What a riot

[Sandman]

I began putting up a bunch of posts a few weeks ago about what's going on
out there in the real world, including some satiric lyrics, cartoons, links
to articles about what's happening all around us, etc., and wouldn't you
know, some of the first responses I got were from the likes of Arnii who
wondered out loud why I was so clueless as to not realize this was an audio
discussion forum.

The fact is, since people like Arnii invaded this forum, almost seven years
ago, it has had less and less to do about audio and more and more to do
about mindless, childish bickering about nothing.

So I just thought I'd shake things up a bit and give the regular resident
idiots here something real to bicker about for a change.

And sure enough, as I suspected they would, they, including Arnii, all
started bickering in the threads I started for them to bicker in, to the
point that those threads now contain the vast majority of posts in this ng.
Not that the level of discourse has changed one bit, mind you, but at least
they're bickering about the real world for a change (although no more than a
handful seem to have any grasp that the world they're now bitching about is
any different than the nothingness they used to bitch about).

I suppose the really cruel thing to do would be to abandon RAO again and
allow it to degenerate into a bitch-fest about nothing all over again.

On a kinder note, I hope it's all made your lives a bit more interesting for
a short while.

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Sandman" > wrote in message
...
>
> I suppose the really cruel thing to do would be to abandon RAO again and
> allow it to degenerate into a bitch-fest about nothing all over again.
>
> On a kinder note, I hope it's all made your lives a bit more interesting
for
> a short while.
>

It's definitely been interesting, but, still, its no substitute for talking
about Wheeler's lawsuit against Arny.




----== 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 =---

[Lionel]

Sandman wrote:
> I began putting up a bunch of posts a few weeks ago about what's going on
> out there in the real world, including some satiric lyrics, cartoons, links
> to articles about what's happening all around us, etc., and wouldn't you
> know, some of the first responses I got were from the likes of Arnii who
> wondered out loud why I was so clueless as to not realize this was an audio
> discussion forum.
>
> The fact is, since people like Arnii invaded this forum, almost seven years
> ago, it has had less and less to do about audio and more and more to do
> about mindless, childish bickering about nothing.
>
> So I just thought I'd shake things up a bit and give the regular resident
> idiots here something real to bicker about for a change.
>
> And sure enough, as I suspected they would, they, including Arnii, all
> started bickering in the threads I started for them to bicker in, to the
> point that those threads now contain the vast majority of posts in this ng.
> Not that the level of discourse has changed one bit, mind you, but at least
> they're bickering about the real world for a change (although no more than a
> handful seem to have any grasp that the world they're now bitching about is
> any different than the nothingness they used to bitch about).
>
> I suppose the really cruel thing to do would be to abandon RAO again and
> allow it to degenerate into a bitch-fest about nothing all over again.
>
> On a kinder note, I hope it's all made your lives a bit more interesting for
> a short while.
>
>

Homme sable, homme vaniteux, tu n'es que poussière et tu retourneras à
la poussière. ;o)

[Arny Krueger]

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message

> "Sandman" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I suppose the really cruel thing to do would be to abandon RAO again
>> and allow it to degenerate into a bitch-fest about nothing all over
>> again.
>>
>> On a kinder note, I hope it's all made your lives a bit more
>> interesting
> for
>> a short while.
>>
>
> It's definitely been interesting, but, still, its no substitute for
> talking about Wheeler's lawsuit against Arny.

Or talking about how in a moment of absent-mindedness you've denied that you
are who you and your clique generally say you are...

[The Big Cheese]

You're the one that's going to get "dusted" here froggie boy, unless you
start writing in English when you pick on one of the resident idiots in
the group.

Poor Sandman has no idea what you said to him - He'll have to find
another frog to translate your insult.

Most of the morons that hang here are not bi-lingual, but then I guess
you know that.

The Big Cheese

Liney whines:
> Sandman wrote:
>
>> I began putting up a bunch of posts a few weeks ago about what's going on
>> out there in the real world, including some satiric lyrics, cartoons,
>> links
>> to articles about what's happening all around us, etc., and wouldn't you
>> know, some of the first responses I got were from the likes of Arnii who
>> wondered out loud why I was so clueless as to not realize this was an
>> audio
>> discussion forum.
>>
>> The fact is, since people like Arnii invaded this forum, almost seven
>> years
>> ago, it has had less and less to do about audio and more and more to do
>> about mindless, childish bickering about nothing.
>>
>> So I just thought I'd shake things up a bit and give the regular resident
>> idiots here something real to bicker about for a change.
>>
>> And sure enough, as I suspected they would, they, including Arnii, all
>> started bickering in the threads I started for them to bicker in, to the
>> point that those threads now contain the vast majority of posts in
>> this ng.
>> Not that the level of discourse has changed one bit, mind you, but at
>> least
>> they're bickering about the real world for a change (although no more
>> than a
>> handful seem to have any grasp that the world they're now bitching
>> about is
>> any different than the nothingness they used to bitch about).
>>
>> I suppose the really cruel thing to do would be to abandon RAO again and
>> allow it to degenerate into a bitch-fest about nothing all over again.
>>
>> On a kinder note, I hope it's all made your lives a bit more
>> interesting for
>> a short while.
>>
>>
>
> Homme sable, homme vaniteux, tu n'es que poussière et tu retourneras à
> la poussière. ;o)
>

[Arny Krueger]

"Sandman" > wrote in message


> I began putting up a bunch of posts a few weeks ago about what's
> going on out there in the real world, including some satiric lyrics,
> cartoons, links to articles about what's happening all around us,
> etc., and wouldn't you know, some of the first responses I got were
> from the likes of Arnii who wondered out loud why I was so clueless
> as to not realize this was an audio discussion forum.

A question that you still haven't answered. However, you've admitted that
your goal was just to play the fool. That's a sort of self-destructive
defense, don't you think?

> The fact is, since people like Arnii invaded this forum, almost seven
> years ago, it has had less and less to do about audio and more and
> more to do about mindless, childish bickering about nothing.

You didn't get it then Sanders and you still don't seem to get it. The
bickering comes from your good buddies like Middius, you know the guy who
also likes to cut your wife down in public. He tries to hide his antisocial
behavior by trying s to make people think that I'm the far larger danger.
Fact is he's persona non grata all over Usenet which is clearly not my
situation. Ironically, Middius can trash your wife just as aggressively as
he's tried to trash mine, and you mostly just ignore his bad behavior
because of your hatred of me.

> So I just thought I'd shake things up a bit and give the regular
> resident idiots here something real to bicker about for a change.

Except what you posted Sanders wasn't real, it was droppings from your
fairly-land view of national and world politics, firmly grounded in
ignorance and rotten logic.

> And sure enough, as I suspected they would, they, including Arnii, all
> started bickering in the threads I started for them to bicker in, to
> the point that those threads now contain the vast majority of posts
> in this ng.

Truth be known Sanders, I only dropped in a few times to point out what an
ignorant, arrogant fool you are, backed with independent factual proof of
your foolishness.

> Not that the level of discourse has changed one bit,
> mind you, but at least they're bickering about the real world for a
> change (although no more than a handful seem to have any grasp that
> the world they're now bitching about is any different than the
> nothingness they used to bitch about).

Nice try at trying to cover up your many factual blunders, Sanders.

> I suppose the really cruel thing to do would be to abandon RAO again
> and allow it to degenerate into a bitch-fest about nothing all over
> again.

Some things never change. What does seem to change is the identity of the
head bitch. Does this mean that you're bowing out, Sanders?

[dave weil]

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 10:09:16 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>> Not that the level of discourse has changed one bit,
>> mind you, but at least they're bickering about the real world for a
>> change (although no more than a handful seem to have any grasp that
>> the world they're now bitching about is any different than the
>> nothingness they used to bitch about).
>
>Nice try at trying to cover up your many factual blunders, Sanders.

You mean like lying about anonyminity on your web site?

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 10:09:16 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>>> Not that the level of discourse has changed one bit,
>>> mind you, but at least they're bickering about the real world for a
>>> change (although no more than a handful seem to have any grasp that
>>> the world they're now bitching about is any different than the
>>> nothingness they used to bitch about).
>>
>> Nice try at trying to cover up your many factual blunders, Sanders.
>
> You mean like lying about anonyminity on your web site?

Weil, why don't you say something substantiative about this so I can
deconstruct it.

[dave weil]

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 10:25:36 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 10:09:16 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Not that the level of discourse has changed one bit,
>>>> mind you, but at least they're bickering about the real world for a
>>>> change (although no more than a handful seem to have any grasp that
>>>> the world they're now bitching about is any different than the
>>>> nothingness they used to bitch about).
>>>
>>> Nice try at trying to cover up your many factual blunders, Sanders.
>>
>> You mean like lying about anonyminity on your web site?
>
>Weil, why don't you say something substantiative about this so I can
>deconstruct it.

I've already done it, but you were afraid to address it the first
time.

Are you saying that if I address it again, you might actually address
it *this* time?

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 10:25:36 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>
>>> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 10:09:16 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Not that the level of discourse has changed one bit,
>>>>> mind you, but at least they're bickering about the real world for
>>>>> a change (although no more than a handful seem to have any grasp
>>>>> that the world they're now bitching about is any different than
>>>>> the nothingness they used to bitch about).
>>>>
>>>> Nice try at trying to cover up your many factual blunders, Sanders.
>>>
>>> You mean like lying about anonyminity on your web site?
>>
>> Weil, why don't you say something substantiative about this so I can
>> deconstruct it.
>
> I've already done it, but you were afraid to address it the first time.

Well, you just made an equally-vague claim in another post. Is that what
you're talking about?

> Are you saying that if I address it again, you might actually address
> it *this* time?

What's unclear about the word "substantiative"?

Ohh, I'm talking to Weil. <engage speaking to a dumbass mode> What I mean is
describe the means by which one of my web sites obtains personal information
about people who browse it or download files from it.

[dave weil]

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 08:44:14 -0500, The Big Cheese
> wrote:

>You're the one that's going to get "dusted" here froggie boy, unless you
>start writing in English when you pick on one of the resident idiots in
>the group.
>
>Poor Sandman has no idea what you said to him - He'll have to find
>another frog to translate your insult.
>
>Most of the morons that hang here are not bi-lingual, but then I guess
>you know that.
>
>The Big Cheese

How's yer Vietnamese, Bert? Kept up on all these years?

[George M. Middius]

dave weil said to Big Dork:

> How's yer Vietnamese, Bert? Kept up on all these years?

Can't be much worse than his "French".

[dave weil]

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:40:56 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 10:25:36 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 10:09:16 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Not that the level of discourse has changed one bit,
>>>>>> mind you, but at least they're bickering about the real world for
>>>>>> a change (although no more than a handful seem to have any grasp
>>>>>> that the world they're now bitching about is any different than
>>>>>> the nothingness they used to bitch about).
>>>>>
>>>>> Nice try at trying to cover up your many factual blunders, Sanders.
>>>>
>>>> You mean like lying about anonyminity on your web site?
>>>
>>> Weil, why don't you say something substantiative about this so I can
>>> deconstruct it.
>>
>> I've already done it, but you were afraid to address it the first time.
>
>Well, you just made an equally-vague claim in another post. Is that what
>you're talking about?
>
>> Are you saying that if I address it again, you might actually address
>> it *this* time?
>
>What's unclear about the word "substantiative"?
>
>Ohh, I'm talking to Weil. <engage speaking to a dumbass mode> What I mean is
>describe the means by which one of my web sites obtains personal information
>about people who browse it or download files from it.

How did you find out that someone from Sony had "apparently"
downloaded files from your site?

Two words: server logs.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:40:56 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>
>>> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 10:25:36 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 10:09:16 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not that the level of discourse has changed one bit,
>>>>>>> mind you, but at least they're bickering about the real world
>>>>>>> for a change (although no more than a handful seem to have any
>>>>>>> grasp that the world they're now bitching about is any
>>>>>>> different than the nothingness they used to bitch about).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nice try at trying to cover up your many factual blunders,
>>>>>> Sanders.
>>>>>
>>>>> You mean like lying about anonyminity on your web site?
>>>>
>>>> Weil, why don't you say something substantiative about this so I
>>>> can deconstruct it.
>>>
>>> I've already done it, but you were afraid to address it the first
>>> time.
>>
>> Well, you just made an equally-vague claim in another post. Is that
>> what you're talking about?
>>
>>> Are you saying that if I address it again, you might actually
>>> address it *this* time?
>>
>> What's unclear about the word "substantiative"?
>>
>> Ohh, I'm talking to Weil. <engage speaking to a dumbass mode> What I
>> mean is describe the means by which one of my web sites obtains
>> personal information about people who browse it or download files
>> from it.

> How did you find out that someone from Sony had "apparently"
> downloaded files from your site?
>
> Two words: server logs.

So what? That is not personal information in any conventionally accepted
sense.

As usual, you're spinning your wheels, Weil.

