperion.
>
>>Therefore, you can tell us all about *your* Atlantic Technology
>> speakers. You know, the ones you've bought because they are better
>> than all others.
>
>Inability to read and comprehend simple English noted.

Noted that you haven't put your money where your mouth is. In fact,
it's even questionable whether you've ever heard Atlantic Technology
speakers.

>>>> Boy, if this is 'science", frankly, I'm not sure I want any part of
>>>> it.
>
>>> I'm sure you want no part of science whatsoever, Weil, You've as
>>> much as said so here weekly for what 4 years?
>
>> I *am* a fan of the appropriate use of commas.
>
>Too bad you aren't rigorous about English style in your own posts, Weil.

Whatever "English style" is supposed to be. You passing judgment about
English style is like a cottonmouth talking about rat preservation.

>Another example of your hypocrisy.
>
>> And I'm a fan of science that's actually science, not your bizarro
>> snake oil version.
>
>If irony killed...

You'd be long dead.

[George M. Middius]

dave weil said:

> I wonder how many non-working components Arnold might have in his
> possession.

In his possession, or on his body? :-)

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message


> I wonder how many non-working components Arnold might have in his
> possession.

Very few. I set the few remaining ones I knew about out with the garbage
last night.

[dave weil]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 09:57:57 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>
>> I wonder how many non-working components Arnold might have in his
>> possession.
>
>Very few. I set the few remaining ones I knew about out with the garbage
>last night.

Well then, I would say the same thing. I have very few non-working
components. And those few that I have can be repaired. Apparently,
you're able to destroy your gear quite completely.

[S888Wheel]

<<
> I said
>
>
> <<
>> Calling you on your
>> dismissal of an entire line of products based on prejudice rather
>> than empirical experience was not a mistake.



<<
> Arny said
>
>
>
> <<
> You call it prejudice, I call it analysis.


I said


<<
> Well, if there was any analysis going on you did it in private.


Arny said



<<
Well, dooh. Where is it written that I have to post a detailed analysis of
my thought processes everytime I post an opinion?


Once you did it proved that I was right all along. Your dismissal was pure
prejudice. Of course most normal people would offer some explanation to begin
with.


I said


<<
>All you offered was conclusions about a product line you have never
> heard.


Arny said



<<
I you look at the thread, nobody who posts here has ever heard it, including
yourself sockpuppet wheel.


Yeah, no **** Sherlock. That's why nobody else commented on the product. If you
don't know what the **** you are talking about try shutting the **** up for a
change. You will end up with less egg on your face.


I said



<<
> Without any description of your analysis I have to call it
> prejudice.


Arny said


<<
It's like you to always presume the worst about everybody except the members
of your clique, who can do no wrong

No Arny. I had good reason. You made reference to a difference in beliefs you
have with the makers of those speakers. That was an obvious tip off that you
were slamming something based on your idiotic audio agenda rather than for any
good reasons. You were called on your bull****. That is the bottom line. So far
presuming the worst about you makes anyone look like a prophet. Unlike the
speakers you disparaged based on prejudice rather than experience you do have a
vivid track record.

I said


<<
> If you can cite any specific elements of the design you
> think would cause the entire line to be dismissed based on experience
> with other speakers that share those same alleged design flaws that
> would constitute analysis and may show your position has merit.


Arny said


<<

Still having problems with adding two and two I see.


Still trying to rationalize your ****ting on a company based on pure prejudice
I see.

Arny said


<<
No self-respecting speaker designer or marketing person who follows the news
should be unaware of the unfavorable reception of the technical community to
Kimber's claims about his DiAural crossover design. Furthermore, anybody who
really understands how speakers work and reads Kimber's claims for "DiAural"
should know that they're the audio equivalent of an engine with 110%
efficiency.


No matter how you paint your venomous prejudice it still comes out as venomous
prejudice. Pathetic.


I said


<<
> it doesn't take a rocket science to see my general objection was to
> your dismissal of a product line without any actual experience with
> the product.


Arny said


<<
Right, but in the face of it, what do we have to go on that's useful?


Nothing. That is why everyone else wisely chose not to open their mouths and
shove their feet in them. Obviously your ego and your hatred wouldn't allow you
to do the sensible thing. Nothing new there. It was those same character flaws
that got you sued by me.


I said



<<
>My mistaken presumption about the cause of your
> prejudice against this product line does not change the broader
> problem I see with your dismissal.


Arny said



<<
Yes, you are a very self-righteous and hypocritical person sockpuppet Wheel.

Is this another example of your analysis skills? It follows the same pathology.
Form prejudicial opinions based on hatred and a lack of real knowledge and
experience.


Arny said



<<
You have a long track record of setting up impossible hurdles for people you
don't like while tolerating and even congratulating highly egregious
behavior by yourself and people that you do like.


What a load of crap. i asked you to cite any proof of this bull**** in the last
post. obviously you found nothing. The standards such as don't comment on the
sound of something you haven't heard or, in this case, don't dismiss an entire
speaker line you haven't heard, are standards I set for myself and everyone
else. Try to find one example of your ridiculous claim about me setting hurdles
that are impossibly high. I realize you have lived the life of a chronic
underachiever who, admittedly, has never excelled at anything, but I fail to
see how even a mediocre person would find my standards of conduct so
unachievable. Maybe if you had a little self-control and were not so driven by
hatred and ego (ironic given your admissions of never excelling at anything)
you wouldn't find my standards so difficult at all.



Arny said



<<
You know, I was over on the http://www.stereotimes.com/ web site thinking:
"I'll bet sockpuppet wheel eats this crap up for breakfast, lunch, and
dinner and thinks it's just great.


Obviously you are spending to much time fantasizing about me. Stop it. It's
creepy.


Arny said


<< As they say, living well is the best
revenge.


But for those who don't live well and don't excel at anything and are
overwhelmed by hatred and ego dismissing products out of pure prejudice,
accusing people of pedophilia and drug addiction and a long list of other
things you do on a regular basis are the only alternative. Please try living
well for a change. Here is a clue, 90,000+ posts on Usenent is sure sign of not
living well. I know you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer but even you
should be able to do the math.

[S888Wheel]

At least by now the original poster should have a better idea on the cause for
arny to dismiss a line of speakers. it had nothing to do with what they sound
like.

[George M. Middius]

S888Wheel said:

> At least by now the original poster should have a better idea on the cause for
> arny to dismiss a line of speakers. it had nothing to do with what they sound
> like.

Listening to audio equipment before judging it snake oil would, a
priori, undercut Mr. ****'s agenda. Surely that's obvious.

BTW, what's the latest on your lawsuit?

[Arny Krueger]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message
...

> At least by now the original poster should have a better idea on the cause
for
> arny to dismiss a line of speakers. it had nothing to do with what they
sound
> like.

Well sockpuppet wheel, this was all spelled out quite clearly in my
origional response to the question. At least you get points for perceiving
the obvious. I guess the news flash is that it only took a day or two and a
few thousand words of explanation, for you to figure it out.

<Anybody who thinks that the sentence below suggests that I based my opinion
of Aperion speakers based on a listening test, please raise your hand and
we'll get you a dunce cap."

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...

"Given that Aperion Audio hypes proven snake oil - namely Kimber's "DiAural"
technology, they are easy to dismiss."

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 09:57:57 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
>

> >> I wonder how many non-working components Arnold might have in his
> >> possession.

> >Very few. I set the few remaining ones I knew about out with the garbage
> >last night.

> Well then, I would say the same thing.

Not at all.

>I have very few non-working components.

But you haven't thrown them out. In fact, you diefy some of them.

> And those few that I have can be repaired.

Begging the question why you haven't done it.

> Apparently, you're able to destroy your gear quite completely.

I can fix it, or muster the courage to dump it when it becomes totally
obsolete.

[Arny Krueger]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message
...
>
> But for those who don't live well and don't excel at anything and are
> overwhelmed by hatred and ego dismissing products out of pure prejudice,
> accusing people of pedophilia and drug addiction and a long list of other
> things you do on a regular basis are the only alternative.

Sockpuppet Wheel, how can you say with authority that I don't live well?
Since you can't, this entire sentence must not apply to me. Who then are you
fantasizing about?

> Please try living well for a change.

No change required.

> Here is a clue, 90,000+ posts on Usenet is sure sign of not living well.

That count is incorrect. Citing rough estimates as proof supporting
illogical conclusions is a sure sign of a lack of mental acuity.

Filing ridiculous law suits is a sign of a lack of mental acuity.

>I know you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer but even you should be
able to do the math.

If you did the math sockpuppet wheel, you'd know you're wrong. I don't think
you can even do serious math. Got a degree in a math-related area?

[dave weil]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:57:51 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 09:57:57 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
>>
>
>> >> I wonder how many non-working components Arnold might have in his
>> >> possession.
>
>> >Very few. I set the few remaining ones I knew about out with the garbage
>> >last night.
>
>> Well then, I would say the same thing.
>
>Not at all.

I just did.

Sorry, you lose.

Again.

>>I have very few non-working components.
>
>But you haven't thrown them out. In fact, you diefy some of them.

No, apparently it's *you* who "diefies" them. After all, they go out
in the garbage after you've killed them.

>> And those few that I have can be repaired.
>
>Begging the question why you haven't done it.

Priorities.

Gee, *that* was easy.

>> Apparently, you're able to destroy your gear quite completely.
>
> I can fix it, or muster the courage to dump it when it becomes totally
>obsolete.

Considering that the non-working components I have aren't "obsolete",
I guess I'm doing the right thing by hanging on to them.

[dave weil]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 12:01:53 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>
>"S888Wheel" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> But for those who don't live well and don't excel at anything and are
>> overwhelmed by hatred and ego dismissing products out of pure prejudice,
>> accusing people of pedophilia and drug addiction and a long list of other
>> things you do on a regular basis are the only alternative.
>
>Sockpuppet Wheel, how can you say with authority that I don't live well?
>Since you can't, this entire sentence must not apply to me. Who then are you
>fantasizing about?
>
>> Please try living well for a change.
>
>No change required.
>
>> Here is a clue, 90,000+ posts on Usenet is sure sign of not living well.
>
>That count is incorrect.

What *is* the count then?

[George M. Middius]

dave weil said:

> >> Here is a clue, 90,000+ posts on Usenet is sure sign of not living well.
> >
> >That count is incorrect.
>
> What *is* the count then?

It's on the other screen, just waiting to be shared. Oops! Too late,
it's gone.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 12:01:53 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"S888Wheel" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> But for those who don't live well and don't excel at anything and are
> >> overwhelmed by hatred and ego dismissing products out of pure
prejudice,
> >> accusing people of pedophilia and drug addiction and a long list of
other
> >> things you do on a regular basis are the only alternative.
> >
> >Sockpuppet Wheel, how can you say with authority that I don't live well?
> >Since you can't, this entire sentence must not apply to me. Who then are
you
> >fantasizing about?
> >
> >> Please try living well for a change.
> >
> >No change required.
> >
> >> Here is a clue, 90,000+ posts on Usenet is sure sign of not living
well.
> >
> >That count is incorrect.
>
> What *is* the count then?

Get back when you have an accurate one, Dave.

[S888Wheel]

<<

BTW, what's the latest on your lawsuit?


statement of damages is being mailed to Arny today. That is the first step in
a default judgement.

[George M. Middius]

S888Wheel said:

>> BTW, what's the latest on your lawsuit?

> statement of damages is being mailed to Arny today. That is the first step in
> a default judgement.

How much damages did you get?

[dave weil]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 12:38:43 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 12:01:53 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>
>> >> But for those who don't live well and don't excel at anything and are
>> >> overwhelmed by hatred and ego dismissing products out of pure
>prejudice,
>> >> accusing people of pedophilia and drug addiction and a long list of
>other
>> >> things you do on a regular basis are the only alternative.
>> >
>> >Sockpuppet Wheel, how can you say with authority that I don't live well?
>> >Since you can't, this entire sentence must not apply to me. Who then are
>you
>> >fantasizing about?
>> >
>> >> Please try living well for a change.
>> >
>> >No change required.
>> >
>> >> Here is a clue, 90,000+ posts on Usenet is sure sign of not living
>well.
>> >
>> >That count is incorrect.
>>
>> What *is* the count then?
>
>Get back when you have an accurate one, Dave.