[Scott Gardner]

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:40:56 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
<trim>
>
>Ohh, I'm talking to Weil. <engage speaking to a dumbass mode> What I mean is
>describe the means by which one of my web sites obtains personal information
>about people who browse it or download files from it.

Evidently, they're claiming that you disclosed the identity of one or
more visitors to your site as being from the Sony Corporation. I
couldn't find your claim in a Google search, but I did find where you
claimed to have traced some downloads from your site to Dolby
Laboratories, Inc.

Here's the quote:

"OTOH, I've been told that Dolby Labs has 100 PCs that are running
CardD Deluxe's. Given that some downloads from www.pcabx.com are
traceable to Dolby..."



"traceable", how, exactly?

Here's the entire message:

http://tinyurl.com/xed8


Hope this clarifies what Weil and the rest are talking about.

Scott Gardner

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Gardner" > wrote in message

> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:40:56 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> <trim>
>>
>> Ohh, I'm talking to Weil. <engage speaking to a dumbass mode> What I
>> mean is describe the means by which one of my web sites obtains
>> personal information about people who browse it or download files
>> from it.

> Evidently, they're claiming that you disclosed the identity of one or
> more visitors to your site as being from the Sony Corporation.

But thats not personal information about people.

> I couldn't find your claim in a Google search, but I did find where you
> claimed to have traced some downloads from your site to Dolby
> Laboratories, Inc.

> Here's the quote:

> "OTOH, I've been told that Dolby Labs has 100 PCs that are running
> CardD Deluxe's. Given that some downloads from www.pcabx.com are
> traceable to Dolby..."

Not personal information, which is what Weil claimed. All I know is that
*some one* or *some thing* at Dolby downloaded some files from www.pcabx.com
..

BTW, thanks for taking Weil's side against me. I need all the enemies I can
get!

[dave weil]

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 18:37:24 GMT, (Scott Gardner)
wrote:

>On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:40:56 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
><trim>
>>
>>Ohh, I'm talking to Weil. <engage speaking to a dumbass mode> What I mean is
>>describe the means by which one of my web sites obtains personal information
>>about people who browse it or download files from it.
>
>Evidently, they're claiming that you disclosed the identity of one or
>more visitors to your site as being from the Sony Corporation. I
>couldn't find your claim in a Google search, but I did find where you
>claimed to have traced some downloads from your site to Dolby
>Laboratories, Inc.
>
>Here's the quote:
>
>"OTOH, I've been told that Dolby Labs has 100 PCs that are running
>CardD Deluxe's. Given that some downloads from www.pcabx.com are
>traceable to Dolby..."
>
>
>
>"traceable", how, exactly?
>
>Here's the entire message:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/xed8
>
>
>Hope this clarifies what Weil and the rest are talking about.
>
>Scott Gardner

Thanks Scott. I didn't remember that one.

I hope that he's a bit more circumspect in the future. The fact that
he's "tracing" downloads seems a shade sinister.

[dave weil]

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:43:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Scott Gardner" > wrote in message

>> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:40:56 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>> <trim>
>>>
>>> Ohh, I'm talking to Weil. <engage speaking to a dumbass mode> What I
>>> mean is describe the means by which one of my web sites obtains
>>> personal information about people who browse it or download files
>>> from it.
>
>> Evidently, they're claiming that you disclosed the identity of one or
>> more visitors to your site as being from the Sony Corporation.
>
>But thats not personal information about people.
>
>> I couldn't find your claim in a Google search, but I did find where you
>> claimed to have traced some downloads from your site to Dolby
>> Laboratories, Inc.
>
>> Here's the quote:
>
>> "OTOH, I've been told that Dolby Labs has 100 PCs that are running
>> CardD Deluxe's. Given that some downloads from www.pcabx.com are
>> traceable to Dolby..."
>
>Not personal information, which is what Weil claimed. All I know is that
>*some one* or *some thing* at Dolby downloaded some files from www.pcabx.com
>.
>
>BTW, thanks for taking Weil's side against me. I need all the enemies I can
>get!

Now you've crossed over to the dark side, Scott. Relations with Mr.
Krueger will never be the same again. Of course, alomst everyone
learns this lesson at one point or another. You're not even the first
Scott to discover this.

[Lionel]

dave weil wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 18:37:24 GMT, (Scott Gardner)
> wrote:
>
>
>>On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:40:56 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>><trim>
>>
>>>Ohh, I'm talking to Weil. <engage speaking to a dumbass mode> What I mean is
>>>describe the means by which one of my web sites obtains personal information
>>>about people who browse it or download files from it.
>>
>>Evidently, they're claiming that you disclosed the identity of one or
>>more visitors to your site as being from the Sony Corporation. I
>>couldn't find your claim in a Google search, but I did find where you
>>claimed to have traced some downloads from your site to Dolby
>>Laboratories, Inc.
>>
>>Here's the quote:
>>
>>"OTOH, I've been told that Dolby Labs has 100 PCs that are running
>>CardD Deluxe's. Given that some downloads from www.pcabx.com are
>>traceable to Dolby..."
>>
>>
>>
>>"traceable", how, exactly?
>>
>>Here's the entire message:
>>
>>http://tinyurl.com/xed8
>>
>>
>>Hope this clarifies what Weil and the rest are talking about.
>>
>>Scott Gardner
>
>
> Thanks Scott. I didn't remember that one.
>
> I hope that he's a bit more circumspect in the future. The fact that
> he's "tracing" downloads seems a shade sinister.
>

All data servers have a log file of all the connections they received.
Studying IP address you can exactly know who has logged in, how many
time, what has been done...
This is a secret for nobody.
So why so much mysteries around this common fact ?

[Arny Krueger]

"Lionel" > wrote in message


> All data servers have a log file of all the connections they received.
> Studying IP address you can exactly know who has logged in, how many
> time, what has been done...
> This is a secret for nobody.

It obviously was a big secret to Weil.

> So why so much mysteries around this common fact ?

Because Weil is not all that bright or well-informed.

You know what they say about a little bit of knowlege...

Well Weil has as small of a bit of knowlege as anyone!

[Scott Gardner]

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:43:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Scott Gardner" > wrote in message

>> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:40:56 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>> <trim>
>>>
>>> Ohh, I'm talking to Weil. <engage speaking to a dumbass mode> What I
>>> mean is describe the means by which one of my web sites obtains
>>> personal information about people who browse it or download files
>>> from it.
>
>> Evidently, they're claiming that you disclosed the identity of one or
>> more visitors to your site as being from the Sony Corporation.
>
>But thats not personal information about people.
>
>> I couldn't find your claim in a Google search, but I did find where you
>> claimed to have traced some downloads from your site to Dolby
>> Laboratories, Inc.
>
>> Here's the quote:
>
>> "OTOH, I've been told that Dolby Labs has 100 PCs that are running
>> CardD Deluxe's. Given that some downloads from www.pcabx.com are
>> traceable to Dolby..."
>
>Not personal information, which is what Weil claimed. All I know is that
>*some one* or *some thing* at Dolby downloaded some files from www.pcabx.com
>.
>
>BTW, thanks for taking Weil's side against me. I need all the enemies I can
>get!


But that begs the question - how do you know the downloads were to
Dolby? At the very least, you're going through your server logs and
doing lookups on some or all of the entries. At least twice, you've
announced the likely corporate affiliation of the visitor to this
site.

And for taking Weil's side, I've covered this before. Just because I
agree with him in this instance, it doesn't mean that I like him or
that I dislike you by extension. Geez! You and your "enemies"....You
sound like Nixon.


Scott Gardner

[Scott Gardner]

>> Thanks Scott. I didn't remember that one.
>>
>> I hope that he's a bit more circumspect in the future. The fact that
>> he's "tracing" downloads seems a shade sinister.
>>
>
>All data servers have a log file of all the connections they received.
>Studying IP address you can exactly know who has logged in, how many
>time, what has been done...
>This is a secret for nobody.
>So why so much mysteries around this common fact ?
>

The *how* of what he's doing is no mystery. The question is, *why* is
he going through his server logs, doing lookups on some or all of the
IP addresses, and then posting the likely corporate affiliation of
visitors to his site on this newsgroup?

Scott Gardner

[dave weil]

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:53:57 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:

>dave weil wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 18:37:24 GMT, (Scott Gardner)
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:40:56 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>>><trim>
>>>
>>>>Ohh, I'm talking to Weil. <engage speaking to a dumbass mode> What I mean is
>>>>describe the means by which one of my web sites obtains personal information
>>>>about people who browse it or download files from it.
>>>
>>>Evidently, they're claiming that you disclosed the identity of one or
>>>more visitors to your site as being from the Sony Corporation. I
>>>couldn't find your claim in a Google search, but I did find where you
>>>claimed to have traced some downloads from your site to Dolby
>>>Laboratories, Inc.
>>>
>>>Here's the quote:
>>>
>>>"OTOH, I've been told that Dolby Labs has 100 PCs that are running
>>>CardD Deluxe's. Given that some downloads from www.pcabx.com are
>>>traceable to Dolby..."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"traceable", how, exactly?
>>>
>>>Here's the entire message:
>>>
>>>http://tinyurl.com/xed8
>>>
>>>
>>>Hope this clarifies what Weil and the rest are talking about.
>>>
>>>Scott Gardner
>>
>>
>> Thanks Scott. I didn't remember that one.
>>
>> I hope that he's a bit more circumspect in the future. The fact that
>> he's "tracing" downloads seems a shade sinister.
>>
>
>All data servers have a log file of all the connections they received.
>Studying IP address you can exactly know who has logged in, how many
>time, what has been done...
>This is a secret for nobody.
>So why so much mysteries around this common fact ?

There's no mystery. Only a claim that anomynity is being claimed.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Gardner" > wrote in message


>
> But that begs the question - how do you know the downloads were to
> Dolby? At the very least, you're going through your server logs and
> doing lookups on some or all of the entries. At least twice, you've
> announced the likely corporate affiliation of the visitor to this
> site.

Well Scott, I do have this policy of giving straight answers to technical
questions, even to my enemies.

Web logs contain IP addresses related to accesses to my site.
It is often trivial to turn IP addresses into the names of the domains from
which they come from.

In particular, I use a program called "Analog" to process web logs and it
does this automatically, breaking down the domain names by country, etc. and
listing them out. This is a standard traditional web server log analysis
function.

> And for taking Weil's side, I've covered this before. Just because I
> agree with him in this instance, it doesn't mean that I like him or
> that I dislike you by extension. Geez! You and your "enemies"....You
> sound like Nixon.

Thanks again Scott for again taking the side of my enemies. This is actually
a fun scam to watch in action. The basic gambit is to hold me responsible
for even the most trivial things I do, while simultaneously ignoring the
major ethical malfeasance of my enemies. When I point this out to you, you
say something blithe like" Oh, I did that, didn't I?

LOL!

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Gardner" > wrote in message

>>> Thanks Scott. I didn't remember that one.
>>>
>>> I hope that he's a bit more circumspect in the future. The fact that
>>> he's "tracing" downloads seems a shade sinister.
>>>
>>
>> All data servers have a log file of all the connections they
>> received. Studying IP address you can exactly know who has logged
>> in, how many time, what has been done...
>> This is a secret for nobody.
>> So why so much mysteries around this common fact ?
>>
>
> The *how* of what he's doing is no mystery. The question is, *why* is
> he going through his server logs, doing lookups on some or all of the
> IP addresses, and then posting the likely corporate affiliation of
> visitors to his site on this newsgroup?

Shows how naive and ignorant you are, Scott. This kind of analysis is a
standard web log analysis program function.

Mentioning the names of domains that access one's web site is one of those
things that people who have web sites often do in casual conversation.

But here you go again Scott, trying to make an innocent act into a major
crime because I did it.

I really appreciate the subtleness of what you're trying to do, Scott.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:53:57 +0100, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>> dave weil wrote:
>>> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 18:37:24 GMT, (Scott Gardner)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:40:56 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>>>> > <trim>
>>>>
>>>>> Ohh, I'm talking to Weil. <engage speaking to a dumbass mode>
>>>>> What I mean is describe the means by which one of my web sites
>>>>> obtains personal information about people who browse it or
>>>>> download files from it.
>>>>
>>>> Evidently, they're claiming that you disclosed the identity of one
>>>> or more visitors to your site as being from the Sony Corporation.
>>>> I couldn't find your claim in a Google search, but I did find
>>>> where you claimed to have traced some downloads from your site to
>>>> Dolby Laboratories, Inc.
>>>>
>>>> Here's the quote:
>>>>
>>>> "OTOH, I've been told that Dolby Labs has 100 PCs that are running
>>>> CardD Deluxe's. Given that some downloads from www.pcabx.com are
>>>> traceable to Dolby..."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "traceable", how, exactly?
>>>>
>>>> Here's the entire message:
>>>>
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/xed8
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hope this clarifies what Weil and the rest are talking about.
>>>>
>>>> Scott Gardner
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks Scott. I didn't remember that one.
>>>
>>> I hope that he's a bit more circumspect in the future. The fact that
>>> he's "tracing" downloads seems a shade sinister.
>>>
>>
>> All data servers have a log file of all the connections they
>> received. Studying IP address you can exactly know who has logged
>> in, how many time, what has been done...
>> This is a secret for nobody.
>> So why so much mysteries around this common fact ?
>
> There's no mystery. Only a claim that anomynity is being claimed.

So where did I mention the name of an individual who accessed my web site,
Weil?

I didn't

Therefore personal anonymity is being preserved.

[dave weil]

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:18:06 GMT, (Scott Gardner)
wrote:

>
>>> Thanks Scott. I didn't remember that one.
>>>
>>> I hope that he's a bit more circumspect in the future. The fact that
>>> he's "tracing" downloads seems a shade sinister.
>>>
>>
>>All data servers have a log file of all the connections they received.
>>Studying IP address you can exactly know who has logged in, how many
>>time, what has been done...
>>This is a secret for nobody.
>>So why so much mysteries around this common fact ?
>>
>
>The *how* of what he's doing is no mystery. The question is, *why* is
>he going through his server logs, doing lookups on some or all of the
>IP addresses, and then posting the likely corporate affiliation of
>visitors to his site on this newsgroup?
>
>Scott Gardner

And the real issue was orginally putting lie to the claim that his
site is anonymous.

The fact is, the person who downloaded the material might have been
put in jeopardy within his own company. Had someone at Sony (or Dolby)
seen that posting, they could very easily trace who had downloaded the
material, if it was an issue for them. For instance, it could have
been a person doing it on company time for personal reasons
unbeknownst to the company. Another thing is, Sony or Dolby might not
want Arnold using their company for endorsement purposes, especially
when the endorsement is so vague.

There are many potential minefields that Arnold has obviously not
thought about, and the fact that he's ungrateful to me for pointing
them out isn't surprising in the least.

[Scott Gardner]

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 14:23:10 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Scott Gardner" > wrote in message

>
>>
>> But that begs the question - how do you know the downloads were to
>> Dolby? At the very least, you're going through your server logs and
>> doing lookups on some or all of the entries. At least twice, you've
>> announced the likely corporate affiliation of the visitor to this
>> site.
>
>Well Scott, I do have this policy of giving straight answers to technical
>questions, even to my enemies.
>
>Web logs contain IP addresses related to accesses to my site.
>It is often trivial to turn IP addresses into the names of the domains from
>which they come from.
>
>In particular, I use a program called "Analog" to process web logs and it
>does this automatically, breaking down the domain names by country, etc. and
>listing them out. This is a standard traditional web server log analysis
>function.
>
> > And for taking Weil's side, I've covered this before. Just because I
>> agree with him in this instance, it doesn't mean that I like him or
>> that I dislike you by extension. Geez! You and your "enemies"....You
>> sound like Nixon.
>
>Thanks again Scott for again taking the side of my enemies. This is actually
>a fun scam to watch in action. The basic gambit is to hold me responsible
>for even the most trivial things I do, while simultaneously ignoring the
>major ethical malfeasance of my enemies. When I point this out to you, you
>say something blithe like" Oh, I did that, didn't I?
>
>LOL!


You never answered the most important part of my question -
why you've, at least twice, announced the likely corporate affiliation
of visitors to your site on this newsgroup.
Examining your server logs is good administrative policy. I
do the same thing. I don't routinely do lookups on the IP addresses
of visitors, but I do see how it would be interesting. I just want to
know why you took the extra step of announcing your findings on this
newsgroup.

And as far as your imagined "scam" - I really ignore more
stuff than you give me credit for - both from you and your "enemies".
Notice that I've never nitpicked your grammar and/or spelling. That's
the kind of stuff I consider trivial and bull****. I've also never
bought into this whole "proven pedophile" crap - which is what it is.
That's bull**** too. Needlessly posting information from your server
logs to this newsgroup is another thing.

Scott Gardner

[Lionel]

dave weil wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:53:57 +0100, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>dave weil wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 18:37:24 GMT, (Scott Gardner)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:40:56 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>>>><trim>
>>>>
>>>>>Ohh, I'm talking to Weil. <engage speaking to a dumbass mode> What I mean is
>>>>>describe the means by which one of my web sites obtains personal information
>>>>>about people who browse it or download files from it.
>>>>
>>>>Evidently, they're claiming that you disclosed the identity of one or
>>>>more visitors to your site as being from the Sony Corporation. I
>>>>couldn't find your claim in a Google search, but I did find where you
>>>>claimed to have traced some downloads from your site to Dolby
>>>>Laboratories, Inc.
>>>>
>>>>Here's the quote:
>>>>
>>>>"OTOH, I've been told that Dolby Labs has 100 PCs that are running
>>>>CardD Deluxe's. Given that some downloads from www.pcabx.com are
>>>>traceable to Dolby..."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"traceable", how, exactly?
>>>>
>>>>Here's the entire message:
>>>>
>>>>http://tinyurl.com/xed8
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Hope this clarifies what Weil and the rest are talking about.
>>>>
>>>>Scott Gardner
>>>
>>>
>>>Thanks Scott. I didn't remember that one.
>>>
>>>I hope that he's a bit more circumspect in the future. The fact that
>>>he's "tracing" downloads seems a shade sinister.
>>>
>>
>>All data servers have a log file of all the connections they received.
>>Studying IP address you can exactly know who has logged in, how many
>>time, what has been done...
>>This is a secret for nobody.
>>So why so much mysteries around this common fact ?
>
>
> There's no mystery. Only a claim that anomynity is being claimed.

Sorry Dave but I sincerely think that you and Scott are trying to "****
the fly".
We can understand that Arnold made a reference to prestigious visitors,
moreover when he didn't give any individual name but just company name.

If you have your own site, your provider would supply you with
statistics and visitors domain names... It's a very useful marketing tool.

[dave weil]

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 14:27:31 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>> There's no mystery. Only a claim that anomynity is being claimed.
>
>So where did I mention the name of an individual who accessed my web site,
>Weil?
>
>I didn't
>
>Therefore personal anonymity is being preserved.

Are you claiming that the IT people at Dolby and Sony can't determine
the identity of the said individuals?

*Now* who's being naive, Arnold?

[dave weil]

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:39:54 GMT, (Scott Gardner)
wrote:

>You never answered the most important part of my question -
>why you've, at least twice, announced the likely corporate affiliation
>of visitors to your site on this newsgroup.

Frankly, you're never going to get him to admit why he did it.

To the casual observer, there are really only two likely
possibilities, both of which are probably part of it.

One is ego gratification.

The second is promoting his website on the back of the two named
organizations.

Can't see any other reasons. Can you? I'm open to any other
possibilities.

[Lionel]

dave weil wrote:

> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:39:54 GMT, (Scott Gardner)
> wrote:
>
>
>>You never answered the most important part of my question -
>>why you've, at least twice, announced the likely corporate affiliation
>>of visitors to your site on this newsgroup.
>
>
> Frankly, you're never going to get him to admit why he did it.
>
> To the casual observer, there are really only two likely
> possibilities, both of which are probably part of it.
>
> One is ego gratification.
>
> The second is promoting his website on the back of the two named
> organizations.
>
> Can't see any other reasons. Can you? I'm open to any other
> possibilities.

You say you work in a restaurant.
When the food was good, the wine great, the waiter intelligent and
affable the customer is happy, right ?

Did you never feel a kind of ego gratification when the big financial
gratification (pourboire) confirm that you have done a good job ?

If the customer is prestigious and that you or your boss let know around
that X have regular diners in this restaurant do you will feel that it's
an unfair behaviour ?

[dave weil]

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 20:42:49 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:

>Sorry Dave but I sincerely think that you and Scott are trying to "****
>the fly".
>We can understand that Arnold made a reference to prestigious visitors,
>moreover when he didn't give any individual name but just company name.

Are you in favor of giving employers ammunition for policing their
workforce? They do that anyway, but there should be a "Chinese Wall"
when it comes to web sites. The only exception that I can see is in a
case similar to that outlined in Arnold's own privacy statement and
that's if law enforcement gets involved.

>If you have your own site, your provider would supply you with
>statistics and visitors domain names... It's a very useful marketing tool.

And yet, if they or I disclosed that information on a public forum,
people would reasonably question how I/we were guarding their personal
information, especially if it involved their workplace.

Also, it shows how little thought Arnold has put into his privacy
policies.

[Scott Gardner]

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 14:26:21 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Scott Gardner" > wrote in message

>>>> Thanks Scott. I didn't remember that one.
>>>>
>>>> I hope that he's a bit more circumspect in the future. The fact that
>>>> he's "tracing" downloads seems a shade sinister.
>>>>
>>>
>>> All data servers have a log file of all the connections they
>>> received. Studying IP address you can exactly know who has logged
>>> in, how many time, what has been done...
>>> This is a secret for nobody.
>>> So why so much mysteries around this common fact ?
>>>
>>
>> The *how* of what he's doing is no mystery. The question is, *why* is
>> he going through his server logs, doing lookups on some or all of the
>> IP addresses, and then posting the likely corporate affiliation of
>> visitors to his site on this newsgroup?
>
>Shows how naive and ignorant you are, Scott. This kind of analysis is a
>standard web log analysis program function.

Let's get this straight. I was never in doubt of *how* you did what
you did. My background in computers in general, and network
administration in particular, is more than adequate for this
discussion. I was more concerned with why you would post the results
of your analysis to this newsgroup.


>Mentioning the names of domains that access one's web site is one of those
>things that people who have web sites often do in casual conversation.

Yes, but posting to a newsgroup is hardly "casual conversation".
First, there's the worldwide scope of it, then there's the permanence
of it. The Dolby post of yours I quoted was over three years old, and
it took about a minute to find.

Let's put this in a way closer to home for you. The difference
between Usenet and "casual conversation" is the exact reason Wheeler's
suing you for libel and not slander.

>
>But here you go again Scott, trying to make an innocent act into a major
>crime because I did it.

It's not a major crime - I never claimed it was. I just don't think
it's right to talk about "anonymity" when you've revealed the likely
corporate affiliation of at least two of your visitors.

>I really appreciate the subtleness of what you're trying to do, Scott.

[dave weil]

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 20:59:45 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:

>dave weil wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:39:54 GMT, (Scott Gardner)
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You never answered the most important part of my question -
>>>why you've, at least twice, announced the likely corporate affiliation
>>>of visitors to your site on this newsgroup.
>>
>>
>> Frankly, you're never going to get him to admit why he did it.
>>
>> To the casual observer, there are really only two likely
>> possibilities, both of which are probably part of it.
>>
>> One is ego gratification.
>>
>> The second is promoting his website on the back of the two named
>> organizations.
>>
>> Can't see any other reasons. Can you? I'm open to any other
>> possibilities.
>
>You say you work in a restaurant.
>When the food was good, the wine great, the waiter intelligent and
>affable the customer is happy, right ?
>
>Did you never feel a kind of ego gratification when the big financial
>gratification (pourboire) confirm that you have done a good job ?
>
>If the customer is prestigious and that you or your boss let know around
>that X have regular diners in this restaurant do you will feel that it's
>an unfair behaviour ?

We have no privacy requirements in the restaurant business.

But our restaurant doesn't publicize our clientele in any case,
forthis very reason.

And, since I occasionally talk about celebrities in my restaurant in
this forum, it's ANOTHER reason why I've never confirmed the identity
*or* named the restaurant that I work in.

You can drive around the issue of privacy all you want. I have to
assume then that you feel privacy on the internet is a trivial matter.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:39:54 GMT, (Scott Gardner)
> wrote:
>
>> You never answered the most important part of my question -
>> why you've, at least twice, announced the likely corporate
>> affiliation of visitors to your site on this newsgroup.

> Frankly, you're never going to get him to admit why he did it.

Weil, Since you can read my mind perfectly, you're qualified to know when
that happens, or not.

LOL!

> To the casual observer, there are really only two likely
> possibilities, both of which are probably part of it.

> One is ego gratification.

I'd say that there is some pride associated with those specific facts, among
other facts related to www.pcabx.com

> The second is promoting his website on the back of the two named
> organizations.

As if the site can't stand on its own merits...

> Can't see any other reasons. Can you? I'm open to any other
> possibilities.

At the time I did it, it seemed like a fitting response to people who claim
that PCABX is worthless or harmful. I believe the specific claim was that
the PCABX software was "worthless".

Here's the entire post, and a link to the larger context:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=x22C5.744%24Kc.74089%40news.flash.net

It includes the following:

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

"No, he's not, for once in his miserable life. The Kroofulness of
aBxism is apparent to every Rational: The Beast promotes his
nonsense software shamelessly"

Gee Weil, you posted to that thread. Why are you acting like you are so
ignorant of the context surrounding this quote?

Oh, I forgot, ignorant is what you do....

LOL!

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message


> But our restaurant doesn't publicize our clientele in any case,
> for this very reason.

Any case, eh? So if a food critic eats there and gives favorable mention in
a newspaper, your restaurant would never publicly mention it?

I don't think so...