You're the one disputing the figure, not me.

Just another thing that you can't back up, I guess.

[S888Wheel]

I said

<<
> But for those who don't live well and don't excel at anything and are
> overwhelmed by hatred and ego dismissing products out of pure prejudice,
> accusing people of pedophilia and drug addiction and a long list of other
> things you do on a regular basis are the only alternative.


<<
Sockpuppet Wheel, how can you say with authority that I don't live well?

The evidence based on your own posts strongly suggests so. I cannot help it if
you cannot follow the logic I have laid in front of you.


Arny said

<< Since you can't, this entire sentence must not apply to me.


But I can and I have and it does. I realize you aren't the sharpest knife in
the drawer Arny but my deductions based completely on your posts about yourself
are sound whether you can follow them or not.


Arny said



<< Who then are you
fantasizing about?


Trying to plagiarize me again I see.


I said


<<
> Please try living well for a change.



Arny said



<<
No change required.

Logical deductions based on information coming strictly from your posts
strongly suggest otherwise. If you cannot understand that I cannot help you. I
can lead you to the facts Any and show you the logic but I cannot make you
understand.

I said


<<
> Here is a clue, 90,000+ posts on Usenet is sure sign of not living well.



Arny said



<< That count is incorrect.

Feel free to give the most accurate count you can come up with then.


Arny said



<< Citing rough estimates as proof supporting
illogical conclusions is a sure sign of a lack of mental acuity.


Cite a substantially more accurate number Arny, say by an order of magnitude
more accurate and then we can discuss how illogical my conclusions are.

Arny said


<<
Filing ridiculous law suits is a sign of a lack of mental acuity.

Perhaps it is. We will see if the court finds a lawsuit for libel to be
ridiculous. The court is the true authority on such matters. You have proven to
be painfully ignorant on matters of law. Accusing people of pedophillia is a
sign of not living well if living well is, as you say, the best revenge. But I
have already explained this to you and you already failed to grasp the simple
logic of it. You do manage to reconfirm your claim of not being the sharpest
knife in the drawer on a daily basis.


I said


<<
>I know you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer but even you should be
able to do the math.


Arny said



<<

If you did the math sockpuppet wheel, you'd know you're wrong.


Prove it.


Arny said


<< I don't think
you can even do serious math. Got a degree in a math-related area?


You got it half right Arny. you don't think. No, I don't have a degree in a
math related area. If I had chosen to complete my degree I would have but since
I chose a vocation in another field I chose not to finish my degree. My
University does regard me as an alumnus based on the classes I did complete
there. Feel free to come up with a substantially more accurate number than
90,000 posts if you are not to embarrassed by the result.

[S888Wheel]

<<
How much damages did you get?


That will be determined by a judge and perhaps a jury if the judge finds cause
for punitive damages.

The statement of damages is a notice to the defendant of what at most may be
awarded in the default judgement. It is the first step in the proccess of a
default judgement.

[George M. Middius]

S888Wheel said:

> The statement of damages is a notice to the defendant of what at most may be
> awarded in the default judgement.

Well, come on already. How much?

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 12:38:43 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 12:01:53 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"S888Wheel" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >>
> >> >> But for those who don't live well and don't excel at anything and
are
> >> >> overwhelmed by hatred and ego dismissing products out of pure
> >prejudice,
> >> >> accusing people of pedophilia and drug addiction and a long list of
> >other
> >> >> things you do on a regular basis are the only alternative.
> >> >
> >> >Sockpuppet Wheel, how can you say with authority that I don't live
well?
> >> >Since you can't, this entire sentence must not apply to me. Who then
are
> >you
> >> >fantasizing about?
> >> >
> >> >> Please try living well for a change.
> >> >
> >> >No change required.
> >> >
> >> >> Here is a clue, 90,000+ posts on Usenet is sure sign of not living
well.

This is really a bogus attempt to reverse the meaning of readily observable
facts. While I dispute the 90,000 number, I do agree that I've made a lot of
posts to Usenet. It is exactly living well that has enabled me to do that
much writing. If I were just barely subsisting, I wouldn't have the time. If
I were just barely subsisting I wouldn't have the resources to write the
posts. I believe that there is nobody on RAO that has posted here regularly
longer than I, and of course that represents living well for a long time.

If a person thinks that posting on RAO is not living well, that means that
every post they make is sign of their own worthlessness. That being the
case, I recommend that they stop posting immediately and start living
better.


> >> >That count is incorrect.
> >>
> >> What *is* the count then?
> >
> >Get back when you have an accurate one, Dave.
>
> You're the one disputing the figure, not me.

On those occasions when I've checked such numbers, and they were large, the
actual count varied greatly from the estimate. Typically, the estimate was
very high.

> Just another thing that you can't back up, I guess.

Goggle says that its an estimate. The specific wording is uses is "about".
It's too bad that sockpuppet wheel doesn't know what "about" means in this
context, but in general he's a very ignorant dude. You don't seem to know
either Weil, and part of that is ignorance and part is hatred.

[Arny Krueger]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message
...
> I said
>
> <<
> > But for those who don't live well and don't excel at anything and are
> > overwhelmed by hatred and ego dismissing products out of pure prejudice,
> > accusing people of pedophilia and drug addiction and a long list of
other
> > things you do on a regular basis are the only alternative.
>
>
> <<
> Sockpuppet Wheel, how can you say with authority that I don't live well?
>
> The evidence based on your own posts strongly suggests so.

What evidence?

[Arny Krueger]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message
...
> <<
> How much damages did you get?
>
>
> That will be determined by a judge and perhaps a jury if the judge finds
cause
> for punitive damages.
>
> The statement of damages is a notice to the defendant of what at most may
be
> awarded in the default judgment. It is the first step in the process of a
> default judgment.

Think of it as being "Dialing For Dollars" in sockpuppet Wheel's mind. He's
obviously had a very poor life, but now he hopes he's going to hit the big
bucks by getting the court to take some money away from me.

[tor 2 u]

Arny Krueger wrote in message >:

>
> "dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 12:38:43 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"dave weil" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 12:01:53 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >"S888Wheel" > wrote in message
> > >> ...
> > >> >>
> > >> >> But for those who don't live well and don't excel at anything and
> are
> > >> >> overwhelmed by hatred and ego dismissing products out of pure
> > >prejudice,
> > >> >> accusing people of pedophilia and drug addiction and a long list of
> > >other
> > >> >> things you do on a regular basis are the only alternative.
> > >> >
> > >> >Sockpuppet Wheel, how can you say with authority that I don't live
> well?
> > >> >Since you can't, this entire sentence must not apply to me. Who then
> are
> > >you
> > >> >fantasizing about?
> > >> >
> > >> >> Please try living well for a change.
> > >> >
> > >> >No change required.
> > >> >
> > >> >> Here is a clue, 90,000+ posts on Usenet is sure sign of not living
> well.
>


Arny, why do you make such a mess in your posts? Even though I love you with
both my cheeks, I don't want to try and make sense of that mess.


> This is really a bogus attempt to reverse the meaning of readily observable
> facts. While I dispute the 90,000 number, I do agree that I've made a lot of
> posts to Usenet. It is exactly living well that has enabled me to do that
> much writing. If I were just barely subsisting, I wouldn't have the time. If
> I were just barely subsisting I wouldn't have the resources to write the
> posts. I believe that there is nobody on RAO that has posted here regularly
> longer than I, and of course that represents living well for a long time.
>
> If a person thinks that posting on RAO is not living well, that means that
> every post they make is sign of their own worthlessness. That being the
> case, I recommend that they stop posting immediately and start living
> better.
>
>

Is this kind of speech what you mean when you talk about the debating trade? I
like the way you use your logic, but aren't the steps supposed to start with
facts? Everybody knows you don't live well, but you still claim you do. I love
the fact you're online all the time doing your debating trade. But isn't
spending so much time playing with your computer pretty much the opposite of
living well?


> > >> >That count is incorrect.
> > >>
> > >> What *is* the count then?
> > >
> > >Get back when you have an accurate one, Dave.
> >
> > You're the one disputing the figure, not me.
>
> On those occasions when I've checked such numbers, and they were large, the
> actual count varied greatly from the estimate. Typically, the estimate was
> very high.
>
> > Just another thing that you can't back up, I guess.
>
> Goggle says that its an estimate.

Who is Goggle, Arny?

Who does its refer to? We learned about antecedents in school, and you left out
the antecedent of its.

Goggle says that its what is an estimate?

Sometimes I really miss your special way of talking. Do you want to fondle my
sausage?



Arny is My Kroo-Daddy

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...



>As they say, living well is the best
> revenge.
>
>

Please repost those pictures of your basement.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[S888Wheel]

Arny said



<<
> <<
> Sockpuppet Wheel, how can you say with authority that I don't live well?



I said



<<
> The evidence based on your own posts strongly suggests so.



Arny said



<<
What evidence?


Asked and answered as you would say. What part of "your own posts" was
difficult to understand?

[S888Wheel]

Arny said

<<
Think of it as being "Dialing For Dollars" in sockpuppet Wheel's mind. He's
obviously had a very poor life, but now he hopes he's going to hit the big
bucks by getting the court to take some money away from me.


Arny refers to a max of 25,000 dollars "big bucks" and he doesn't understand
when I tell him his own posts are evidence of not his living well. I'm not
saying one *needs* money to live well but it sure helps. Anyone with the sheer
quantity of venom Any shows on RAO on a daily basis and a pocketbook that would
leave him thinking 25K is big bucks is not likely to be living well. Top that
off with an admitted life of never excelling at anything and you have an
obvious formula for a **** life. I would feel sorry for you if you were a
decent person Arny.

[Arny Krueger]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message
...


> Asked and answered as you would say. What part of "your own posts" was
> difficult to understand?

The part that claims I said nothing I ever said.

[Arny Krueger]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message
...
> Arny said
>
> <<
> Think of it as being "Dialing For Dollars" in sockpuppet Wheel's mind.
He's
> obviously had a very poor life, but now he hopes he's going to hit the big
> bucks by getting the court to take some money away from me.
>
>
> Arny refers to a max of 25,000 dollars "big bucks" and he doesn't
understand
> when I tell him his own posts are evidence of not his living well.

Big bucks for you, not big bucks for me.

> I'm not saying one *needs* money to live well but it sure helps. Anyone
with the sheer
> quantity of venom Any shows on RAO on a daily basis and a pocketbook that
would
> leave him thinking 25K is big bucks is not likely to be living well.

Big bucks for you, not big bucks for me.

> Top that
> off with an admitted life of never excelling at anything and you have an
> obvious formula for a **** life.

Why don't you tell us what you think you've excelled at, sockpuppet Wheel.
Oh, I get it, you're really Bill Gates...

>I would feel sorry for you if you were a decent person Arny.

Typical of your life of self-contradiction, sockpuppet wheel.

[George M. Middius]

PD said:

> >> Arny refers to a max of 25,000 dollars "big bucks" and he doesn't understand
> >> when I tell him his own posts are evidence of not his living well.
> >
> >Big bucks for you, not big bucks for me.
>
> Is this the same guy who thought the sub $300 fee for the court case
> was an issue? The same guy who said he didn't make big bucks out of
> his PC business?

Surely you don't expect Krooger to keep track of every lie he tells.
Weaving a tapestry of fabrications as elaborate as Krooger's
dissembling is a big job. Not to mention the seizures of Krooglish,
the ever-growing enemies list, and of course the ****ing garbage on
his ****ing lawn. Be reasonable.

[tor b]

tor 2 u > wrote in message >...

<snip>

> Arny, why do you make such a mess in your posts? Even though I love you with
> both my cheeks, I don't want to try and make sense of that mess.
>
<snip>

> Sometimes I really miss your special way of talking. Do you want to fondle my
> sausage?
>
>
>
> Arny is My Kroo-Daddy

http://tinyurl.com/w619

Would you buy used land from this guy? ;-)

[S888Wheel]

I said

<<
> Asked and answered as you would say. What part of "your own posts" was
> difficult to understand?


Arny said


<<
The part that claims I said nothing I ever said.


What would that be Arny?