> And, since I occasionally talk about celebrities in my restaurant in
> this forum, it's ANOTHER reason why I've never confirmed the identity
> *or* named the restaurant that I work in.

This is an interesting dodge. It allows you to brag about your restaurant
using someone's name and yet deceptively claim that you've protected that
person's privacy.

Neat!

;-)

> You can drive around the issue of privacy all you want. I have to
> assume then that you feel privacy on the internet is a trivial matter.

It's not trivial to me. Unlike you, I've never mentioned the name of a
person who visited my work place (i.e., web site) unless they first
mentioned themselves in public.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Gardner" > wrote in message

> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 14:26:21 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Scott Gardner" > wrote in message
>>
>>>>> Thanks Scott. I didn't remember that one.
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope that he's a bit more circumspect in the future. The fact
>>>>> that he's "tracing" downloads seems a shade sinister.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All data servers have a log file of all the connections they
>>>> received. Studying IP address you can exactly know who has logged
>>>> in, how many time, what has been done...
>>>> This is a secret for nobody.
>>>> So why so much mysteries around this common fact ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The *how* of what he's doing is no mystery. The question is, *why*
>>> is he going through his server logs, doing lookups on some or all
>>> of the IP addresses, and then posting the likely corporate
>>> affiliation of visitors to his site on this newsgroup?
>>
>> Shows how naive and ignorant you are, Scott. This kind of analysis
>> is a standard web log analysis program function.
>
> Let's get this straight. I was never in doubt of *how* you did what
> you did. My background in computers in general, and network
> administration in particular, is more than adequate for this
> discussion. I was more concerned with why you would post the results
> of your analysis to this newsgroup.

Much ado about nothing...

No person's name was ever mentioned or for that part knowable or known.

Actually, I've been able to deduce several users identities on occasion, but
that's another story. I never revealed that info and never would.


>> Mentioning the names of domains that access one's web site is one of
>> those things that people who have web sites often do in casual
>> conversation.

> Yes, but posting to a newsgroup is hardly "casual conversation".

Sure it is. This is casual conversation. RAO is not the front page of the
New York Times, in case somehow you thought it was Scott...

> First, there's the worldwide scope of it, then there's the permanence
> of it. The Dolby post of yours I quoted was over three years old, and
> it took about a minute to find.

So what?

> Let's put this in a way closer to home for you. The difference
> between Usenet and "casual conversation" is the exact reason Wheeler's
> suing you for libel and not slander.

Wheeler has lost his mind and thinks that RAO is the real world, and I guess
you have as well Scott. Is this a mental problem that is common among people
who claim their name is Scott?

LOL!

>> But here you go again Scott, trying to make an innocent act into a
>> major crime because I did it.

> It's not a major crime - I never claimed it was. I just don't think
> it's right to talk about "anonymity" when you've revealed the likely
> corporate affiliation of at least two of your visitors.

Where has anybody's anonymity been compromised? Where was an actual person's
name mentioned?

>> I really appreciate the subtleness of what you're trying to do,
>> Scott.

and the beat goes on...

Scott tips his hand - he's in the sockpuppet wheel camp. I'd bet he's at
least as much of a real person as sockpuppet Yustabe...

LOL!

[George M. Middius]

Scott Gardner said to ****-for-Brains:

> but I did find where you
> claimed to have traced some downloads from your site to Dolby
> Laboratories, Inc.

> Here's the quote:

> "OTOH, I've been told that Dolby Labs has 100 PCs that are running
> CardD Deluxe's. Given that some downloads from www.pcabx.com are
> traceable to Dolby..."

> "traceable", how, exactly?

Even a download path is traceable when it gets the Kroo-stink on it.

[Lionel]

dave weil wrote:

> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 20:59:45 +0100, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>dave weil wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:39:54 GMT, (Scott Gardner)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>You never answered the most important part of my question -
>>>>why you've, at least twice, announced the likely corporate affiliation
>>>>of visitors to your site on this newsgroup.
>>>
>>>
>>>Frankly, you're never going to get him to admit why he did it.
>>>
>>>To the casual observer, there are really only two likely
>>>possibilities, both of which are probably part of it.
>>>
>>>One is ego gratification.
>>>
>>>The second is promoting his website on the back of the two named
>>>organizations.
>>>
>>>Can't see any other reasons. Can you? I'm open to any other
>>>possibilities.
>>
>>You say you work in a restaurant.
>>When the food was good, the wine great, the waiter intelligent and
>>affable the customer is happy, right ?
>>
>>Did you never feel a kind of ego gratification when the big financial
>>gratification (pourboire) confirm that you have done a good job ?
>>
>>If the customer is prestigious and that you or your boss let know around
>>that X have regular diners in this restaurant do you will feel that it's
>>an unfair behaviour ?
>
>
> We have no privacy requirements in the restaurant business.
>
> But our restaurant doesn't publicize our clientele in any case,
> forthis very reason.
>
> And, since I occasionally talk about celebrities in my restaurant in
> this forum, it's ANOTHER reason why I've never confirmed the identity
> *or* named the restaurant that I work in.
>
> You can drive around the issue of privacy all you want. I have to
> assume then that you feel privacy on the internet is a trivial matter.

....No, it's a phantasm. :-(

I have seen Arnold's site linked in many audio sites in USA, Europe,
Australia. Audio cards tests and Pcabx are referenced as to be
"interesting" on many specialized sites.
He has done a job which is available *free of charge* on the internet
and people from prestigious companies are interested in his job... No
reasons to kill the dog. This is my point of view.

Arnold job can be compared to free software development, you like you
use, you don't like you forget. In this job pride is the only salary, so
if you refuse them pride...

[George M. Middius]

Scott Gardner said:

> The *how* of what he's doing is no mystery. The question is, *why* is
> he going through his server logs, doing lookups on some or all of the
> IP addresses, and then posting the likely corporate affiliation of
> visitors to his site on this newsgroup?

My guess is the Kroobitch made him wear a chastity belt, so the only
masturbation he has left is the mental kind.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:18:06 GMT, (Scott Gardner)
> wrote:

>>>> Thanks Scott. I didn't remember that one.

Yup, Weil needs all the help he can get, and Gardner is more than pleased to
provide it.

>>>> I hope that he's a bit more circumspect in the future. The fact
>>>> that he's "tracing" downloads seems a shade sinister.

It's one of those things that web servers do, Weil. That you think its
sinister is yet another example of your problem with paranoia.

>>> All data servers have a log file of all the connections they
>>> received. Studying IP address you can exactly know who has logged
>>> in, how many time, what has been done...
>>> This is a secret for nobody.
>>> So why so much mysteries around this common fact ?

Good point!

>> The *how* of what he's doing is no mystery. The question is, *why*
>> is he going through his server logs, doing lookups on some or all of
>> the IP addresses, and then posting the likely corporate affiliation
>> of visitors to his site on this newsgroup?

Interesting how Gardner picks up on the paranoia.

Note that he shortly claims that all of this is in his area of expertise,
but yet he feigns ignorance of it at this point. More likely he's pretending
to expertise he doesn't actually have later on.

> And the real issue was originally putting lie to the claim that his
> site is anonymous.

<BTW, note that Weil still thinks I only have one site>

I never said that my sites were anonymous. Indeed, they are very easily
traceable to a very real person, being me.

However when people use my sites, I conceal the very tiny amount of personal
information that I might stumble over.

Fact of the matter is that I haven't done a detailed analysis of web lots
from PCABX for months and months. I was more interested in this sort of
information when I was more actively developing the site.


> The fact is, the person who downloaded the material might have been
> put in jeopardy within his own company. Had someone at Sony (or Dolby)
> seen that posting, they could very easily trace who had downloaded the
> material, if it was an issue for them. For instance, it could have
> been a person doing it on company time for personal reasons
> unbeknownst to the company. Another thing is, Sony or Dolby might not
> want Arnold using their company for endorsement purposes, especially
> when the endorsement is so vague.

You don't understand the symmetry of the web, do you Weil? If Sony wanted to
know what people in their organization were downloading, they would look at
their own web logs. I suspect that they do this all the time.

You've just made up another paranoid non-issue. It's what you do, eh Weil?

> There are many potential minefields that Arnold has obviously not
> thought about, and the fact that he's ungrateful to me for pointing
> them out isn't surprising in the least.

I'm just watching the tempest in the teapot come to a boil. Weil stirs one
turn, and then Gardner stirs one turn. It's a tag team! Just goes to show
you how many numskulls get dispatched to deal with me!

One more example of how RAO is most definitely not the real world...

[Lionel]

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> Scott Gardner said:
>
>
>>The *how* of what he's doing is no mystery. The question is, *why* is
>>he going through his server logs, doing lookups on some or all of the
>>IP addresses, and then posting the likely corporate affiliation of
>>visitors to his site on this newsgroup?
>
>
> My guess is the Kroobitch made him wear a chastity belt, so the only
> masturbation he has left is the mental kind.
>

Coming from you Middius everybody will laugh...

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 14:27:31 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>>> There's no mystery. Only a claim that anomynity is being claimed.
>>
>> So where did I mention the name of an individual who accessed my web
>> site, Weil?
>>
>> I didn't
>>
>> Therefore personal anonymity is being preserved.
>
> Are you claiming that the IT people at Dolby and Sony can't determine
> the identity of the said individuals?

I would claim that they do so now, and also monitor their downloads as well.

God may help some low level nerd from Sony who downloads gifs from some
kiddie porn site while at work...

> *Now* who's being naive, Arnold?

You Weil, again.

[George M. Middius]

Scott Gardner said to PedoBorg:

> Notice that I've never nitpicked your grammar and/or spelling. That's
> the kind of stuff I consider trivial and bull****.

Others do it only after Krooger has done it to them first. Except for
me -- I mention the Krooglish virus spontaneously.

> I've also never
> bought into this whole "proven pedophile" crap - which is what it is.
> That's bull**** too.

No, it's proven fact.

[Arny Krueger]

"Lionel" > wrote in message

..
>
> Sorry Dave but I sincerely think that you and Scott are trying to
> "**** the fly".

Interesting metaphor.

> We can understand that Arnold made a reference to prestigious
> visitors, moreover when he didn't give any individual name but just
> company name.

Right.

> If you have your own site, your provider would supply you with
> statistics and visitors domain names... It's a very useful marketing
> tool .

Right. But obviously Gardner and Weil don't know how pervasive this practice
is. Or they know, but they've got their eyes on those flies...

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 20:42:49 +0100, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>> Sorry Dave but I sincerely think that you and Scott are trying to
>> "**** the fly".
>> We can understand that Arnold made a reference to prestigious
>> visitors, moreover when he didn't give any individual name but just
>> company name.
>
> Are you in favor of giving employers ammunition for policing their
> workforce?

They've already got it!

>They do that anyway, but there should be a "Chinese Wall"
> when it comes to web sites.

Dream on!

> The only exception that I can see is in a
> case similar to that outlined in Arnold's own privacy statement and
> that's if law enforcement gets involved.

Weil, are you one naive ornery git or what?

>> If you have your own site, your provider would supply you with
>> statistics and visitors domain names... It's a very useful marketing
>> tool.

> And yet, if they or I disclosed that information on a public forum,
> people would reasonably question how I/we were guarding their personal
> information, especially if it involved their workplace.

No personal information was ever revealed by me Weil, no matter how you
posture.

> Also, it shows how little thought Arnold has put into his privacy
policies.

Lame or what?

[Arny Krueger]

"Lionel" > wrote in message

>
> I have seen Arnold's site linked in many audio sites in USA, Europe,
> Australia. Audio cards tests and Pcabx are referenced as to be
> "interesting" on many specialized sites.
> He has done a job which is available *free of charge* on the internet
> and people from prestigious companies are interested in his job... No
> reasons to kill the dog. This is my point of view.

> Arnold job can be compared to free software development, you like you
> use, you don't like you forget. In this job pride is the only salary,
> so if you refuse them pride...

Thanks. Thoughts like this are anathema around here, as you no doubt already
know.

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message

> Scott Gardner said to PedoBorg:
>
>> Notice that I've never nitpicked your grammar and/or spelling.
>> That's the kind of stuff I consider trivial and bull****.
>
> Others do it only after Krooger has done it to them first. Except for
> me -- I mention the Krooglish virus spontaneously.
>
>> I've also never
>> bought into this whole "proven pedophile" crap - which is what it is.
>> That's bull**** too.
>
> No, it's proven fact.

Proven where?

[Scott Gardner]

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 15:30:21 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:


>
>> Yes, but posting to a newsgroup is hardly "casual conversation".
>
>Sure it is. This is casual conversation. RAO is not the front page of the
>New York Times, in case somehow you thought it was Scott...

This is a Usenet newsgroup, accessed by a world-wide audience, and
archived for anyone to search at any time in the future. Compare this
to two people talking over a beer at lunch. You can appreciate the
difference in scope.

>> First, there's the worldwide scope of it, then there's the permanence
>> of it. The Dolby post of yours I quoted was over three years old, and
>> it took about a minute to find.
>
>So what?

I was just demonstrating the permanence of posts to Usenet. When a
minute's work brings up a relevant post from over three years ago,
surely you must admit that there's more of a permanence to Usenet
posts than there is in "casual conversation".
>
>> Let's put this in a way closer to home for you. The difference
>> between Usenet and "casual conversation" is the exact reason Wheeler's
>> suing you for libel and not slander.
>
>Wheeler has lost his mind and thinks that RAO is the real world, and I guess
>you have as well Scott. Is this a mental problem that is common among people
>who claim their name is Scott?

It's as much the real world as a column in an online magazine or
newspaper article - and they're responsible for what they publish.
The courts agree, and have ruled that defamation of character that
occurs online in newsgroups and online magazines falls under libel,
not slander. And that's solely due to the scope and permanence of the
media. That's the point I was making - I couldn't care less about the
actual lawsuit pending against you.

>LOL!
>
>>> But here you go again Scott, trying to make an innocent act into a
>>> major crime because I did it.
>
>> It's not a major crime - I never claimed it was. I just don't think
>> it's right to talk about "anonymity" when you've revealed the likely
>> corporate affiliation of at least two of your visitors.
>
>Where has anybody's anonymity been compromised? Where was an actual person's
>name mentioned?

So you're saying that posting everything about a visitor except his
name would be just dandy. What if a network administrator from Dolby
saw your post that someone from Dolby Labs was downloading programs
from your site, and he went through HIS logs and the individual that
visited your site was reprimanded? How well did you protect his
anonymity? Rather than playing games with what is and isn't an
improper disclosure, the best thing to do would be to keep the
contents of your logs to yourself.

>>> I really appreciate the subtleness of what you're trying to do,
>>> Scott.
>
>and the beat goes on...
>
>Scott tips his hand - he's in the sockpuppet wheel camp. I'd bet he's at
>least as much of a real person as sockpuppet Yustabe...
>
>LOL!

I don't know how many times I can say this, but I'm not in anyone's
"camp". Now are you claiming I'm not a real person? Why would you
doubt my name is "Scott"? I want to hear this - I really do. Accuse
me of lying about my identity.

Scott Gardner

[Scott Gardner]

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 15:43:20 -0500, George M. Middius
> wrote:

>
>
>Scott Gardner said to PedoBorg:
>
>> Notice that I've never nitpicked your grammar and/or spelling. That's
>> the kind of stuff I consider trivial and bull****.
>
>Others do it only after Krooger has done it to them first. Except for
>me -- I mention the Krooglish virus spontaneously.
>
>> I've also never
>> bought into this whole "proven pedophile" crap - which is what it is.
>> That's bull**** too.
>
>No, it's proven fact.
>
>
I've seen what passes for "proof" of Krueger's "pedophilia", and I'll
say again - it's bull****. Here's my take on the matter. Either he

A) Truly received the e-mails in question regarding his son, and
therefore didn't write them,

-or-

B) He wrote them himself, with the intention of making them appear to
have come from a third party. If he did this, it would serve his
purposes to creatively make the e-mails as vile and repugnant as he
possibly could. This would make the e-mails a work of fiction. Even
if he did write the e-mails himself, that makes him a pedophile about
as much as Stephen King's books make him a murderer, or Sean Connery's
movies make him a spy.

I don't know which of the above scenarios is true, but in my mind,
neither is worth a tinker's damn as "proof" of pedophilia.

Scott Gardner

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Gardner" > wrote in message

> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 15:30:21 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:

>>> Yes, but posting to a newsgroup is hardly "casual conversation".
>>
>> Sure it is. This is casual conversation. RAO is not the front page
>> of the New York Times, in case somehow you thought it was Scott...

> This is a Usenet newsgroup, accessed by a world-wide audience, and
> archived for anyone to search at any time in the future. Compare this
> to two people talking over a beer at lunch. You can appreciate the
> difference in scope.

RAO IS somewhat more public than the most private of all conversations. So
what?

>>> First, there's the worldwide scope of it, then there's the
>>> permanence of it. The Dolby post of yours I quoted was over three
>>> years old, and it took about a minute to find.
>>
>> So what?
>
> I was just demonstrating the permanence of posts to Usenet. When a
> minute's work brings up a relevant post from over three years ago,
> surely you must admit that there's more of a permanence to Usenet
> posts than there is in "casual conversation".

So what?

>>> Let's put this in a way closer to home for you. The difference
>>> between Usenet and "casual conversation" is the exact reason
>>> Wheeler's suing you for libel and not slander.

>> Wheeler has lost his mind and thinks that RAO is the real world, and
>> I guess you have as well Scott. Is this a mental problem that is
>> common among people who claim their name is Scott?

> It's as much the real world as a column in an online magazine or
> newspaper article - and they're responsible for what they publish.

Scott, if you think that equal rules of responsibility apply to RAO and the
front page of the New York Times, you must be doing some pretty heavy stuff.

> The courts agree, and have ruled that defamation of character that
> occurs online in newsgroups and online magazines falls under libel,
> not slander.

Cite a case.

> And that's solely due to the scope and permanence of the
> media. That's the point I was making - I couldn't care less about the
> actual lawsuit pending against you.

Of course scott, you're always as pure and spotless as the driven snow.

>> LOL!
>>
>>>> But here you go again Scott, trying to make an innocent act into a
>>>> major crime because I did it.
>>
>>> It's not a major crime - I never claimed it was. I just don't think
>>> it's right to talk about "anonymity" when you've revealed the likely
>>> corporate affiliation of at least two of your visitors.

>> Where has anybody's anonymity been compromised? Where was an actual
>> person's name mentioned?

> So you're saying that posting everything about a visitor except his
> name would be just dandy.

What does *everything* mean to you, Scott?

> What if a network administrator from Dolby
> saw your post that someone from Dolby Labs was downloading programs
> from your site, and he went through HIS logs and the individual that
> visited your site was reprimanded?

If Dolby Labs worried about such things they wouldn't be monitoring
newsgroups, they'd be looking at their own web logs which are far more
certain and immediate.

>How well did you protect his anonymity?

Perfectly.

>Rather than playing games with what is and isn't an
> improper disclosure, the best thing to do would be to keep the
> contents of your logs to yourself.

Scott, you've already put yourself in the certifiable loony category with
your comments about Usenet groups being identical in meaningfulness to
newspapers and magazines. Compound this weirdness at your own risk.

>>>> I really appreciate the subtleness of what you're trying to do,
>>>> Scott.

>> and the beat goes on...

>> Scott tips his hand - he's in the sockpuppet wheel camp. I'd bet
>> he's at least as much of a real person as sockpuppet Yustabe...

>> LOL!

> I don't know how many times I can say this, but I'm not in anyone's
"camp".

I've heard this story before, Scott.

> Now are you claiming I'm not a real person?

Obviously you're a real person, but are you as uninvolved as you claim?

> Why would you
> doubt my name is "Scott"? I want to hear this - I really do. Accuse
> me of lying about my identity.

Given how weird you are behaving *Scott*, why would you want to do this
under your own name?

Not even sockpuppets Yustabe and Wheel are that dumb, and on the scale of
dummies, they rank high.

[Scott Gardner]

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 15:40:41 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:


>
>>> The *how* of what he's doing is no mystery. The question is, *why*
>>> is he going through his server logs, doing lookups on some or all of
>>> the IP addresses, and then posting the likely corporate affiliation
>>> of visitors to his site on this newsgroup?
>
>Interesting how Gardner picks up on the paranoia.
>
>Note that he shortly claims that all of this is in his area of expertise,
>but yet he feigns ignorance of it at this point. More likely he's pretending
>to expertise he doesn't actually have later on.
>

I'll say it again. I was never in doubt as to the *how* of things.
It was the "why". Specifically, the last part of my paragraph above.
Why needlessly post content from your server logs in a public forum?

And for my relevant expertise - I'm probably going to regret this,
because I suspect it's not going to do any good:

I received a Bachelor's of Science in Computer Science and Engineering
from the University of Texas in Arlington in 1994. This was before
the big WWW boom, so it's only relevant as a background.

One of my collateral duties as an officer in the US Navy has
been "ADP Officer" for two of the squadrons I've been in. "ADP
Officer" roughly translates to "Computer Guy for the Squadron". It's
equal parts hardware troubleshooting, transporting the network from
place to place for detachments and deployments, user account
management, software maintenance and LAN administration. My first
squadron had about 200 users, and my current squadron has about 700.
I don't do as much log checking as you do, Arny, because we
receive our internet access through the Network Operations Center
(NOC) at Naval Station Norfolk. They maintain the firewalls and
police the network for improper use. My squadron does have a web
site, but all of the local squadron websites are maintained by
COMNAVAIRLANT, not at the squadron level.
That being said, I'm familiar with server logs, since that was
one of my responsibilities. I know about doing lookups on IP
addresses, even though I never used an automated program to do so. I
was limited by regulations to the software the Navy provided us.

The only part I was interested in was why you would needlessly
post information from your logs to a public forum.

Scott Gardner

[George M. Middius]

Scott Gardner said:

> >> I've also never
> >> bought into this whole "proven pedophile" crap - which is what it is.
> >> That's bull**** too.
> >
> >No, it's proven fact.
> >
> >
> I've seen what passes for "proof" of Krueger's "pedophilia", and I'll
> say again - it's bull****. Here's my take on the matter. Either he
>
> A) Truly received the e-mails in question regarding his son, and
> therefore didn't write them,

Proven to be not true.


> B) He wrote them himself, with the intention of making them appear to
> have come from a third party.

Yes, this is the only possible explanation.

> If he did this, it would serve his
> purposes to creatively make the e-mails as vile and repugnant as he
> possibly could. This would make the e-mails a work of fiction.

Yes, I'm sure everyone agrees about that.

> if he did write the e-mails himself, that makes him a pedophile about
> as much as Stephen King's books make him a murderer, or Sean Connery's
> movies make him a spy.

Not so. The moral content of the various fantasies is different.

You can ask Dr. Richman to delve into this matter if you want a
professional's insight. The commonsense analysis is that many people
fantasize about fun things like horror stories or superspies (or
sports heroes, space exploration, sex, mysteries, etc., etc., etc.).
However, fantasizing about pedophiliac activities is by definition
sick, and it is exactly why we say Krooger is a proven pedophile.
(I've qualified that judgment myself on several occasions by saying he
is proven to have pedophile tendencies. But because the license I
grant myself for my general agenda -- i.e. trashing Mr. **** -- I
round it up to full pedophilia.)

> I don't know which of the above scenarios is true, but in my mind,
> neither is worth a tinker's damn as "proof" of pedophilia.

You need to think about this some more.

Pedophilia is about as normal a subject for fantasy as is torture or
dismemberment. They both speak of a mental debility.

[George M. Middius]

Scott Gardner said to PervBorg:

> I don't know how many times I can say this, but I'm not in anyone's
> "camp". Now are you claiming I'm not a real person? Why would you
> doubt my name is "Scott"? I want to hear this - I really do. Accuse
> me of lying about my identity.

Krooger has many nicknames on RAO. One of the most trenchant is
ParanoiaBorg.

[Scott Gardner]

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 16:09:18 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Scott Gardner" > wrote in message

>> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 15:30:21 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>
>>>> Yes, but posting to a newsgroup is hardly "casual conversation".
>>>
>>> Sure it is. This is casual conversation. RAO is not the front page
>>> of the New York Times, in case somehow you thought it was Scott...
>
>> This is a Usenet newsgroup, accessed by a world-wide audience, and
>> archived for anyone to search at any time in the future. Compare this
>> to two people talking over a beer at lunch. You can appreciate the
>> difference in scope.
>
>RAO IS somewhat more public than the most private of all conversations. So
>what?
>
>>>> First, there's the worldwide scope of it, then there's the
>>>> permanence of it. The Dolby post of yours I quoted was over three
>>>> years old, and it took about a minute to find.
>>>
>>> So what?
>>
>> I was just demonstrating the permanence of posts to Usenet. When a
>> minute's work brings up a relevant post from over three years ago,
>> surely you must admit that there's more of a permanence to Usenet
>> posts than there is in "casual conversation".
>
>So what?
>
>>>> Let's put this in a way closer to home for you. The difference
>>>> between Usenet and "casual conversation" is the exact reason
>>>> Wheeler's suing you for libel and not slander.
>
>>> Wheeler has lost his mind and thinks that RAO is the real world, and
>>> I guess you have as well Scott. Is this a mental problem that is
>>> common among people who claim their name is Scott?
>
>> It's as much the real world as a column in an online magazine or
>> newspaper article - and they're responsible for what they publish.
>
>Scott, if you think that equal rules of responsibility apply to RAO and the
>front page of the New York Times, you must be doing some pretty heavy stuff.
>
>> The courts agree, and have ruled that defamation of character that
>> occurs online in newsgroups and online magazines falls under libel,
>> not slander.
>
>Cite a case.
>

Here's one of many I found:

http://tinyurl.com/xfg7

Note that the ruling was for the defendant, but that's not my point.
It was tried as a libel case, not a slander case. This was because of
the scope and permanence of the messages. I think there's a higher
level of responsibility called for when posting to an archived,
world-wide forum than there is while shooting the breeze with a buddy
over a beer. The courts agree, and that's why they try internet
defamation cases as libel, not slander.