[S888Wheel]

<< > Arny said
>
> <<
> Think of it as being "Dialing For Dollars" in sockpuppet Wheel's mind.
He's
> obviously had a very poor life, but now he hopes he's going to hit the big
> bucks by getting the court to take some money away from me.


I said


<<
>
> Arny refers to a max of 25,000 dollars "big bucks" and he doesn't
understand
> when I tell him his own posts are evidence of not his living well.


Arny said



<<

Big bucks for you, not big bucks for me.



More fantasies. If 25,000 isn't big bucks for you why is it you didn't want to
spend a fraction of that to defend yourself in court?



I said



<<
> I'm not saying one *needs* money to live well but it sure helps. Anyone
with the sheer
> quantity of venom Any shows on RAO on a daily basis and a pocketbook that
would
> leave him thinking 25,000 is big bucks is not likely to be living well.


Arny said



<<
Big bucks for you, not big bucks for me.



Keep telling yourself that Arny. It might make you feel better about your
miserable existence if you can con yourself into believing it.


I said


<<
> Top that
> off with an admitted life of never excelling at anything and you have an
> obvious formula for a **** life.



Arny said



<<
Why don't you tell us what you think you've excelled at,


Arny, I have explained this to you over and over again. But, since you are not
the sharpest knife in the drawer I will explain it to you again. I personally
don't think an audio forum is the place for me to brag about my accomplishments
and abilities. They are not in any way audio related. It would be vulgar to
brag about such things on RAO. Second, I believe it is a bad idea in general to
freely offer up personal information at the request of someone whose intentions
are purely malicious. Nothing good can come from divulging personal information
to such a person. That is clearly the case here. Obviously your only interest
in my personal life is based completely in malice.


Arny said



<< Oh, I get it, you're really Bill Gates...


Clearly you don't get it. If you can't remember I am Scott Wheeler I suggest
you reread the lawsuit that has been filed against you for libel.

I said


<<
>I would feel sorry for you if you were a decent person Arny.


Arny said



<<
Typical of your life of self-contradiction, sockpuppet wheel.

Obviously more malicious fantasies given the fact that you don't know much of
anything about my life.

[Arny Krueger]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message
...
>
> <<
> Why don't you tell us what you think you've excelled at,
>
>
> Arny, I have explained this to you over and over again. But, since you are
not
> the sharpest knife in the drawer I will explain it to you again. I
personally
> don't think an audio forum is the place for me to brag about my
accomplishments
> and abilities. They are not in any way audio related. It would be vulgar
to
> brag about such things on RAO. Second, I believe it is a bad idea in
general to
> freely offer up personal information at the request of someone whose
intentions
> are purely malicious. Nothing good can come from divulging personal
information
> to such a person. That is clearly the case here. Obviously your only
interest
> in my personal life is based completely in malice.

Smoke and mirrors. Ever consider a life in politics?

LOL!

[S888Wheel]

Arny said

<<
> <<
> Why don't you tell us what you think you've excelled at,



I said

<<
> Arny, I have explained this to you over and over again. But, since you are
not
> the sharpest knife in the drawer I will explain it to you again. I
personally
> don't think an audio forum is the place for me to brag about my
accomplishments
> and abilities. They are not in any way audio related. It would be vulgar
to
> brag about such things on RAO. Second, I believe it is a bad idea in
general to
> freely offer up personal information at the request of someone whose
intentions
> are purely malicious. Nothing good can come from divulging personal
information
> to such a person. That is clearly the case here. Obviously your only
interest
> in my personal life is based completely in malice.


Arny said


Smoke and mirrors. Ever consider a life in politics?

LOL!



That doesn't even make sense Arny. Smoke and mirrors infers that I am
presenting an illusion. What illusion would that be Arny? While you are busy
with that question here are few you have yet to answer. What is a more accurate
number for how many posts you have made on Usenet than over 90,000? If you
don't have a more accurate number how do you know over 90,000 is not accurate?
If living well is the best revenge why do you seek revenge by making false
accusations of pedophilia and drug addiction, both of which are libel per se
and actionable? If $25,000.00 dollars isn't "big bucks" in your view why do you
keep referring to it as big bucks? If $25,000.00 isn't big bucks then why
didn't you spend a fraction of that to defend yourself against what you have
called a frivolous lawsuit? What specific things have I claimed you have said
that you deny saying? You have failed to answer all of these questions. Let's
see if you can do better this time.






>><BR><BR>

[Arny Krueger]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message
...
> Arny said
>
> <<
> > <<
> > Why don't you tell us what you think you've excelled at,
>
>
>
> I said
>
> <<
> > Arny, I have explained this to you over and over again. But, since you
are not
> > the sharpest knife in the drawer I will explain it to you again. I
personally
> > don't think an audio forum is the place for me to brag about my
accomplishments
> > and abilities. They are not in any way audio related. It would be vulgar
to
> > brag about such things on RAO. Second, I believe it is a bad idea in
general to
> > freely offer up personal information at the request of someone whose
intentions
> > are purely malicious. Nothing good can come from divulging personal
information
> > to such a person. That is clearly the case here. Obviously your only
interest
> > in my personal life is based completely in malice.

> Arny said

> Smoke and mirrors. Ever consider a life in politics?

> LOL!

> That doesn't even make sense Arny.

Lack of reasoning powers noted. BTW that's one reason why I'm sure that
you're hiding your pathetic life from us sockpuppet Wheel. With your
reasoning powers and a million dollars, it wouldn't be too long before
there's nothing left but your reasoning powers. We could play a game on RAO
called who has less brain power, sockpuppet Yustabe or sockpuppet wheel.
Sort of like battle of the dueling evacuated craniums.

> Smoke and mirrors infers that I am presenting an illusion. What illusion
would that be Arny?

The illusion that you have and are more than you seem to be, sockpuppet
wheel.

> While you are busy with that question here are few you have yet to
answer.

I've no doubt already answered them, but the answers shot over your vacant
little skull, sockpuppet wheel.

> What is a more accurate
> number for how many posts you have made on Usenet than over 90,000?


None of my concern. I'm here to make posts, not count my own posts.

> If you don't have a more accurate number how do you know over 90,000 is
not accurate?

Asked and answered, and since you've got a memory about 10 seconds long
sockuppet wheel, as well as the reasoning powers of a carrot, I'll lay it
out again.

(1) I've compared Google estimates to actual counts and found that the
google counts tend to run way high.
(2) I've no interest other than honor in the truth that causes me to point
out these relevant facts. Let's face it, not many people have the ability or
the time to make 10,000's of posts. If I was a wage slave like many, I
wouldn't be able to take a few minutes here, a few minutes there to make
Usenet posts.

> If living well is the best revenge why do you seek revenge by making false
> accusations of pedophilia and drug addiction, both of which are libel per
se
> and actionable?

Because I'd like to see you bury yourself in legal expenses, sockpuppet
wheel. It takes a combination of arrogance and stupidity to make that
mistake, but I think you qualify on both counts.

>If $25,000.00 dollars isn't "big bucks" in your view why do you
> keep referring to it as big bucks?

Because I'm dealing with a person namely yourself sockpuppet wheel, who is
mentally impoverished. Unless you're a trust fund baby, it's probable that
you're economically impoverished as well. You have demonstrated no
particular skills on Usenet other than arrogance, stupidity, inability to
reason, inability to take direction, lack of practical experience, and an
absence of a decent education in any area of science.

> If $25,000.00 isn't big bucks then why
> didn't you spend a fraction of that to defend yourself against what you
have
> called a frivolous lawsuit?

Your inability to appreciate irony is noted, sockpuppet wheel.

>What specific things have I claimed you have said
> that you deny saying?

Nothing.

>You have failed to answer all of these questions.

No, you were just too stupid to understand the answers you've been given
thusfar, sockpuppet wheel.

>Let's see if you can do better this time.

I think I included a better explanation of your practical worthlessness,
sockpuppet wheel. I hope you appreciate it.

[S888Wheel]

<< > Arny said
>
> <<
> > <<
> > Why don't you tell us what you think you've excelled at,


<< > I said
>
> <<
> > Arny, I have explained this to you over and over again. But, since you
are not
> > the sharpest knife in the drawer I will explain it to you again. I
personally
> > don't think an audio forum is the place for me to brag about my
accomplishments
> > and abilities. They are not in any way audio related. It would be vulgar
to
> > brag about such things on RAO. Second, I believe it is a bad idea in
general to
> > freely offer up personal information at the request of someone whose
intentions
> > are purely malicious. Nothing good can come from divulging personal
information
> > to such a person. That is clearly the case here. Obviously your only
interest
> > in my personal life is based completely in malice.

> Arny said

> Smoke and mirrors. Ever consider a life in politics?

> LOL!


I said


> That doesn't even make sense Arny.


Arny said



Lack of reasoning powers noted.



Arny, you have it backwards. When you say something nonsensical you are the one
demonstrating a lack of reasoning powers. I am simply pointing this out to you.


Arny said


BTW that's one reason why I'm sure that
you're hiding your pathetic life from us sockpuppet Wheel. With your
reasoning powers and a million dollars, it wouldn't be too long before
there's nothing left but your reasoning powers.



Wow, more malicious fantasies. Of course when I offered to compare IQ scores
you showed no interest. The fact of the matter is we can both go to our local
MENSA locations and take a standardized IQ test and compare scores with no
possibility of fraud. I'm sure you will find some bull**** excuse not to do
this. You have shown nothing but fear when it comes to real world verification
of claims.


Arny said


We could play a game on RAO
called who has less brain power, sockpuppet Yustabe or sockpuppet wheel.
Sort of like battle of the dueling evacuated craniums.


Or we could play the game in the real world and take those standardized IQ
tests and compare scores. Let's see Arny spin his excuses for avoiding real
world verification of his claims.

I said


<<
> Smoke and mirrors infers that I am presenting an illusion. What illusion
would that be Arny?


Arny said


<<
The illusion that you have and are more than you seem to be, sockpuppet
wheel.

Arny, you are still having trouble with simple logic. Specifically cite what I
actually have and actually am and compare and contrast it with what I seem to
be and seem to have. Any honest attempts on your part would clearly demonstrate
that your allusion to smoke and mirrors has no merit. Of course I don't expect
any honest attempt from you to compare and contrast what I actually have and
am, since you have no idea, to what I seem to be, due to your proven skewed
perception. But give it a try. I can use the laugh.

I said


<<
> While you are busy with that question here are few you have yet to
answer.


Arny said


<<
I've no doubt already answered them, but the answers shot over your vacant
little skull, sockpuppet wheel.


That's a lie.

I said


<<
> What is a more accurate
> number for how many posts you have made on Usenet than over 90,000?


Arny said


<<
None of my concern.

if it is none of your concern then why deny it's accuracy?

Arny said


<< I'm here to make posts, not count my own posts.


You may think you were put on earth to make posts and your behavior would
support the notion that you believe this but by my standards such a belief
would inherently support my assertion that you are not living well at all. By
the way. This is not an answer to the question. So you lied when you said you
have already answered the questions posted.

Arny said


<<
Asked and answered,


Asked but never answered. You lie again.


Arny said


<< I'll lay it
out again.

(1) I've compared Google estimates to actual counts and found that the
google counts tend to run way high.
(2) I've no interest other than honor in the truth that causes me to point
out these relevant facts. Let's face it, not many people have the ability or
the time to make 10,000's of posts. If I was a wage slave like many, I
wouldn't be able to take a few minutes here, a few minutes there to make
Usenet posts.

None of these claims proves in any way that the number 90,000 is in any way
inaccurate by the way if you made slave wage it would be more wages than what
you make now would it not? I agree that not many people have the time to make
tens of thousands of posts. Clearly you do. That is evidence of not living
well. That was the point to begin with.


I said


<<

> If living well is the best revenge why do you seek revenge by making false
> accusations of pedophilia and drug addiction, both of which are libel per
se
> and actionable?