Scott Gardner

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message

>
> Not so. The moral content of the various fantasies is different.

I'm prone to agree with this because it rather seriously indicts you,
Middius.


Here's an example of one of the Middius pedophile fantasies:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=36c659c4.357954419%40news.erols.com

From: (George M. Middius)
Message-ID: >#1/1

"Ooh, good one, Arnii! And you've been caught molesting
children in the park, and mutilating your son's corpse,
and stealing computer parts to support your drug habit."

> You can ask Dr. Richman to delve into this matter if you want a
> professional's insight. The commonsense analysis is that many people
> fantasize about fun things like horror stories or superspies (or
> sports heroes, space exploration, sex, mysteries, etc., etc., etc.).
> However, fantasizing about pedophiliac activities is by definition
> sick, and it is exactly why we say Krooger is a proven pedophile.

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=36546427.72288125%40news.erols.com

From: (George M. Middius)
Message-ID: >#1/1

"I also notice that Arnii's mama is still living, but his
father is not. Cheech, how about a murder-suicide as a
working theory? Nate used Arnii's gun on Grandpa, then
deliberately ODed on drugs. Too bad the frame-up failed,
of course."

> (I've qualified that judgment myself on several occasions by saying he
> is proven to have pedophile tendencies. But because the license I
> grant myself for my general agenda -- i.e. trashing Mr. **** -- I
> round it up to full pedophilia.)
>
>> I don't know which of the above scenarios is true, but in my mind,
>> neither is worth a tinker's damn as "proof" of pedophilia.
>
> You need to think about this some more.

> Pedophilia is about as normal a subject for fantasy as is torture or
> dismemberment. They both speak of a mental debility.

This approach rather seriously indicts Greg Singh, Marc Phillips and
people who post under the names "Benchimol", "North", "Graham" as well as
several others.

Of course Richman has done a good job of holding his peace about all of the
above.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Gardner" > wrote in message

>
> The only part I was interested in was why you would needlessly
> post information from your logs to a public forum.

Nice one, "needlessly".

You don't miss an opportunity to slam me, do you Scott?

[Scott Gardner]

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 16:20:25 -0500, George M. Middius
> wrote:

>
>
>Scott Gardner said:
>
>> >> I've also never
>> >> bought into this whole "proven pedophile" crap - which is what it is.
>> >> That's bull**** too.
>> >
>> >No, it's proven fact.
>> >
>> >
>> I've seen what passes for "proof" of Krueger's "pedophilia", and I'll
>> say again - it's bull****. Here's my take on the matter. Either he
>>
>> A) Truly received the e-mails in question regarding his son, and
>> therefore didn't write them,
>
>Proven to be not true.
>
>
>> B) He wrote them himself, with the intention of making them appear to
>> have come from a third party.
>
>Yes, this is the only possible explanation.
>
>> If he did this, it would serve his
>> purposes to creatively make the e-mails as vile and repugnant as he
>> possibly could. This would make the e-mails a work of fiction.
>
>Yes, I'm sure everyone agrees about that.
>
>> if he did write the e-mails himself, that makes him a pedophile about
>> as much as Stephen King's books make him a murderer, or Sean Connery's
>> movies make him a spy.
>
>Not so. The moral content of the various fantasies is different.
>
>You can ask Dr. Richman to delve into this matter if you want a
>professional's insight. The commonsense analysis is that many people
>fantasize about fun things like horror stories or superspies (or
>sports heroes, space exploration, sex, mysteries, etc., etc., etc.).
>However, fantasizing about pedophiliac activities is by definition
>sick, and it is exactly why we say Krooger is a proven pedophile.
>(I've qualified that judgment myself on several occasions by saying he
>is proven to have pedophile tendencies. But because the license I
>grant myself for my general agenda -- i.e. trashing Mr. **** -- I
>round it up to full pedophilia.)
>
>> I don't know which of the above scenarios is true, but in my mind,
>> neither is worth a tinker's damn as "proof" of pedophilia.
>
>You need to think about this some more.
>
>Pedophilia is about as normal a subject for fantasy as is torture or
>dismemberment. They both speak of a mental debility.


I still maintain that *if* he authored the e-mails himself, it
would further his purposes to make them as sick, vile, and repulsive
as he possibly could. Anyone with an imagination and a desire to
craft a piece of intentionally putrid communication can do so without
having any "tendencies". Or are you claiming that even being able to
form the required words into a sentence would prove his "pedophilic
tendencies"?
If you're writing an e-mail with the intention of making it
appear to have come from a third party, you're not describing a
personal fantasy - you're writing as much sick **** as you can with
the hopes of pinning it on someone else.
Would you claim that the writers of the screenplay for "Seven"
(or "Se7en", whichever is correct) are "proven" to have deviant
tendencies because of the writing in the screenplay?
Your standard of "proof" is pitifully low.

Scott Gardner

[Scott Gardner]

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 16:45:19 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Scott Gardner" > wrote in message

>>
>> The only part I was interested in was why you would needlessly
>> post information from your logs to a public forum.
>
>Nice one, "needlessly".
>
>You don't miss an opportunity to slam me, do you Scott?
>

Fine, strike the word "needlessly" if you please. It doesn't
materially change the post.

And I've already given several instances where I haven't said 'boo' to
you - spelling errors, grammar errors, making up words, the whole
"pedophilia" debacle...

Scott Gardner

[dave weil]

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 15:23:29 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>
>> But our restaurant doesn't publicize our clientele in any case,
>> for this very reason.
>
>Any case, eh? So if a food critic eats there and gives favorable mention in
>a newspaper, your restaurant would never publicly mention it?

If a food critic mentions us first publicly mentions us, the issue of
privacy is moot.

When a food critic comes in and I wait on them on their birthday, as
happened about 6 months ago, and they don't write about it, then no,
we don't mention their name publicly in conjunction with this event.

>> And, since I occasionally talk about celebrities in my restaurant in
>> this forum, it's ANOTHER reason why I've never confirmed the identity
>> *or* named the restaurant that I work in.

>This is an interesting dodge. It allows you to brag about your restaurant
>using someone's name and yet deceptively claim that you've protected
>that person's privacy.

It's irrelevant to the issue of privacy when accessing a web site.

[dave weil]

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 15:23:29 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>> You can drive around the issue of privacy all you want. I have to
>> assume then that you feel privacy on the internet is a trivial matter.
>
>It's not trivial to me. Unlike you, I've never mentioned the name of a
>person who visited my work place (i.e., web site) unless they first
>mentioned themselves in public.

I've never mentioned the name of my workplace, so you lose.

Again.

[George M. Middius]

Scott Gardner said:

> >> I don't know which of the above scenarios is true, but in my mind,
> >> neither is worth a tinker's damn as "proof" of pedophilia.
> >
> >You need to think about this some more.
> >
> >Pedophilia is about as normal a subject for fantasy as is torture or
> >dismemberment. They both speak of a mental debility.
>
>
> I still maintain that *if* he authored the e-mails himself, it
> would further his purposes to make them as sick, vile, and repulsive
> as he possibly could.

If you were the one playing the game, maybe so. But this is Krooger.

Maybe you didn't realize that Krooger has made similar posts before,
posts that were less lurid but whose content was equally disturbing.


> Anyone with an imagination and a desire to
> craft a piece of intentionally putrid communication can do so without
> having any "tendencies".

Not "anyone".

> Or are you claiming that even being able to
> form the required words into a sentence would prove his "pedophilic
> tendencies"?

No, and please don't ply Krooger's "debating trade" when you're
talking to normal people. I didn't go that far. My implication is that
Krooger's posting them on a public forum reinforces what we believe to
be the truth about Mr. ****.

> If you're writing an e-mail with the intention of making it
> appear to have come from a third party, you're not describing a
> personal fantasy - you're writing as much sick **** as you can with
> the hopes of pinning it on someone else.

No, I don't accept that.

> Would you claim that the writers of the screenplay for "Seven"
> (or "Se7en", whichever is correct) are "proven" to have deviant
> tendencies because of the writing in the screenplay?

Nope.

> Your standard of "proof" is pitifully low.

Your standard for understanding what is plain as day is equally as low
as what you *imagine* my "standards" to be.

I hope you notice that in several of your thrusts in this posts, you
attempted to put words in my mouth and impute meanings I never stated
or implied.

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
>
> > "Sandman" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> I suppose the really cruel thing to do would be to abandon RAO again
> >> and allow it to degenerate into a bitch-fest about nothing all over
> >> again.
> >>
> >> On a kinder note, I hope it's all made your lives a bit more
> >> interesting
> > for
> >> a short while.
> >>
> >
> > It's definitely been interesting, but, still, its no substitute for
> > talking about Wheeler's lawsuit against Arny.
>
> Or talking about how in a moment of absent-mindedness you've denied that
you
> are who you and your clique generally say you are...
>
>

paranoid fantasies abound!!!

I am Art Sackman

the same email address I have usually used with my various handles.
See, I tell you who I am, and you deny it. So, that is why I tell you little
else.




----== 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 Tue, 02 Dec 2003 17:36:31 -0500, George M. Middius
> wrote:

>
>
>Scott Gardner said:
>
>> >> I don't know which of the above scenarios is true, but in my mind,
>> >> neither is worth a tinker's damn as "proof" of pedophilia.
>> >
>> >You need to think about this some more.
>> >
>> >Pedophilia is about as normal a subject for fantasy as is torture or
>> >dismemberment. They both speak of a mental debility.
>>
>>
>> I still maintain that *if* he authored the e-mails himself, it
>> would further his purposes to make them as sick, vile, and repulsive
>> as he possibly could.
>
>If you were the one playing the game, maybe so. But this is Krooger.
>
>Maybe you didn't realize that Krooger has made similar posts before,
>posts that were less lurid but whose content was equally disturbing.
>
>
>> Anyone with an imagination and a desire to
>> craft a piece of intentionally putrid communication can do so without
>> having any "tendencies".
>
>Not "anyone".
>
>> Or are you claiming that even being able to
>> form the required words into a sentence would prove his "pedophilic
>> tendencies"?
>
>No, and please don't ply Krooger's "debating trade" when you're
>talking to normal people. I didn't go that far. My implication is that
>Krooger's posting them on a public forum reinforces what we believe to
>be the truth about Mr. ****.

Yes, but "reinforcing what you believe" is a far cry from "proof".

>
>> If you're writing an e-mail with the intention of making it
>> appear to have come from a third party, you're not describing a
>> personal fantasy - you're writing as much sick **** as you can with
>> the hopes of pinning it on someone else.
>
>No, I don't accept that.

Show me why not. I could write a particularly horrid piece of fiction
about bestiality, pedophilia, or any other topic you can imagine. I
claim that anyone with a sufficient grasp of language could do the
same. They're just words.

>
>> Would you claim that the writers of the screenplay for "Seven"
>> (or "Se7en", whichever is correct) are "proven" to have deviant
>> tendencies because of the writing in the screenplay?
>
>Nope.

Why not? In your previous post, you said that things like pedophilia
and torture were different from subjects like murder when it came to
writing about them. I used "Seven" as an example because it contained
scenes of particularly nasty torture. Why doesn't your assertion hold
in regards to the writers of that movie? Why are they not now
"proven" to have deviant tendencies?
>
>> Your standard of "proof" is pitifully low.
>
>Your standard for understanding what is plain as day is equally as low
>as what you *imagine* my "standards" to be.
>
>I hope you notice that in several of your thrusts in this posts, you
>attempted to put words in my mouth and impute meanings I never stated
>or implied.

I disagree. Every point I've made in this thread has been in response
to either a direct statement or a clear implication. Show me
otherwise, and I'll retract and apologize as necessary.

Scott Gardner

[George M. Middius]

Scott Gardner said:

> >> If you're writing an e-mail with the intention of making it
> >> appear to have come from a third party, you're not describing a
> >> personal fantasy - you're writing as much sick **** as you can with
> >> the hopes of pinning it on someone else.
> >
> >No, I don't accept that.
>
> Show me why not. I could write a particularly horrid piece of fiction
> about bestiality, pedophilia, or any other topic you can imagine. I
> claim that anyone with a sufficient grasp of language could do the
> same. They're just words.

I grant that you might do that to prove a point.

However, as I stated explicitly before, we're talking about Krooger.


> >> Would you claim that the writers of the screenplay for "Seven"
> >> (or "Se7en", whichever is correct) are "proven" to have deviant
> >> tendencies because of the writing in the screenplay?
> >
> >Nope.
>
> Why not? In your previous post, you said that things like pedophilia
> and torture were different from subjects like murder when it came to
> writing about them. I used "Seven" as an example because it contained
> scenes of particularly nasty torture. Why doesn't your assertion hold
> in regards to the writers of that movie? Why are they not now
> "proven" to have deviant tendencies?