Arny said


<<
Because I'd like to see you bury yourself in legal expenses, sockpuppet
wheel. It takes a combination of arrogance and stupidity to make that
mistake, but I think you qualify on both counts.


what a load of bull****. Taking a default is the best way to be sure my legal
expenses are kept to a minimum. What an obvious transparent lie. If it were
your intent to bury me in legal expenses and $25,000.00 weren't big bucks for
you, you would have had your alleged long winded attorney file that $1,000,00
answer along with a slew of other motions. That could have run up my legal
expenses. As it stands my legal expenses are limited to the cost of filing and
will remain so all the way through final judgment. You can't keep up with your
own lies any. Maybe you should keep a log of them to avoid so much egg on your
face. Did you ever stop and think about what you were saying in this post? lets
review. i asked if living well is the best revenge why do you seek revenge by
making false accusations of pedophilia and drug addiction, both of which are
libel per se. You answer "Because I'd like to see you bury yourself in legal
expenses," if that isn't pure sociopathic behavior what is? Do you realize that
you have said you accused me of pedophilia and drug addiction with the
intention of running up a legal bill? So much for living well as revenge.

I said


<<
>If $25,000.00 dollars isn't "big bucks" in your view why do you
> keep referring to it as big bucks?


Arny said


<<
Because I'm dealing with a person namely yourself sockpuppet wheel, who is
mentally impoverished. Unless you're a trust fund baby, it's probable that
you're economically impoverished as well.


So you continually refer to $25,000.00 as "big bucks" because you like to
fantasize that I am economically impoverished. So much for living well being
the best revenge. You seem to be simply projecting your own economic status and
anger over that status. Your track record of attacking equipment based on price
would further support this notion. It is an obvious sign of class envy.


Arny said



<< You have demonstrated no
particular skills on Usenet other than arrogance, stupidity, inability to
reason, inability to take direction, lack of practical experience, and an
absence of a decent education in any area of science.


Interesting that you would refer to arrogance and stupidity as skills. But that
makes sense given your admission of not being the sharpest knife in the drawer.
I'm not sure how you can support your claim that I am arrogant when I have
refrained from ever bragging about anything despite your constant request for
me to cite my talents and accomplishments in life. Most people would see that
as humility. Feel free to try to prove any of your assertions about my lack of
education in any area of science.


I said


<<
> If $25,000.00 isn't big bucks then why
> didn't you spend a fraction of that to defend yourself against what you
have
> called a frivolous lawsuit?


Arny said


<<
Your inability to appreciate irony is noted, sockpuppet wheel.


I appreciate the irony of your tap dance around reality.

I said


<<
>What specific things have I claimed you have said
> that you deny saying?


Arny said


<<
Nothing.


Obviously you need to keep a log of your bull**** then. Here is what i said and
you said in this thread;
I said "What part of "your own posts" was difficult to understand?"
You said "The part that claims I said nothing I ever said."


I said


<<
>You have failed to answer all of these questions.


Arny said


<<
No,

Yes, and your failure to do so goes uninterrupted.


Arny said


<< you were just too stupid to understand the answers you've been given
thusfar, sockpuppet wheel.


If you really believe this Arny then lets take the standard MENSA test and
compare scores.

Arny said



<<
I think I included a better explanation of your practical worthlessness,
sockpuppet wheel. I hope you appreciate it.



You have done nothing but lie and fantasize about others living as ****ty a
life as the evidence suggests you are living.

[Arny Krueger]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message
...
> << > Arny said
> >
> > <<
> > > <<
> > > Why don't you tell us what you think you've excelled at,
>
>
> << > I said
> >
> > <<
> > > Arny, I have explained this to you over and over again. But, since you
are not
> > > the sharpest knife in the drawer I will explain it to you again. I
personally
> > > don't think an audio forum is the place for me to brag about my
accomplishments
> > > and abilities. They are not in any way audio related. It would be
vulgar to
> > > brag about such things on RAO. Second, I believe it is a bad idea in
general to
> > > freely offer up personal information at the request of someone whose
intentions
> > > are purely malicious. Nothing good can come from divulging personal
information
> > > to such a person. That is clearly the case here. Obviously your only
interest
> > > in my personal life is based completely in malice.
>
> > Arny said
>
> > Smoke and mirrors. Ever consider a life in politics?
>
> > LOL!
>
>
> I said
>
>
> > That doesn't even make sense Arny.
>
>
> Arny said
>
>
>
> Lack of reasoning powers noted.
>
>
>
> Arny, you have it backwards. When you say something nonsensical you are
the one
> demonstrating a lack of reasoning powers. I am simply pointing this out to
you.

Unfortunately when you point sockpuppet wheel, the entity ultimately pointed
to is you.

> Arny said

> BTW that's one reason why I'm sure that
> you're hiding your pathetic life from us sockpuppet Wheel. With your
> reasoning powers and a million dollars, it wouldn't be too long before
> there's nothing left but your reasoning powers.

> Wow, more malicious fantasies.

Not a fantasy, a prediction.

> Of course when I offered to compare IQ scores
> you showed no interest.

I can therefore quote you as saying that there is no such thing as a person
with high IQ scores, and poor practical reasoning powers, sockpuppet wheel.
This is obviously ********. The finger points back at you, sockpuppet wheel.

>The fact of the matter is we can both go to our local
> MENSA locations and take a standardized IQ test and compare scores with no
> possibility of fraud.

I know a number of people with high Mensa IQ scores that are struggling in
their lives. If you are unaware of the real possibility of such things the
finger points back at you, sockpuppet wheel.

> I'm sure you will find some bull**** excuse not to do
> this. You have shown nothing but fear when it comes to real world
verification
> of claims.

You have no claims to verify, sockpuppet wheel. Therefore this argument is
********. The finger points back at you, sockpuppet wheel.

> Arny said/

> We could play a game on RAO
> called who has less brain power, sockpuppet Yustabe or sockpuppet wheel.
> Sort of like battle of the dueling evacuated craniums.

> Or we could play the game in the real world and take those standardized IQ
> tests and compare scores. Let's see Arny spin his excuses for avoiding
real
> world verification of his claims.

I think that we have plenty of evidence of your inability to reason properly
in the real world with all this wailing and gnashing of teeth by you about
IQ scores, sockpuppet wheel.

> I said

> <<
> > Smoke and mirrors infers that I am presenting an illusion. What
illusion
> would that be Arny?

> Arny said
<<
> The illusion that you have and are more than you seem to be, sockpuppet
> wheel.

> Arny, you are still having trouble with simple logic.

Yes, I can see through the simplistic posturing that passes for logic in
your life, sockpuppet wheel.

> Specifically cite what I
> actually have and actually am and compare and contrast it with what I seem
to
> be and seem to have.

See your recent comments about the universal and transcendent correctness of
Mensa IQ scores. Anybody with common sense knows that IQ test scores predict
or signify very little in life as long as they are high enough to indicate
at least slightly above-average intelligence.

>Any honest attempts on your part would clearly demonstrate
> that your allusion to smoke and mirrors has no merit. Of course I don't
expect
> any honest attempt from you to compare and contrast what I actually have
and
> am, since you have no idea, to what I seem to be, due to your proven
skewed
> perception. But give it a try. I can use the laugh.

Scokpuppet wheel, we need only look at your naive writing and circular logic
to see that you are a person who is in love with his navel. A person that
has to be literally beaten over the head before you can the clearest
possible error in your own thinking.

I said
>
>
> <<
> > While you are busy with that question here are few you have yet to
> answer.
>
>
> Arny said
>
>
> <<
> I've no doubt already answered them, but the answers shot over your vacant
> little skull, sockpuppet wheel.
>
>
> That's a lie.

It's self-evident.

> I said
>
>
> <<
> > What is a more accurate
> > number for how many posts you have made on Usenet than over 90,000?
>
>
> Arny said
>
>
> <<
> None of my concern.

> if it is none of your concern then why deny it's accuracy?

Just trying to encourage a factual look at things.

> Arny said
>
>
> << I'm here to make posts, not count my own posts.

> You may think you were put on earth to make posts and your behavior would
> support the notion that you believe this but by my standards such a belief
> would inherently support my assertion that you are not living well at all.
By
> the way. This is not an answer to the question. So you lied when you said
you
> have already answered the questions posted.

Inability to distinguish between all of the earth and RAO noted.

> Arny said
>
>
> <<
> Asked and answered,
>
>
> Asked but never answered. You lie again.

Enjoy!

> Arny said
>
>
> << I'll lay it
> out again.

> (1) I've compared Google estimates to actual counts and found that the
> google counts tend to run way high.

> (2) I've no interest other than honor in the truth that causes me to point
> out these relevant facts. Let's face it, not many people have the ability
or
> the time to make 10,000's of posts. If I was a wage slave like many, I
> wouldn't be able to take a few minutes here, a few minutes there to make
> Usenet posts.

> None of these claims proves in any way that the number 90,000 is in any
way
> inaccurate

Shows your inability to reason by induction, sockpuppet wheel.

> by the way if you made slave wage it would be more wages than what
> you make now would it not?

I can't predict the future. Actually, had I remained a wage slave a little
longer on my last job, I'd be retired with a nice pension by now. I consider
not being retired to be a benefit.

>I agree that not many people have the time to make
> tens of thousands of posts. Clearly you do.

So far so good.

> That is evidence of not living well.

How so?

> That was the point to begin with.

But its just another one of your baseless assertions, sockpuppet wheel.

> I said

> > If living well is the best revenge why do you seek revenge by making
false
> > accusations of pedophilia and drug addiction, both of which are libel
per se
> > and actionable?

> Arny said

> Because I'd like to see you bury yourself in legal expenses, sockpuppet
> wheel. It takes a combination of arrogance and stupidity to make that
> mistake, but I think you qualify on both counts.

> what a load of bull****.

But its just another one of your baseless assertions, sockpuppet wheel.

> Taking a default is the best way to be sure my legal
> expenses are kept to a minimum.

Minimum and small are not the same thing, sockpuppet Wheel.

> What an obvious transparent lie.

Just another one of your baseless assertions, sockpuppet wheel.


> If it were
> your intent to bury me in legal expenses and $25,000.00 weren't big bucks
for
> you, you would have had your alleged long winded attorney file that
$1,000,00
> answer along with a slew of other motions.

Just another one of your baseless assertions, sockpuppet wheel.


> That could have run up my legal expenses.

I suspect you'll do just fine without my help.

> As it stands my legal expenses are limited to the cost of filing and
> will remain so all the way through final judgment.

Just another one of your baseless assertions, sockpuppet wheel.


>You can't keep up with your
> own lies any. Maybe you should keep a log of them to avoid so much egg on
your
> face. Did you ever stop and think about what you were saying in this post?
lets
> review. i asked if living well is the best revenge why do you seek revenge
by
> making false accusations of pedophilia and drug addiction, both of which
are
> libel per se. You answer "Because I'd like to see you bury yourself in
legal
> expenses," if that isn't pure sociopathic behavior what is?

Your actions show considerable signs of sociopathic tendencies, sockpuppet
wheel. The secretiveness, the punitive attitude, the inability to recognize
even the clearest of errors, I could go on and on.

>Do you realize that
> you have said you accused me of pedophilia and drug addiction with the
> intention of running up a legal bill?

That would be a typically sociopathic deceptive rewording of what I actually
said, sockpuppet wheel.

>So much for living well as revenge.


Just another one of your baseless assertions, sockpuppet wheel.


> I said
>
>
> <<
> >If $25,000.00 dollars isn't "big bucks" in your view why do you
> > keep referring to it as big bucks?
>
>
> Arny said
>
>
> <<
> Because I'm dealing with a person namely yourself sockpuppet wheel, who is
> mentally impoverished. Unless you're a trust fund baby, it's probable that
> you're economically impoverished as well.




> So you continually refer to $25,000.00 as "big bucks" because you like to
> fantasize that I am economically impoverished.

Why not prove me wrong?

> So much for living well being
> the best revenge. You seem to be simply projecting your own economic
status and
> anger over that status.

Just another one of your baseless assertions, sockpuppet wheel.


> Your track record of attacking equipment based on price
> would further support this notion. It is an obvious sign of class envy.

Why would I be envious of a person who demonstrates none of the trappings of
class? Sockpuppet Wheel. You demonstrate no signs of education beyond your
fourth-grade writing ability, no sign of having a job, no sign of ever
having had a career, no evidence of owning any property, and plenty of signs
of sociopathic and self-destructive leanings.



> Arny said

> << You have demonstrated no
> particular skills on Usenet other than arrogance, stupidity, inability to
> reason, inability to take direction, lack of practical experience, and an
> absence of a decent education in any area of science.

> Interesting that you would refer to arrogance and stupidity as skills.

I believe that a person has to be trained to be as highly arrogant and act
as stupid as you do, sockpuppet wheel. People don't get that fouled up
without help.

> But that makes sense given your admission of not being the sharpest knife
in the drawer.

Sockpuppet wheel, if you can't bear to admit that you're not the smartest
person in the world, that would be your problem. I don't have that problem.

> I'm not sure how you can support your claim that I am arrogant when I have
> refrained from ever bragging about anything despite your constant request
for
> me to cite my talents and accomplishments in life.

It's clear that you are embarrassed about your place in life, sockpuppet
wheel. You can only conceive of it being used against you.

>Most people would see that as humility.

Unhhh, false humility.

> Feel free to try to prove any of your assertions about my lack of
> education in any area of science.

Your various Usenet audio writings are proof enough for any reasonable
person, sockpuppet wheel.

> I said

> <<
> > If $25,000.00 isn't big bucks then why
> > didn't you spend a fraction of that to defend yourself against what you
> have
> > called a frivolous lawsuit?
>
>
> Arny said

> <<
> Your inability to appreciate irony is noted, sockpuppet wheel.

> I appreciate the irony of your tap dance around reality.

Sockpuppet wheel, you don't define reality, even though you clearly think
you do.

> I said
>
>
> <<
> >What specific things have I claimed you have said
> > that you deny saying?
>
>
> Arny said

> <<
> Nothing.

> Obviously you need to keep a log of your bull**** then. Here is what i
said and
> you said in this thread;
> I said "What part of "your own posts" was difficult to understand?"
> You said "The part that claims I said nothing I ever said."

> I said
>
>
> <<
> >You have failed to answer all of these questions.
>
>
> Arny said
>
>
> <<
> No,
>
> Yes, and your failure to do so goes uninterrupted.
>
>
> Arny said
>
>
> << you were just too stupid to understand the answers you've been given
> thusfar, sockpuppet wheel.
>
>
> If you really believe this Arny then lets take the standard MENSA test and
> compare scores.
>
> Arny said
>
>
>
> <<
> I think I included a better explanation of your practical worthlessness,
> sockpuppet wheel. I hope you appreciate it.

> You have done nothing but lie and fantasize about others living as ****ty
a
> life as the evidence suggests you are living.

What evidence might that be? I'm talking evidence here, not your weird
speculations, sockpuppet wheel.

[S888Wheel]

<<
> Arny said

> BTW that's one reason why I'm sure that
> you're hiding your pathetic life from us sockpuppet Wheel. With your
> reasoning powers and a million dollars, it wouldn't be too long before
> there's nothing left but your reasoning powers.


I said

<<
> Wow, more malicious fantasies.


Arny said


<<
Not a fantasy, a prediction.


I see. you are now claiming to be a psychic. No Arny. As yogi Barra once said
"predictions are hard to make, especially about the future." There is nothing
to predict. You might have said you were speculating. But it is quite obvious
that you wish my life were pathetic. Hence you are fanatsizing.

I said


<<
> Of course when I offered to compare IQ scores
> you showed no interest.



Arny said


<<
I can therefore quote you as saying that there is no such thing as a person
with high IQ scores, and poor practical reasoning powers, sockpuppet wheel.
This is obviously ********. The finger points back at you, sockpuppet wheel.


Yes Arny, you may quote me when I actually say something and this is what i
will say to your question. Yes i believe people with high scores on the MENSA
standard IQ test have better than poor practical reasoning powers. Some of them
may be lazy in exercising those powers in practical matters but said powers of
reason are very unlikely to actually be poor. I guess this means you don't want
to compare IQs using a standard test in the real world. That figures.

I said


<<
>The fact of the matter is we can both go to our local
> MENSA locations and take a standardized IQ test and compare scores with no
> possibility of fraud.



Arny said


<<
I know a number of people with high Mensa IQ scores that are struggling in
their lives. If you are unaware of the real possibility of such things the
finger points back at you, sockpuppet wheel.


Nice straw man. You challenged my ability to reason and I offered a means of
comparing our IQs in the real world without the likelyhood of fraud. I never
said that people with high IQs never struggle in their personal lives.
Obviously you don't want to compare IQs under fair real world conditions. I
think this shows your attacks on my powers of reason are nothing but bull****.
I predicted you would try to use some lame rationalization to avoid a real
world comparison of IQs. But you don't get the difference between a prediction
and fantasization.

I said


<<
> I'm sure you will find some bull**** excuse not to do
> this. You have shown nothing but fear when it comes to real world
verification
> of claims.


Arny said


<<
You have no claims to verify, sockpuppet wheel.


Sure I do.

Arny said


<< Therefore this argument is
********. The finger points back at you, sockpuppet wheel.


See above on the subject of predictions.


<<
> Arny said/

> We could play a game on RAO
> called who has less brain power, sockpuppet Yustabe or sockpuppet wheel.
> Sort of like battle of the dueling evacuated craniums.



I said



<<
> Or we could play the game in the real world and take those standardized IQ
> tests and compare scores. Let's see Arny spin his excuses for avoiding
real
> world verification of his claims.



Arny said



<<
I think that we have plenty of evidence of your inability to reason properly
in the real world with all this wailing and gnashing of teeth by you about
IQ scores, sockpuppet wheel.

We? You got a frog in your pocket? You are the only one making claims about my
powers of reason Arny and you are clearly to chicken **** to compare your
powers of reason with mine in a real world standard test. As I predicted.

[S888Wheel]

<<
> I said

> <<
> > Smoke and mirrors infers that I am presenting an illusion. What
illusion
> would that be Arny?


<<
> Arny said
<<
> The illusion that you have and are more than you seem to be, sockpuppet
> wheel.

I said


<<
> Arny, you are still having trouble with simple logic.


Arny said


<<
Yes, I can see through the simplistic posturing that passes for logic in
your life, sockpuppet wheel.


You are all talk Arny. Clearly you don't want to put your talk to the test in
the real world. You are a joke.

I said


<<
> Specifically cite what I
> actually have and actually am and compare and contrast it with what I seem
to
> be and seem to have.

Arny said


<<
See your recent comments about the universal and transcendent correctness of
Mensa IQ scores.

No Arny I see no such comments. You are fantasizing again. Quote any claim I
have made about "the universal and transcendent correctness of MENSA IQ tests."
You are full of it as usual.


Arny said


<< Anybody with common sense knows that IQ test scores predict
or signify very little in life as long as they are high enough to indicate
at least slightly above-average intelligence.

Now you are making specific claims about IQ tests. Claims that are clearly way
off the mark. Claims one would expect to be made by someone who doesn't do so
well on such tests. But you aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer. Prove your
claims about IQ tests.

I said


<<
>Any honest attempts on your part would clearly demonstrate
> that your allusion to smoke and mirrors has no merit. Of course I don't
expect
> any honest attempt from you to compare and contrast what I actually have
and
> am, since you have no idea, to what I seem to be, due to your proven
skewed
> perception. But give it a try. I can use the laugh.


Arny said


<<
Scokpuppet wheel, we need only look at your naive writing and circular logic
to see that you are a person who is in love with his navel. A person that
has to be literally beaten over the head before you can the clearest
possible error in your own thinking.


As I predicted. You couldn't begin to compare and contrast what I actually have
and actually am with what "I seem to be," all you could offer was pure
prejudiced conjecture with zero supportive evidence.

[dave weil]

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:26:48 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>> Of course when I offered to compare IQ scores
>> you showed no interest.
>
>I can therefore quote you as saying that there is no such thing as a person
>with high IQ scores, and poor practical reasoning powers, sockpuppet wheel.
>This is obviously ********.

Why yes it is, Arnold.

It is complete ******** what you write here.

Back to Logic 101 to you.

BTW, I got my VCR in the mail today. Thanks to RAO, thanks to the RAO
poster, but no thanks to you, who didn't have *anything constructive
in the way of help.

[S888Wheel]

<<
I said
>
>
> <<
> > While you are busy with that question here are few you have yet to
> answer.
>
>
> Arny said
>
>
> <<
> I've no doubt already answered them, but the answers shot over your vacant
> little skull, sockpuppet wheel.

I said


<<
> That's a lie.


Arny said


<<
It's self-evident.


As are most of your lies. Thanks for the admission.


<<
> I said
>
>
> <<
> > What is a more accurate
> > number for how many posts you have made on Usenet than over 90,000?
>
>
> Arny said
>
>
> <<
> None of my concern.

I said


<<
> if it is none of your concern then why deny it's accuracy?


Arny said


<<
Just trying to encourage a factual look at things.


Maybe you should start with yourself. Look at the facts about your volume of
Usenet posts over the years and correct any factual mistakes in the number as
it stands.



<<
> Arny said
>
>
> << I'm here to make posts, not count my own posts.


I said


<<
> You may think you were put on earth to make posts and your behavior would
> support the notion that you believe this but by my standards such a belief
> would inherently support my assertion that you are not living well at all.
By
> the way. This is not an answer to the question. So you lied when you said
you
> have already answered the questions posted.

Arny said


<<
Inability to distinguish between all of the earth and RAO noted.


You said you were "here" to make posts. You didn't say RAO so there was nothing
to distinguish.

I said


<<
> by the way if you made slave wage it would be more wages than what
> you make now would it not?

Arny said


<<
I can't predict the future. Actually, had I remained a wage slave a little
longer on my last job, I'd be retired with a nice pension by now. I consider
not being retired to be a benefit.

Failure once again to answer a question noted. By the way, people with ample
money can choose either to retire or not retire as they wish. Not being retired
may be a benefit, not being able to may not be.

I said


<<
>I agree that not many people have the time to make
> tens of thousands of posts. Clearly you do.


Arny said


<<
So far so good.

I said


<<

> That is evidence of not living well.


Arny said



<<
How so?

Living well is subjective. By my subjective view the time spent slaying
windmills through 90,000 plus posts precludes the time to do the things in life
that I would say are necessary elements of living well. The venom in your
typical post is a powerful indicator of tremendous bitterness. Such bitterness
is strong evidence of not living well.

I said


<<
> That was the point to begin with.


Arny said


<<
But its just another one of your baseless assertions, sockpuppet wheel.

baseless assertions seem to be your province arny. I have supported my
assertions with facts and logic. Your failure to recognize that is more
evidence of your disconnect with reality. Nothing more, nothing less.

[S888Wheel]

<<
> I said

> > If living well is the best revenge why do you seek revenge by making
false
> > accusations of pedophilia and drug addiction, both of which are libel
per se
> > and actionable?


<<
> Arny said

> Because I'd like to see you bury yourself in legal expenses, sockpuppet
> wheel. It takes a combination of arrogance and stupidity to make that
> mistake, but I think you qualify on both counts.


I said


<<
> what a load of bull****

Arny said


<<
But its just another one of your baseless assertions, sockpuppet wheel.


Prove it.


I said


<<
> Taking a default is the best way to be sure my legal
> expenses are kept to a minimum.



Arny said


<<
Minimum and small are not the same thing, sockpuppet Wheel.

in this case they clearly are. Or do you think the cost of filing a lawsuit in
California Superior Court is not "small?" Remember what you are now claiming
about $25,000,00.

I said


<<
> What an obvious transparent lie.


Arny said


<<
Just another one of your baseless assertions, sockpuppet wheel.

Do you even think before you start going through your repetitive bull****? Is
the cost of filing a lawsuit not small if $25,000.00 isn't big bucks for you?
You can't even keep track of your bull**** it is so mountainous.

I said


<<
> If it were
> your intent to bury me in legal expenses and $25,000.00 weren't big bucks
for
> you, you would have had your alleged long winded attorney file that
$1,000,00
> answer along with a slew of other motions.

Arny said


<<
Just another one of your baseless assertions, sockpuppet wheel.


Your pathology of bull**** does become more clear here. Once you have been
proven a liar you just start repeating one phrase that has no support.

I said


<<
> That could have run up my legal expenses.

Arny said


<< I suspect you'll do just fine without my help.

But you just said it was your intention to run up my legal bill. Unless you
think the cost of filing a lawsuit is a lot of money you have failed. Now you
seem to be backpedaling once your previous lies have been shown to contradict
your current lies.