For one thing, they were written as actual fiction by people in order
to earn money. For another, they were packaged as fiction,
recognizable as fiction, and sold as fiction. Krooger's efforts,
however, are intended to be earnest impersonations of reality. Mr.
**** has always claimed they were true. Also, even after having been
exposed as a liar, Krooger continued to insist the emails existed.
Further, Krooger has zero sense of humor, zero sense of style, and
zero self-awareness. Everything he posts is an attempt to "state
facts" or "prove" something.

Krooger is not capable of conceiving, imagining, designing, or
executing the frippery you have in mind.


> >I hope you notice that in several of your thrusts in this posts, you
> >attempted to put words in my mouth and impute meanings I never stated
> >or implied.
>
> I disagree. Every point I've made in this thread has been in response
> to either a direct statement or a clear implication. Show me
> otherwise, and I'll retract and apologize as necessary.

I already did show you. I pointed them out explicitly.

I can't believe that in this day and age, when Krooger's insanity has
been proven hundreds of times, an apparently rational person is still
afflicted with a persistent infection of Kroopologism.

[Scott Gardner]

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 18:15:40 -0500, George M. Middius
> wrote:

>
>
>Scott Gardner said:
>
>> >> If you're writing an e-mail with the intention of making it
>> >> appear to have come from a third party, you're not describing a
>> >> personal fantasy - you're writing as much sick **** as you can with
>> >> the hopes of pinning it on someone else.
>> >
>> >No, I don't accept that.
>>
>> Show me why not. I could write a particularly horrid piece of fiction
>> about bestiality, pedophilia, or any other topic you can imagine. I
>> claim that anyone with a sufficient grasp of language could do the
>> same. They're just words.
>
>I grant that you might do that to prove a point.
>
>However, as I stated explicitly before, we're talking about Krooger.
>
>
>> >> Would you claim that the writers of the screenplay for "Seven"
>> >> (or "Se7en", whichever is correct) are "proven" to have deviant
>> >> tendencies because of the writing in the screenplay?
>> >
>> >Nope.
>>
>> Why not? In your previous post, you said that things like pedophilia
>> and torture were different from subjects like murder when it came to
>> writing about them. I used "Seven" as an example because it contained
>> scenes of particularly nasty torture. Why doesn't your assertion hold
>> in regards to the writers of that movie? Why are they not now
>> "proven" to have deviant tendencies?
>
>For one thing, they were written as actual fiction by people in order
>to earn money. For another, they were packaged as fiction,
>recognizable as fiction, and sold as fiction. Krooger's efforts,
>however, are intended to be earnest impersonations of reality. Mr.
>**** has always claimed they were true. Also, even after having been
>exposed as a liar, Krooger continued to insist the emails existed.
>Further, Krooger has zero sense of humor, zero sense of style, and
>zero self-awareness. Everything he posts is an attempt to "state
>facts" or "prove" something.

So you don't necessarily have any deviant tendencies if you
intend for your writing to be fiction? Okay, I claim that putting
together a disgusting e-mail with the purpose of passing it off as the
work of a third person is fiction as well.

>
>Krooger is not capable of conceiving, imagining, designing, or
>executing the frippery you have in mind.

Okay. If you are claiming that Krueger lacks the mental capacity to
string together words in English to intentionally craft an e-mail to
be as horrid as possible, I can't refute that. There's no way for me
to argue as to his capabilities.

>
>> >I hope you notice that in several of your thrusts in this posts, you
>> >attempted to put words in my mouth and impute meanings I never stated
>> >or implied.
>>
>> I disagree. Every point I've made in this thread has been in response
>> to either a direct statement or a clear implication. Show me
>> otherwise, and I'll retract and apologize as necessary.
>
>I already did show you. I pointed them out explicitly.

Uh, no - you didn't. You made the above accusation at the tail end of
your post. Show me one example of my putting words in your mouth.
>
>I can't believe that in this day and age, when Krooger's insanity has
>been proven hundreds of times, an apparently rational person is still
>afflicted with a persistent infection of Kroopologism.


Geez, you're as bad as Krueger. Do you have an 'enemies' list
too? I wasn't apologizing for Krueger or anyone else. I was pointing
out the fallacy of your claims of "proven pedophile". I swear, I've
heard the phrase "proven pedophile" so often here on RAO that it's
almost like some kind of motto.
Your "proof" doesn't satisfy any reasonable definition of the
word, and wouldn't stand up in any forum that required real "proof".

Scott Gardner

[George M. Middius]

Scott Gardner said:

> >For one thing, they were written as actual fiction by people in order
> >to earn money. For another, they were packaged as fiction,
> >recognizable as fiction, and sold as fiction. Krooger's efforts,
> >however, are intended to be earnest impersonations of reality. Mr.
> >**** has always claimed they were true. Also, even after having been
> >exposed as a liar, Krooger continued to insist the emails existed.
> >Further, Krooger has zero sense of humor, zero sense of style, and
> >zero self-awareness. Everything he posts is an attempt to "state
> >facts" or "prove" something.
>
> So you don't necessarily have any deviant tendencies if you
> intend for your writing to be fiction?

As I've stated repeatedly, if by "you", you mean "a sane person other
than Krooger", then I would answer yes.

> Okay, I claim that putting
> together a disgusting e-mail with the purpose of passing it off as the
> work of a third person is fiction as well.

That might be true of you, but it's not true of Krooger.


> >Krooger is not capable of conceiving, imagining, designing, or
> >executing the frippery you have in mind.
>
> Okay. If you are claiming that Krueger lacks the mental capacity to
> string together words in English to intentionally craft an e-mail to
> be as horrid as possible, I can't refute that. There's no way for me
> to argue as to his capabilities.

Once again, you're putting words in my mouth. The word "horrid" has
many possible manifestations. It was Krooger who chose to animate the
presumed horror with pedophiliac fantasies.

The Kroogerness of Krooger is the nub of the argument. If somebody
else did it, like you for example, it's possible it could all be a
ploy. A truly disgusting ploy, in my opinion, because it has zero
chance of attracting sympathy. If I were doing something like that, I
would never produce "excerpts" that disgust people. I would simply say
that anybody who sends pornographic emails including dirty pictures
involving children is sick. The fact that Krooger made up "excerpts"
of a twisted and sexually perverted nature should speak volumes. Just
imagine doing something like that yourself, and see if you come up
with anything as revolting as what Krooger posted.


> >> I disagree. Every point I've made in this thread has been in response
> >> to either a direct statement or a clear implication. Show me
> >> otherwise, and I'll retract and apologize as necessary.
> >
> >I already did show you. I pointed them out explicitly.
>
> Uh, no - you didn't. You made the above accusation at the tail end of
> your post. Show me one example of my putting words in your mouth.

Aside from the one cited a few 'graphs above, here are the others I
previously cited in earlier posts today:

==================================================

> Or are you claiming that even being able to
> form the required words into a sentence would prove his "pedophilic
> tendencies"?

No, and please don't ply Krooger's "debating trade" when you're
talking to normal people. I didn't go that far. My implication is that
Krooger's posting them on a public forum reinforces what we believe to
be the truth about Mr. ****.

==================================================

> Would you claim that the writers of the screenplay for "Seven"
> (or "Se7en", whichever is correct) are "proven" to have deviant
> tendencies because of the writing in the screenplay?

Nope.

> Your standard of "proof" is pitifully low.

Your standard for understanding what is plain as day is equally as low
as what you *imagine* my "standards" to be.

==================================================


> >I can't believe that in this day and age, when Krooger's insanity has
> >been proven hundreds of times, an apparently rational person is still
> >afflicted with a persistent infection of Kroopologism.

> Geez, you're as bad as Krueger. Do you have an 'enemies' list
> too? I wasn't apologizing for Krueger or anyone else.

You certainly are apologizing for Krooger. You're trying to mask his
pedophiliac tendencies (I hope you appreciation the mollification),
and you're ridiculously claiming that his behavior is rational and
reasonable.


> I was pointing
> out the fallacy of your claims of "proven pedophile". I swear, I've
> heard the phrase "proven pedophile" so often here on RAO that it's
> almost like some kind of motto.

Your explanation for Krooger's behavior is unbelievable. That you
continue to insist on its reasonableness shows you haven't done your
homework.


> Your "proof" doesn't satisfy any reasonable definition of the
> word, and wouldn't stand up in any forum that required real "proof".

Possibly not. This is not a court of law, however, and you are
deliberately, and obtusely, attributing to Krooger an intelligence he
does not have, and even worse, ignoring the hideous behavior of that
disgusting piece of **** for many years.

I will admit that my judgment of Turdy's behavior in this instance
(the pedophiliac fantasies) is colored by my overall opinion of him,
formed by watching him be a monstrous and disgusting sociopath for
years.

Your idea that one shouldn't say anything in public that one wouldn't
say in a court of law is bizarre. That is what you meant, right?

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Gardner" > wrote in message


> I swear, I've heard the phrase "proven pedophile" so often here on RAO
that it's
> almost like some kind of motto.

Well that's obviously why sockpuppet wheel is suing me. I didn't call him a
"proven pedophile".

[Scott Gardner]

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 18:44:15 -0500, George M. Middius
> wrote:

>
>
>Scott Gardner said:
>
>> >For one thing, they were written as actual fiction by people in order
>> >to earn money. For another, they were packaged as fiction,
>> >recognizable as fiction, and sold as fiction. Krooger's efforts,
>> >however, are intended to be earnest impersonations of reality. Mr.
>> >**** has always claimed they were true. Also, even after having been
>> >exposed as a liar, Krooger continued to insist the emails existed.
>> >Further, Krooger has zero sense of humor, zero sense of style, and
>> >zero self-awareness. Everything he posts is an attempt to "state
>> >facts" or "prove" something.
>>
>> So you don't necessarily have any deviant tendencies if you
>> intend for your writing to be fiction?
>
>As I've stated repeatedly, if by "you", you mean "a sane person other
>than Krooger", then I would answer yes.
>
>> Okay, I claim that putting
>> together a disgusting e-mail with the purpose of passing it off as the
>> work of a third person is fiction as well.
>
>That might be true of you, but it's not true of Krooger.
>
>
>> >Krooger is not capable of conceiving, imagining, designing, or
>> >executing the frippery you have in mind.
>>
>> Okay. If you are claiming that Krueger lacks the mental capacity to
>> string together words in English to intentionally craft an e-mail to
>> be as horrid as possible, I can't refute that. There's no way for me
>> to argue as to his capabilities.
>
>Once again, you're putting words in my mouth. The word "horrid" has
>many possible manifestations. It was Krooger who chose to animate the
>presumed horror with pedophiliac fantasies.
>
>The Kroogerness of Krooger is the nub of the argument. If somebody
>else did it, like you for example, it's possible it could all be a
>ploy. A truly disgusting ploy, in my opinion, because it has zero
>chance of attracting sympathy. If I were doing something like that, I
>would never produce "excerpts" that disgust people. I would simply say
>that anybody who sends pornographic emails including dirty pictures
>involving children is sick. The fact that Krooger made up "excerpts"
>of a twisted and sexually perverted nature should speak volumes. Just
>imagine doing something like that yourself, and see if you come up
>with anything as revolting as what Krooger posted.
>
>
>> >> I disagree. Every point I've made in this thread has been in response
>> >> to either a direct statement or a clear implication. Show me
>> >> otherwise, and I'll retract and apologize as necessary.
>> >
>> >I already did show you. I pointed them out explicitly.
>>
>> Uh, no - you didn't. You made the above accusation at the tail end of
>> your post. Show me one example of my putting words in your mouth.
>
>Aside from the one cited a few 'graphs above, here are the others I
>previously cited in earlier posts today:
>
>==================================================
>
>> Or are you claiming that even being able to
>> form the required words into a sentence would prove his "pedophilic
>> tendencies"?
>
>No, and please don't ply Krooger's "debating trade" when you're
>talking to normal people. I didn't go that far. My implication is that
>Krooger's posting them on a public forum reinforces what we believe to
>be the truth about Mr. ****.
>
>==================================================
>
>> Would you claim that the writers of the screenplay for "Seven"
>> (or "Se7en", whichever is correct) are "proven" to have deviant
>> tendencies because of the writing in the screenplay?
>
>Nope.
>
>> Your standard of "proof" is pitifully low.
>
>Your standard for understanding what is plain as day is equally as low
>as what you *imagine* my "standards" to be.
>
>==================================================
>
>
>> >I can't believe that in this day and age, when Krooger's insanity has
>> >been proven hundreds of times, an apparently rational person is still
>> >afflicted with a persistent infection of Kroopologism.
>
>> Geez, you're as bad as Krueger. Do you have an 'enemies' list
>> too? I wasn't apologizing for Krueger or anyone else.
>
>You certainly are apologizing for Krooger. You're trying to mask his
>pedophiliac tendencies (I hope you appreciation the mollification),
>and you're ridiculously claiming that his behavior is rational and
>reasonable.