Arny said


<<
> As it stands my legal expenses are limited to the cost of filing and
> will remain so all the way through final judgment.



Arny said



<<
Just another one of your baseless assertions, sockpuppet wheel.

Your melt down is now in full scale. Your pathology of repeating unsupported
denials of everything actually has you claiming that my assessment of my
expenses are baseless assertions. As if I didn't know what my expenses have
been so far.

I said


<< >You can't keep up with your
> own lies any. Maybe you should keep a log of them to avoid so much egg on
your
> face. Did you ever stop and think about what you were saying in this post?
lets
> review. I asked if living well is the best revenge why do you seek revenge
by
> making false accusations of pedophilia and drug addiction, both of which
are
> libel per se. You answer "Because I'd like to see you bury yourself in
legal
> expenses," if that isn't pure sociopathic behavior what is?

Arny said


<<
Your actions show considerable signs of sociopathic tendencies, sockpuppet
wheel. The secretiveness, the punitive attitude, the inability to recognize
even the clearest of errors, I could go on and on.


You are so exposed it is laughable. You have no answer to the facts above.

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> We could play a game on RAO
> called who has less brain power, sockpuppet Yustabe or sockpuppet wheel.
>

I am still waiting for you to answer my IQ challenge.
Strictly for bragging rights.
but you have been silent on the matter.
If you beat me, I shall willingly complement you on an outstanding
achievement




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[George M. Middius]

S888Wheel said:

> You are so exposed it is laughable. You have no answer to the facts above.

If you think Mr. **** will stop arguing, you don't understand the
"debating trade". My prediction: Turdy will now start yakking about
your "proven lies", and when you ask for a list, you'll get "asked and
answered" or "been there done that".

[Bruce J. Richman]

George M. Middius wrote:


>S888Wheel said:
>
>> You are so exposed it is laughable. You have no answer to the facts above.
>
>If you think Mr. **** will stop arguing, you don't understand the
>"debating trade". My prediction: Turdy will now start yakking about
>your "proven lies", and when you ask for a list, you'll get "asked and
>answered" or "been there done that".
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

LOT'S !!!!



Bruce J. Richman

[Scott Gardner]

On 26 Nov 2003 19:28:18 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

(To Arny Krueger)

>Wow, more malicious fantasies. Of course when I offered to compare IQ scores
>you showed no interest. The fact of the matter is we can both go to our local
>MENSA locations and take a standardized IQ test and compare scores with no
>possibility of fraud. I'm sure you will find some bull**** excuse not to do
>this. You have shown nothing but fear when it comes to real world verification
>of claims.
>
>

This has bothered me for some time now. People on Usenet (and
this group in particular) often demand "proof" of something or other.
How exactly does this work? To use the above paragraph as an example,
how is there "no possibility of fraud" if you both go into your local
MENSA chapters and get your results? How will you compare them? Does
MENSA post all of the scores publicly? I somehow doubt that.

Likewise, what would be an acceptable proof of occupation,
since that question comes up here from time to time? If I wanted to
"prove" that I'm an officer in the US Navy, what proof would be
acceptable beyond a doubt? I could post a copy of my ID card, but
people could claim it's a Photoshop job. I could give you the phone
number of my squadron, and they'll confirm that I'm stationed there
and my base pay (they can give that much out under the Freedom of
Information Act), but someone could ask "How do we know you're that
*same* Scott Gardner?"
I could tell you about my job in the Navy, but almost anything
unclassified that I could tell you is also available on the internet
or from libraries, so there's no "proof" to be had there, either.


Short of a face-to-face meeting, what exactly is it that posters are
asking for when they demand "proof" about personal information?

Scott Gardner

[George M. Middius]

Scott Gardner said:

> Short of a face-to-face meeting, what exactly is it that posters are
> asking for when they demand "proof" about personal information?

Are you at all familiar with the plague-like phenomenon known as Arnii
Krooger/

[Scott Gardner]

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:41:45 -0500, George M. Middius
> wrote:

>
>
>Scott Gardner said:
>
>> Short of a face-to-face meeting, what exactly is it that posters are
>> asking for when they demand "proof" about personal information?
>
>Are you at all familiar with the plague-like phenomenon known as Arnii
>Krooger/
>

I've seen a lot of his posts, and he's answered a few
technical questions very clearly for me, but I wasn't referring to any
one particular poster. I just wanted to know what would constitute
incontrovertable "proof" in a forum such as Usenet?
There's a lot of bull**** logic and reasoning going on in
Usenet. I've seen comments stripped from their context and presented
as "proof". I've seen accusations "proven" true simply because the
accused didn't bother to defend himself.
More than once, I've seen people demand proof when there is no
possible response that would satisfy them beyond a doubt. It's like
the people that believe the US Government is covering up evidence of
an alien spacecraft crash in New Mexico. Even if the government
declassified every single piece of paper under its control, and gave
the conspiracy theorists free reign to inspect every single file,
building, and piece of property in the country, the government still
couldn't ever satisfy the conspiracy theorists. If they couldn't find
the answer they wanted, it wouldn't be because there was no crash, it
would be because "the government destroyed the evidence", or "there's
yet another secret location that we just haven't found yet".




Scott Gardner

[Lionel]

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>We could play a game on RAO
>>called who has less brain power, sockpuppet Yustabe or sockpuppet wheel.
>>
>
>
> I am still waiting for you to answer my IQ challenge.

What about dick size challenge ?

--
"Keep the bugs off your glass and the bears off your ass"
Bad Plus

[Lionel]

Scott Gardner wrote:
>
>
> I've seen a lot of his posts, and he's answered a few
> technical questions very clearly for me, but I wasn't referring to any
> one particular poster. I just wanted to know what would constitute
> incontrovertable "proof" in a forum such as Usenet?
> There's a lot of bull**** logic and reasoning going on in
> Usenet. I've seen comments stripped from their context and presented
> as "proof". I've seen accusations "proven" true simply because the
> accused didn't bother to defend himself.
> More than once, I've seen people demand proof when there is no
> possible response that would satisfy them beyond a doubt. It's like
> the people that believe the US Government is covering up evidence of
> an alien spacecraft crash in New Mexico. Even if the government
> declassified every single piece of paper under its control, and gave
> the conspiracy theorists free reign to inspect every single file,
> building, and piece of property in the country, the government still
> couldn't ever satisfy the conspiracy theorists. If they couldn't find
> the answer they wanted, it wouldn't be because there was no crash, it
> would be because "the government destroyed the evidence", or "there's
> yet another secret location that we just haven't found yet".
>

Nobody really need proof here. Most of the people doesn't really bother
to know the true on usenet and especially on RAO...
They are just interested in how they have impressed the contributor of a NG.
"George M. Middius" for example hasn't any knowledge about audio,
music... He is here just for the narcissistic pleasure to admire himself
through the answers of RAO regulars.
Believe me or not, he uses to do that since at least 1997 !
Astonishing, no ? ;o)

Lionel.

--
"Keep the bugs off your glass and the bears off your ass"
Bad Plus

[George M. Middius]

Scott Gardner said:

> >> Short of a face-to-face meeting, what exactly is it that posters are
> >> asking for when they demand "proof" about personal information?
> >
> >Are you at all familiar with the plague-like phenomenon known as Arnii
> >Krooger/

> I've seen a lot of his posts, and he's answered a few
> technical questions very clearly for me, but I wasn't referring to any
> one particular poster. I just wanted to know what would constitute
> incontrovertable "proof" in a forum such as Usenet?

Are you at all familiar with the fecal pestilence known as Arnii
Krooger?

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Scott Gardner" > wrote in message
...
> On 26 Nov 2003 19:28:18 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:
>
> (To Arny Krueger)
>
> >Wow, more malicious fantasies. Of course when I offered to compare IQ
scores
> >you showed no interest. The fact of the matter is we can both go to our
local
> >MENSA locations and take a standardized IQ test and compare scores with
no
> >possibility of fraud. I'm sure you will find some bull**** excuse not to
do
> >this. You have shown nothing but fear when it comes to real world
verification
> >of claims.
> >
> >
>
> This has bothered me for some time now. People on Usenet (and
> this group in particular) often demand "proof" of something or other.
> How exactly does this work? To use the above paragraph as an example,
> how is there "no possibility of fraud" if you both go into your local
> MENSA chapters and get your results? How will you compare them? Does
> MENSA post all of the scores publicly? I somehow doubt that.
>
> Likewise, what would be an acceptable proof of occupation,
> since that question comes up here from time to time? If I wanted to
> "prove" that I'm an officer in the US Navy, what proof would be
> acceptable beyond a doubt? I could post a copy of my ID card, but
> people could claim it's a Photoshop job. I could give you the phone
> number of my squadron, and they'll confirm that I'm stationed there
> and my base pay (they can give that much out under the Freedom of
> Information Act), but someone could ask "How do we know you're that
> *same* Scott Gardner?"
> I could tell you about my job in the Navy, but almost anything
> unclassified that I could tell you is also available on the internet
> or from libraries, so there's no "proof" to be had there, either.
>
>
> Short of a face-to-face meeting, what exactly is it that posters are
> asking for when they demand "proof" about personal information?
>
> Scott Gardner
>

One of the "proofs" Arny has demanded of a poster was his bank routing
number and
account number!




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Scott Gardner]

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:49:21 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
> wrote:

>
>"Scott Gardner" > wrote in message
...
>> On 26 Nov 2003 19:28:18 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:
>>
>> (To Arny Krueger)
>>
>> >Wow, more malicious fantasies. Of course when I offered to compare IQ
>scores
>> >you showed no interest. The fact of the matter is we can both go to our
>local
>> >MENSA locations and take a standardized IQ test and compare scores with
>no
>> >possibility of fraud. I'm sure you will find some bull**** excuse not to
>do
>> >this. You have shown nothing but fear when it comes to real world
>verification
>> >of claims.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> This has bothered me for some time now. People on Usenet (and
>> this group in particular) often demand "proof" of something or other.
>> How exactly does this work? To use the above paragraph as an example,
>> how is there "no possibility of fraud" if you both go into your local
>> MENSA chapters and get your results? How will you compare them? Does
>> MENSA post all of the scores publicly? I somehow doubt that.
>>
>> Likewise, what would be an acceptable proof of occupation,
>> since that question comes up here from time to time? If I wanted to
>> "prove" that I'm an officer in the US Navy, what proof would be
>> acceptable beyond a doubt? I could post a copy of my ID card, but
>> people could claim it's a Photoshop job. I could give you the phone
>> number of my squadron, and they'll confirm that I'm stationed there
>> and my base pay (they can give that much out under the Freedom of
>> Information Act), but someone could ask "How do we know you're that
>> *same* Scott Gardner?"
>> I could tell you about my job in the Navy, but almost anything
>> unclassified that I could tell you is also available on the internet
>> or from libraries, so there's no "proof" to be had there, either.
>>
>>
>> Short of a face-to-face meeting, what exactly is it that posters are
>> asking for when they demand "proof" about personal information?
>>
>> Scott Gardner
>>
>
>One of the "proofs" Arny has demanded of a poster was his bank routing
>number and
>account number!
>

I find that funny too, the things that I've seen people ask for, and
the reasons they give for demanding it. To claim that a poster has no
credibility because they haven't posted their full legal name,
address, occupation, income level, marital status or a copy of their
prior year's taxes is ludicrous.
There are very good reasons for not posting all that stuff.

1) It's rarely relevent to the topic at hand, and
2) Some things just aren't anyone else's damned business!

Scott Gardner

[S888Wheel]

<<
What about dick size challenge ?


You are the bigger dick. You win.

[S888Wheel]

George said

<<
If you think Mr. **** will stop arguing, you don't understand the
"debating trade". My prediction: Turdy will now start yakking about
your "proven lies", and when you ask for a list, you'll get "asked and
answered" or "been there done that".


I think when he said that he wanted to run up my legal bill when I asked him
why he would accuse someone of pedophilia and drug addiction if he really
believed that living well was the best revenge it was pretty much over. I've
had him tap-dancing around his lies all day. He can go on arguing all he wants.
I know when the fat lady has sung. One of the things I have to prepare for the
judge to review is all the supporting evidence that Arny acted out of malice
and is likely to continue his libelous ways. You would think someone who is
taking a default judgment in a libel case would know better than to continue to
post libelous claims given the fact that the plaintiff will be supplying all
the evidence for punitive damages.

[S888Wheel]

<<

This has bothered me for some time now. People on Usenet (and
this group in particular) often demand "proof" of something or other.
How exactly does this work? To use the above paragraph as an example,
how is there "no possibility of fraud" if you both go into your local
MENSA chapters and get your results? How will you compare them? Does
MENSA post all of the scores publicly? I somehow doubt that.


I think you ask a fair question. If one scores above a certain level MENSA will
issue a letter of invitation. That is something I believe they would confirm if
asked. I am banking that one of us will be invited and one of us will not. That
would make independent verifiable proof pretty easy for anyone who was inclined
to inquire.



<<
Likewise, what would be an acceptable proof of occupation,
since that question comes up here from time to time?


That would depend on two things. 1. The nature of the employment. In my case it
would be pretty incontravertable but indeed that is not the case for all
people. 2. It depends on how reasonable the person asking for proof is. In
Arny's case I doubt any proof would work including a personal visit from one's
employer.If he hates you he will resist acknowledging anything that disrupts
his fantasies about you living a miserable life. The thing is one can gauge how
reasonable another is by the sort of proof that person accepts and doesn't
accept.


<< If I wanted to
"prove" that I'm an officer in the US Navy, what proof would be
acceptable beyond a doubt?

Nothing but no reasonable person asks for such a standard of proof.



<< I could post a copy of my ID card, but
people could claim it's a Photoshop job. I could give you the phone
number of my squadron, and they'll confirm that I'm stationed there
and my base pay (they can give that much out under the Freedom of
Information Act), but someone could ask "How do we know you're that
*same* Scott Gardner?"
I could tell you about my job in the Navy, but almost anything
unclassified that I could tell you is also available on the internet
or from libraries, so there's no "proof" to be had there,
<< either.

What you have said already would give me cause to believe your claim. It isn't
an extraordinary claim and does not require extraordinary proof. Also, nothing
you have said would give cause for suspicion that you are lying. Again, one can
gauge how reasonable another is by observing how they accept such proof.

[George M. Middius]

S888Wheel said:

> One of the things I have to prepare for the
> judge to review is all the supporting evidence that Arny acted out of malice
> and is likely to continue his libelous ways. You would think someone who is
> taking a default judgment in a libel case would know better than to continue to
> post libelous claims given the fact that the plaintiff will be supplying all
> the evidence for punitive damages.

Apparently Turdy's latest "strategy" is hoping you won't try to
collect the judgment. Personally, I hope you do. Nothing will drive
home the consequences of being a **** as poignantly as having to
explain to his family why he's liquidating the retirement account.

[Lionel]

S888Wheel wrote:

>You win.

This is a pleasure you will never have.
;O)

--
"Keep the bugs off your glass and the bears off your ass"
Bad Plus

[Bruce J. Richman]

Scott wrote:


><<
>
> This has bothered me for some time now. People on Usenet (and
>this group in particular) often demand "proof" of something or other.
>How exactly does this work? To use the above paragraph as an example,
>how is there "no possibility of fraud" if you both go into your local
>MENSA chapters and get your results? How will you compare them? Does
>MENSA post all of the scores publicly? I somehow doubt that.
>
>
>I think you ask a fair question. If one scores above a certain level MENSA
>will
>issue a letter of invitation. That is something I believe they would confirm
>if
>asked. I am banking that one of us will be invited and one of us will not.
>That
>would make independent verifiable proof pretty easy for anyone who was
>inclined
>to inquire.
>
>

Without needing to worry about MENSA invitations, another valid option would be
for the 2 of you to have a licensed clinical psychologist of your choice
administer and score a Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, a highly
standardized, suitably normed intelligence test measuring a variety of both
verbal and performance skills. This test is one of the most widely used
intelligence tests in the United States for both psychodiagnostic and
intellectual evaluations.



>
><<
> Likewise, what would be an acceptable proof of occupation,
>since that question comes up here from time to time?
>
>
>That would depend on two things. 1. The nature of the employment. In my case
>it
>would be pretty incontravertable but indeed that is not the case for all
>people. 2. It depends on how reasonable the person asking for proof is. In
>Arny's case I doubt any proof would work including a personal visit from
>one's
>employer.If he hates you he will resist acknowledging anything that disrupts
>his fantasies about you living a miserable life. The thing is one can gauge
>how
>reasonable another is by the sort of proof that person accepts and doesn't
>accept.
>
>

Unfortunately, true. It is all too easy for those dedicated to libel and
compulsive pathological lying such as Krueger and McKelvy to simply refuse to
accept any concrete evidence and accuse the provider of fogery, delusions, etc.
That's the way they routinely handle any data that contradicts their false
claims.


><< If I wanted to
>"prove" that I'm an officer in the US Navy, what proof would be
>acceptable beyond a doubt?
>
>Nothing but no reasonable person asks for such a standard of proof.
>
>
>
><< I could post a copy of my ID card, but
>people could claim it's a Photoshop job. I could give you the phone
>number of my squadron, and they'll confirm that I'm stationed there
>and my base pay (they can give that much out under the Freedom of
>Information Act), but someone could ask "How do we know you're that
>*same* Scott Gardner?"
> I could tell you about my job in the Navy, but almost anything
>unclassified that I could tell you is also available on the internet
>or from libraries, so there's no "proof" to be had there,
><< either.
>
>What you have said already would give me cause to believe your claim. It
>isn't
>an extraordinary claim and does not require extraordinary proof. Also,
>nothing
>you have said would give cause for suspicion that you are lying. Again, one
>can
>gauge how reasonable another is by observing how they accept such proof.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


Bruce J. Richman

[Arny Krueger]

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message

>
> One of the "proofs" Arny has demanded of a poster was his bank routing
> number and account number!

This would be a deception. Here's the actual post:

http://www.google.com/groups?&selm=waacnUDt1aVbvBCiU-KYvg%40comcast.com

"Along with the $500 money order please include your legal name, legal
address and phone number along with a photocopy of your driver's license and
social security number with your application. We also require a notarized
statement that you just fell off of a Turnip truck. Turnip trucks are
optional, extra."

If you look at the entire post, it was a send-up of sockpuppet Wheel's libel
suit against me. There was no demand of this information of any specific
poster. It was obviously made in jest.

This is just one more piece of evidence supporting my claim that sockpuppet
Yustabe is one incredibly stupid piece of work.

[dave weil]

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 07:07:27 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message

>>
>> One of the "proofs" Arny has demanded of a poster was his bank routing
>> number and account number!
>
>This would be a deception. Here's the actual post:
>
>http://www.google.com/groups?&selm=waacnUDt1aVbvBCiU-KYvg%40comcast.com
>
>"Along with the $500 money order please include your legal name, legal
>address and phone number along with a photocopy of your driver's license and
>social security number with your application. We also require a notarized
>statement that you just fell off of a Turnip truck. Turnip trucks are
>optional, extra."
>
>If you look at the entire post, it was a send-up of sockpuppet Wheel's libel
>suit against me. There was no demand of this information of any specific
>poster. It was obviously made in jest.
>
>This is just one more piece of evidence supporting my claim that sockpuppet
>Yustabe is one incredibly stupid piece of work.

http://tinyurl.com/ws5x

Doesn't ask for the bank routing number, but demands the banking
account number, and since he demands the name and phone number of the
bank, the bank routing number would be a cinch to obtain.

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 07:07:27 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
> >"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
>
> >>
> >> One of the "proofs" Arny has demanded of a poster was his bank routing
> >> number and account number!
> >
> >This would be a deception. Here's the actual post:
> >
> >http://www.google.com/groups?&selm=waacnUDt1aVbvBCiU-KYvg%40comcast.com
> >
> >"Along with the $500 money order please include your legal name, legal
> >address and phone number along with a photocopy of your driver's license
and
> >social security number with your application. We also require a notarized
> >statement that you just fell off of a Turnip truck. Turnip trucks are
> >optional, extra."
> >
> >If you look at the entire post, it was a send-up of sockpuppet Wheel's
libel
> >suit against me. There was no demand of this information of any specific
> >poster. It was obviously made in jest.
> >
> >This is just one more piece of evidence supporting my claim that
sockpuppet
> >Yustabe is one incredibly stupid piece of work.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ws5x
>
> Doesn't ask for the bank routing number, but demands the banking
> account number, and since he demands the name and phone number of the
> bank, the bank routing number would be a cinch to obtain.
Please send me, via private email, the following information:

Yes, this is the exact one, thsnks Dave.
Arny asked for:

"Full Legal Name
Full home address
Your home telephone number
Name of your bank and their phone number
Your account number at that bank.

If the account is really yours, and your bank will cash a check on
that account in the amount of $34,000 , I'll get back to you."





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 07:07:27 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
>>
>>>
>>> One of the "proofs" Arny has demanded of a poster was his bank
>>> routing number and account number!
>>
>> This would be a deception. Here's the actual post:
>>
>> http://www.google.com/groups?&selm=waacnUDt1aVbvBCiU-KYvg%40comcast.com
>>
>> "Along with the $500 money order please include your legal name,
>> legal address and phone number along with a photocopy of your
>> driver's license and social security number with your application.
>> We also require a notarized statement that you just fell off of a
>> Turnip truck. Turnip trucks are optional, extra."
>>
>> If you look at the entire post, it was a send-up of sockpuppet
>> Wheel's libel suit against me. There was no demand of this
>> information of any specific poster. It was obviously made in jest.
>>
>> This is just one more piece of evidence supporting my claim that
>> sockpuppet Yustabe is one incredibly stupid piece of work.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ws5x
>
> Doesn't ask for the bank routing number, but demands the banking
> account number, and since he demands the name and phone number of the
> bank, the bank routing number would be a cinch to obtain.

Apparently Weil is so stupid that he took that post seriously, too.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message


>> Doesn't ask for the bank routing number, but demands the banking
>> account number, and since he demands the name and phone number of the
>> bank, the bank routing number would be a cinch to obtain.
> Please send me, via private email, the following information:

> Yes, this is the exact one, thsnks Dave.
> Arny asked for:

> "Full Legal Name
> Full home address
> Your home telephone number
> Name of your bank and their phone number
> Your account number at that bank.

> If the account is really yours, and your bank will cash a check on
> that account in the amount of $34,000 , I'll get back to you."

As usual everybody wants people to ignore the context.

Benchimol offered me $34,000 if I would do something for him, and I had
every right to determine a priori whether or not the offer was backed by
anything but hot air. Were Benchimol to actually give me said check, I'd
have all that information. So if his offer was honest, he would give to me
in advance so I could determine whether or not the check would bounce.

Of course, it turned out that Benchimol's offer was just more noisy, moist,
suphurous hot air.

For more background on Jamie Benchimol, try this retrieval:

http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=pedophile&as_uauthors=jamie%20benchimol

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
>
>
> >> Doesn't ask for the bank routing number, but demands the banking
> >> account number, and since he demands the name and phone number of the
> >> bank, the bank routing number would be a cinch to obtain.
> > Please send me, via private email, the following information:
>
> > Yes, this is the exact one, thsnks Dave.
> > Arny asked for:
>
> > "Full Legal Name
> > Full home address
> > Your home telephone number
> > Name of your bank and their phone number
> > Your account number at that bank.
>
> > If the account is really yours, and your bank will cash a check on
> > that account in the amount of $34,000 , I'll get back to you."
>
> As usual everybody wants people to ignore the context.
>
> Benchimol offered me $34,000 if I would do something for him, and I had
> every right to determine a priori whether or not the offer was backed by
> anything but hot air. Were Benchimol to actually give me said check, I'd
> have all that information. So if his offer was honest, he would give to me
> in advance so I could determine whether or not the check would bounce.
>

Duh!! Why didn't you just ask Benchimol for a certified check? The answer -
you had no intention of following through on any commitmtent. That is why
you
tried to bluff your way out of it by making an obviously unreasonable
demand.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[dave weil]

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 21:07:42 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 07:07:27 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>>
>>>> One of the "proofs" Arny has demanded of a poster was his bank
>>>> routing number and account number!
>>>
>>> This would be a deception. Here's the actual post:
>>>
>>> http://www.google.com/groups?&selm=waacnUDt1aVbvBCiU-KYvg%40comcast.com
>>>
>>> "Along with the $500 money order please include your legal name,
>>> legal address and phone number along with a photocopy of your
>>> driver's license and social security number with your application.
>>> We also require a notarized statement that you just fell off of a
>>> Turnip truck. Turnip trucks are optional, extra."
>>>
>>> If you look at the entire post, it was a send-up of sockpuppet
>>> Wheel's libel suit against me. There was no demand of this
>>> information of any specific poster. It was obviously made in jest.
>>>
>>> This is just one more piece of evidence supporting my claim that
>>> sockpuppet Yustabe is one incredibly stupid piece of work.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/ws5x
>>
>> Doesn't ask for the bank routing number, but demands the banking
>> account number, and since he demands the name and phone number of the
>> bank, the bank routing number would be a cinch to obtain.
>
>Apparently Weil is so stupid that he took that post seriously, too.

Doesn't matter how I took it. You said it. This is a new defense for
you and frankly it ain't purty.

Well, at least I pointed out that you couldn't figure out which post
was being talked about...

[dave weil]

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 21:15:09 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>As usual everybody wants people to ignore the context.
>
>Benchimol offered me $34,000 if I would do something for him, and I had
>every right to determine a priori whether or not the offer was backed by
>anything but hot air. Were Benchimol to actually give me said check, I'd
>have all that information. So if his offer was honest, he would give to me
>in advance so I could determine whether or not the check would bounce.

So? You claimed that you didn't do that I showed that you did.

End of story.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>>> Doesn't ask for the bank routing number, but demands the banking
>>>> account number, and since he demands the name and phone number of
>>>> the bank, the bank routing number would be a cinch to obtain.
>>> Please send me, via private email, the following information:
>>
>>> Yes, this is the exact one, thsnks Dave.
>>> Arny asked for:
>>
>>> "Full Legal Name
>>> Full home address
>>> Your home telephone number
>>> Name of your bank and their phone number
>>> Your account number at that bank.
>>
>>> If the account is really yours, and your bank will cash a check on
>>> that account in the amount of $34,000 , I'll get back to you."
>>
>> As usual everybody wants people to ignore the context.
>>
>> Benchimol offered me $34,000 if I would do something for him, and I
>> had every right to determine a priori whether or not the offer was
>> backed by anything but hot air. Were Benchimol to actually give me
>> said check, I'd have all that information. So if his offer was
>> honest, he would give to me in advance so I could determine whether
>> or not the check would bounce.

> Duh!! Why didn't you just ask Benchimol for a certified check?

Because I wanted to know if he had the funds, Yustabe you dummy.

>The answer - you had no intention of following through on any
> commitmtent.

The answer is that Benchomol lacked the funds and was obviously bluffing.

>That is why you
> tried to bluff your way out of it by making an obviously unreasonable
> demand.

Ignoring the fact that Bechimol was himself bluffing.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 21:15:09 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> As usual everybody wants people to ignore the context.
>>
>> Benchimol offered me $34,000 if I would do something for him, and I
>> had every right to determine a priori whether or not the offer was
>> backed by anything but hot air. Were Benchimol to actually give me
>> said check, I'd have all that information. So if his offer was
>> honest, he would give to me in advance so I could determine whether
>> or not the check would bounce.
>
> So? You claimed that you didn't do that I showed that you did.

Could you be more incomprehensible, Weil?

> End of story.

Why not lay it out in English and let the rest of us in on your joke Weil?

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 21:07:42 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>
>>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 07:07:27 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> One of the "proofs" Arny has demanded of a poster was his bank
>>>>> routing number and account number!
>>>>
>>>> This would be a deception. Here's the actual post:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.google.com/groups?&selm=waacnUDt1aVbvBCiU-KYvg%40comcast.com
>>>>
>>>> "Along with the $500 money order please include your legal name,
>>>> legal address and phone number along with a photocopy of your
>>>> driver's license and social security number with your application.
>>>> We also require a notarized statement that you just fell off of a
>>>> Turnip truck. Turnip trucks are optional, extra."
>>>>
>>>> If you look at the entire post, it was a send-up of sockpuppet
>>>> Wheel's libel suit against me. There was no demand of this
>>>> information of any specific poster. It was obviously made in jest.
>>>>
>>>> This is just one more piece of evidence supporting my claim that
>>>> sockpuppet Yustabe is one incredibly stupid piece of work.
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/ws5x
>>>
>>> Doesn't ask for the bank routing number, but demands the banking
>>> account number, and since he demands the name and phone number of
>>> the bank, the bank routing number would be a cinch to obtain.
>>
>> Apparently Weil is so stupid that he took that post seriously, too.
>
> Doesn't matter how I took it. You said it. This is a new defense for
> you and frankly it ain't purty.

You're lying again, Weil and this one is more transparent and stupid than
usual. That it was a joke, was a defense I just used yesterday.

> Well, at least I pointed out that you couldn't figure out which post
> was being talked about...

Well at least you lied again, Weil.

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
>
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>
> >>>> Doesn't ask for the bank routing number, but demands the banking
> >>>> account number, and since he demands the name and phone number of
> >>>> the bank, the bank routing number would be a cinch to obtain.
> >>> Please send me, via private email, the following information:
> >>
> >>> Yes, this is the exact one, thsnks Dave.
> >>> Arny asked for:
> >>
> >>> "Full Legal Name
> >>> Full home address
> >>> Your home telephone number
> >>> Name of your bank and their phone number
> >>> Your account number at that bank.
> >>
> >>> If the account is really yours, and your bank will cash a check on
> >>> that account in the amount of $34,000 , I'll get back to you."
> >>
> >> As usual everybody wants people to ignore the context.
> >>
> >> Benchimol offered me $34,000 if I would do something for him, and I
> >> had every right to determine a priori whether or not the offer was
> >> backed by anything but hot air. Were Benchimol to actually give me
> >> said check, I'd have all that information. So if his offer was
> >> honest, he would give to me in advance so I could determine whether
> >> or not the check would bounce.
>
> > Duh!! Why didn't you just ask Benchimol for a certified check?
>
> Because I wanted to know if he had the funds, Yustabe you dummy.
>

Duh, a certified check would tell you that. you couldhve asked for a copy
while he held the original until agreed upon time for payment.



> >The answer - you had no intention of following through on any
> > commitmtent.
>
> The answer is that Benchomol lacked the funds and was obviously bluffing.
>

The answer is that you made a patently unreasonable demand so that
yo could weasel out of your obligation.


> >That is why you
> > tried to bluff your way out of it by making an obviously unreasonable
> > demand.
>
> Ignoring the fact that Bechimol was himself bluffing.


If you would have pursued your inquiry in a more
appropriate manner, you would have gotten your answer.






----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Arny Krueger]

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Doesn't ask for the bank routing number, but demands the banking
>>>>>> account number, and since he demands the name and phone number of
>>>>>> the bank, the bank routing number would be a cinch to obtain.
>>>>> Please send me, via private email, the following information:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, this is the exact one, thsnks Dave.
>>>>> Arny asked for:
>>>>
>>>>> "Full Legal Name
>>>>> Full home address
>>>>> Your home telephone number
>>>>> Name of your bank and their phone number
>>>>> Your account number at that bank.
>>>>
>>>>> If the account is really yours, and your bank will cash a check on
>>>>> that account in the amount of $34,000 , I'll get back to you."
>>>>
>>>> As usual everybody wants people to ignore the context.
>>>>
>>>> Benchimol offered me $34,000 if I would do something for him, and I
>>>> had every right to determine a priori whether or not the offer was
>>>> backed by anything but hot air. Were Benchimol to actually give me
>>>> said check, I'd have all that information. So if his offer was
>>>> honest, he would give to me in advance so I could determine whether
>>>> or not the check would bounce.
>>
>>> Duh!! Why didn't you just ask Benchimol for a certified check?
>>
>> Because I wanted to know if he had the funds, Yustabe you dummy.
>>
>
> Duh, a certified check would tell you that. you couldhve asked for a
> copy while he held the original until agreed upon time for payment.

Could be a forgery. Duhhh!

>>> The answer - you had no intention of following through on any
>>> commitmtent.
>>
>> The answer is that Benchomol lacked the funds and was obviously
>> bluffing.

>
> The answer is that you made a patently unreasonable demand so that
> yo could weasel out of your obligation.

More of your lies, sockpuppet Yustabe. I had agreed to nothing - therefore
no obligation.

>>> That is why you
>>> tried to bluff your way out of it by making an obviously
>>> unreasonable demand.
>>
>> Ignoring the fact that Bechimol was himself bluffing.

> If you would have pursued your inquiry in a more
> appropriate manner, you would have gotten your answer.

From sockpuppet Benchimol?

Surely you jest!

When you touch down back in the real world again, give us a holler, eh
sockpuppet Yustabe?

[dave weil]

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 05:58:17 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 21:15:09 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> As usual everybody wants people to ignore the context.
>>>
>>> Benchimol offered me $34,000 if I would do something for him, and I
>>> had every right to determine a priori whether or not the offer was
>>> backed by anything but hot air. Were Benchimol to actually give me
>>> said check, I'd have all that information. So if his offer was
>>> honest, he would give to me in advance so I could determine whether
>>> or not the check would bounce.
>>
>> So? You claimed that you didn't do that I showed that you did.
>
>Could you be more incomprehensible, Weil?
>
>> End of story.
>
>Why not lay it out in English and let the rest of us in on your joke Weil?

Laying it out in English *is* what I did. Ergo, your problem.

Oh, by the way, ergo is Latin.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 05:59:42 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>> Doesn't matter how I took it. You said it. This is a new defense for
>> you and frankly it ain't purty.
>
>You're lying again, Weil and this one is more transparent and stupid than
>usual. That it was a joke, was a defense I just used yesterday.

Your odd relationship with English has forced you to translate "new"
as "the only instance". You need to brush up on your translating
abilities.

>> Well, at least I pointed out that you couldn't figure out which post
>> was being talked about...
>
>Well at least you lied again, Weil.

Now *this* is a blatant lie.

Well done, Arnold.

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
>
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>>> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> >>>>

> >
> > Duh, a certified check would tell you that. you couldhve asked for a
> > copy while he held the original until agreed upon time for payment.
>
> Could be a forgery. Duhhh!
>

your response cuts right to the quick. Your irrational skepticism and
unrealistic demands are the reasons why we frefuse to divulge any
personl info to you at all. See, even if we did, you deny what we
gave you and raise further demands to even greater levels of
unrealisitic proportion.


> >>> The answer - you had no intention of following through on any
> >>> commitmtent.
> >>
> >> The answer is that Benchomol lacked the funds and was obviously
> >> bluffing.
>
> >
> > The answer is that you made a patently unreasonable demand so that
> > yo could weasel out of your obligation.
>
> More of your lies, sockpuppet Yustabe. I had agreed to nothing - therefore
> no obligation.
>

Your obligation to substantiate ridiculous claims. Now youare arguing
you have no obligation to substantiate them!! Bt ok, I'll buy that. you
have no obligation to substantiate any of your ridiculous claims.
you can just throw them out all day, willy nilly.


> >>> That is why you
> >>> tried to bluff your way out of it by making an obviously
> >>> unreasonable demand.
> >>
> >> Ignoring the fact that Bechimol was himself bluffing.
>
> > If you would have pursued your inquiry in a more
> > appropriate manner, you would have gotten your answer.
>
> From sockpuppet Benchimol?
>
> Surely you jest!
>
> When you touch down back in the real world again, give us a holler, eh
> sockpuppet Yustabe?
>

Youzaa!! been here all day.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[winsux]

S888Wheel wrote:
> <<
> Given that Aperion Audio hypes proven snake oil - namely Kimber's "DiAural"
> technology, they are easy to dismiss.
>
> Given the fact that many speaker manufacturers such as Martin Logan, Genesis,
> Soundlab, Wilson Audio, and Vandersteen advocate the idea that cables make a
> difference it seems unreasonable to dismiss any speaker brand just on their
> position on cable sound.

I've used speakers with cables, and without them. Double-blind, stone
sober, etc. Cables always sounded better, and sounded more as well.