So you'll give him enough credit to write a disgusting e-mail and try
to pass it off as someone else's work, but not credit him with enough
imagination to craft a disgusting piece of fiction?
>
>
>> I was pointing
>> out the fallacy of your claims of "proven pedophile". I swear, I've
>> heard the phrase "proven pedophile" so often here on RAO that it's
>> almost like some kind of motto.
>
>Your explanation for Krooger's behavior is unbelievable. That you
>continue to insist on its reasonableness shows you haven't done your
>homework.
>
>
>> Your "proof" doesn't satisfy any reasonable definition of the
>> word, and wouldn't stand up in any forum that required real "proof".
>
>Possibly not. This is not a court of law, however, and you are
>deliberately, and obtusely, attributing to Krooger an intelligence he
>does not have, and even worse, ignoring the hideous behavior of that
>disgusting piece of **** for many years.
>
>I will admit that my judgment of Turdy's behavior in this instance
>(the pedophiliac fantasies) is colored by my overall opinion of him,
>formed by watching him be a monstrous and disgusting sociopath for
>years.

In my points, I was asking *if* you would extend your
arguments to cover the similar examples you gave. You said you
wouldn't. Fine. That's not the same as putting words in your mouth.
I was asking you if your broad, general statement applies to a
particular case. You also said that my arguments made sense, if we
were dealing with a person other than Krueger. I don't have near the
experience that you do with Krueger. If you are saying that he would
not and could not come up with the scenario I proposed - you're in a
better position to say, but I still don't think it qualifies as
"proof" of anything.

>
>Your idea that one shouldn't say anything in public that one wouldn't
>say in a court of law is bizarre. That is what you meant, right?

No, that's *not* what I meant. I meant that, to me, the words "proof"
and "proven" have a very specific meaning. I say things every day
that I can't prove in a court of law. Some of them are merely
opinions, others are unverifiable facts.
Not every statement should have to be backed up with
courtroom-worthy evidence, but I personally feel an accusation of
pedophilia (or "pedophilic tendencies", to use your term) is one of
those things that does.

Scott Gardner

[Michael Mckelvy]

"Sandman" > wrote in message
...
> I began putting up a bunch of posts a few weeks ago about what's going on
> out there in the real world, including some satiric lyrics, cartoons,
links
> to articles about what's happening all around us, etc., and wouldn't you
> know, some of the first responses I got were from the likes of Arnii who
> wondered out loud why I was so clueless as to not realize this was an
audio
> discussion forum.
>
> The fact is, since people like Arnii invaded this forum, almost seven
years
> ago, it has had less and less to do about audio and more and more to do
> about mindless, childish bickering about nothing.
>
> So I just thought I'd shake things up a bit and give the regular resident
> idiots here something real to bicker about for a change.
>
> And sure enough, as I suspected they would, they, including Arnii, all
> started bickering in the threads I started for them to bicker in, to the
> point that those threads now contain the vast majority of posts in this
ng.
> Not that the level of discourse has changed one bit, mind you, but at
least
> they're bickering about the real world for a change (although no more than
a
> handful seem to have any grasp that the world they're now bitching about
is
> any different than the nothingness they used to bitch about).
>
> I suppose the really cruel thing to do would be to abandon RAO again and
> allow it to degenerate into a bitch-fest about nothing all over again.
>
> On a kinder note, I hope it's all made your lives a bit more interesting
for
> a short while.
>
>
All you did was prove you're a leftist liar and generally misinformed.

[Scott Gardner]

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 00:04:46 GMT, (Scott Gardner)
wrote:

> In my points, I was asking *if* you would extend your
>arguments to cover the similar examples you gave. You said you
>wouldn't. Fine. That's not the same as putting words in your mouth.
>I was asking you if your broad, general statement applies to a
>particular case. You also said that my arguments made sense, if we
>were dealing with a person other than Krueger. I don't have near the
>experience that you do with Krueger. If you are saying that he would
>not and could not come up with the scenario I proposed - you're in a
>better position to say, but I still don't think it qualifies as
>"proof" of anything.


In the first sentence above, it should read "to cover the similar
examples *I* gave".

Mea Culpa

Scott Gardner

[George M. Middius]

Scott Gardner said:

> >I will admit that my judgment of Turdy's behavior in this instance
> >(the pedophiliac fantasies) is colored by my overall opinion of him,
> >formed by watching him be a monstrous and disgusting sociopath for
> >years.

> In my points, I was asking *if* you would extend your
> arguments to cover the similar examples you gave. You said you
> wouldn't. Fine. That's not the same as putting words in your mouth.

You were "asking"? My mistake. It seemed that you were presuming. I
formed that opinion because of the language and punctuation you used.

> I was asking you if your broad, general statement applies to a
> particular case. You also said that my arguments made sense, if we
> were dealing with a person other than Krueger.

I didn't say they made sense. Stop putting words in my mouth.

> I don't have near the
> experience that you do with Krueger.

Well, we finally agree on something.

> If you are saying that he would
> not and could not come up with the scenario I proposed - you're in a
> better position to say, but I still don't think it qualifies as
> "proof" of anything.

Now you're ignoring the words I *did* say.


> >Your idea that one shouldn't say anything in public that one wouldn't
> >say in a court of law is bizarre. That is what you meant, right?

> No, that's *not* what I meant.

Don't like it much, do you?

[George M. Middius]

Scott Gardner said:

> >I will admit that my judgment of Turdy's behavior in this instance
> >(the pedophiliac fantasies) is colored by my overall opinion of him,
> >formed by watching him be a monstrous and disgusting sociopath for
> >years.

> In my points, I was asking *if* you would extend your
> arguments to cover the similar examples you gave. You said you
> wouldn't. Fine. That's not the same as putting words in your mouth.

You were "asking"? My mistake. It seemed to me that you were presuming.
I formed that opinion because of the language and punctuation you used.

> I was asking you if your broad, general statement applies to a
> particular case. You also said that my arguments made sense, if we
> were dealing with a person other than Krueger.

I didn't say they made sense. Stop putting words in my mouth.

> I don't have near the
> experience that you do with Krueger.

Well, we finally agree on something.

> If you are saying that he would
> not and could not come up with the scenario I proposed - you're in a
> better position to say, but I still don't think it qualifies as
> "proof" of anything.

Now you're ignoring the words I *did* say.


> >Your idea that one shouldn't say anything in public that one wouldn't
> >say in a court of law is bizarre. That is what you meant, right?

> No, that's *not* what I meant.

Don't like it much, do you?

[Scott Gardner]

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:48:27 -0500, George M. Middius
> wrote:

>
>
>Scott Gardner said:
>
>> >I will admit that my judgment of Turdy's behavior in this instance
>> >(the pedophiliac fantasies) is colored by my overall opinion of him,
>> >formed by watching him be a monstrous and disgusting sociopath for
>> >years.
>
>> In my points, I was asking *if* you would extend your
>> arguments to cover the similar examples you gave. You said you
>> wouldn't. Fine. That's not the same as putting words in your mouth.
>
>You were "asking"? My mistake. It seemed that you were presuming. I
>formed that opinion because of the language and punctuation you used.

Here are the two questions.

Would you claim that the writers of the screenplay for "Seven"
(or "Se7en", whichever is correct) are "proven" to have deviant
tendencies because of the writing in the screenplay?

-and-

Or are you claiming that even being able to
form the required words into a sentence would prove his "pedophilic
tendencies"?



Let see, one begins with "Would you", the other begins with "Or are
you", and both sentences end with question marks. What exactly about
my language or punctuation would lead you away from considering these
questions?

All I was doing was taking your statement and asking you whether it
would apply to a similar case.

>>You can ask Dr. Richman to delve into this matter if you want a
>>professional's insight. The commonsense analysis is that many people
>>fantasize about fun things like horror stories or superspies (or
>>sports heroes, space exploration, sex, mysteries, etc., etc., etc.).
>>However, fantasizing about pedophiliac activities is by definition
>>sick, and it is exactly why we say Krooger is a proven pedophile.

I don't know who Dr. Richman is, but by this statement, I think it's
reasonable to ask whether you would consider similar evidence "proof"
in the case of a screenwriter that writes about sick, perverse ****.
They both have their own motivation. The screenwriter is doing it for
profit, and Krueger would be doing it to denigrate a third party.


>> You also said that my arguments made sense, if we
>> were dealing with a person other than Krueger.
>
>I didn't say they made sense. Stop putting words in my mouth.

I'm not - here's my statement, with your reply saying that it would be
reasonable for one person, but not Krueger

> I still maintain that *if* he authored the e-mails himself, it
> would further his purposes to make them as sick, vile, and repulsive
> as he possibly could.

>>If you were the one playing the game, maybe so. But this is Krooger.

Here's another:

> Show me why not. I could write a particularly horrid piece of fiction
> about bestiality, pedophilia, or any other topic you can imagine. I
> claim that anyone with a sufficient grasp of language could do the
> same. They're just words.

>>I grant that you might do that to prove a point.

>>However, as I stated explicitly before, we're talking about Krooger.





So that's twice that you've admited my arguments were possible, except
for the fact that you claim they don't apply to Krueger.



>> >Your idea that one shouldn't say anything in public that one wouldn't
>> >say in a court of law is bizarre. That is what you meant, right?
>
>> No, that's *not* what I meant.
>
>Don't like it much, do you?

I neither like it nor dislike it. I've responded to it, however.

Scott Gardner

[George M. Middius]

Scott Gardner said:

> >You were "asking"? My mistake. It seemed that you were presuming. I
> >formed that opinion because of the language and punctuation you used.
>
> Here are the two questions.
>
> Would you claim that the writers of the screenplay for "Seven"
> (or "Se7en", whichever is correct) are "proven" to have deviant
> tendencies because of the writing in the screenplay?

No.

> -and-
>
> Or are you claiming that even being able to
> form the required words into a sentence would prove his "pedophilic
> tendencies"?

I doubt it, but I don't know for sure because I don't know who "his"
refers to.


> Let see, one begins with "Would you", the other begins with "Or are
> you", and both sentences end with question marks. What exactly about
> my language or punctuation would lead you away from considering these
> questions?

yawn......

> All I was doing was taking your statement and asking you whether it
> would apply to a similar case.

You still haven't addressed the reality of what Krooger is.


> >>You can ask Dr. Richman to delve into this matter if you want a
> >>professional's insight. The commonsense analysis is that many people
> >>fantasize about fun things like horror stories or superspies (or
> >>sports heroes, space exploration, sex, mysteries, etc., etc., etc.).
> >>However, fantasizing about pedophiliac activities is by definition
> >>sick, and it is exactly why we say Krooger is a proven pedophile.
>
> I don't know who Dr. Richman is, but by this statement, I think it's
> reasonable to ask whether you would consider similar evidence "proof"
> in the case of a screenwriter that writes about sick, perverse ****.
> They both have their own motivation. The screenwriter is doing it for
> profit, and Krueger would be doing it to denigrate a third party.

This is bizarre. You are so wrapped up in establishing the legitimacy of
a tiny little point that you've completely lost the forest for the
trees.

> >> You also said that my arguments made sense, if we
> >> were dealing with a person other than Krueger.
> >
> >I didn't say they made sense. Stop putting words in my mouth.
>
> I'm not - here's my statement, with your reply saying that it would be
> reasonable for one person, but not Krueger
>
> > I still maintain that *if* he authored the e-mails himself, it
> > would further his purposes to make them as sick, vile, and repulsive
> > as he possibly could.

I don't agree with that. Sorry.

As I stated elsewhere in this exchange, citing "excerpts" like the ones
Krooger used defeats the purpose of demeaning one's antagonist(s).


> >>If you were the one playing the game, maybe so. But this is Krooger.
>
> Here's another:
>
> > Show me why not. I could write a particularly horrid piece of fiction
> > about bestiality, pedophilia, or any other topic you can imagine. I
> > claim that anyone with a sufficient grasp of language could do the
> > same. They're just words.
>
> >>I grant that you might do that to prove a point.
>
> >>However, as I stated explicitly before, we're talking about Krooger.

> So that's twice that you've admited my arguments were possible, except
> for the fact that you claim they don't apply to Krueger.

Yes, it's possible somebody with a degree of cunning, an ounce of
self-awareness, and extremely poor judgment might, conceivably, choose
such a whacked-out means of provocation. Except for the abysmally poor
judgment, Krooger lacks the ability to do that. Mr. **** never plans
ahead in his "debates" because he's totally convinced that he's never
wrong about anything. FYI -- Turdy has also claimed that he has "never
lost a debate on RAO".

You have to admit the degree of complexity in that schema is beyond
Krooger's ability. You really do have to admit that.


> >> >Your idea that one shouldn't say anything in public that one wouldn't
> >> >say in a court of law is bizarre. That is what you meant, right?
> >
> >> No, that's *not* what I meant.
> >
> >Don't like it much, do you?
>
> I neither like it nor dislike it. I've responded to it, however.

Let me put it this way: Does it further or hinderthe exchange of
information and opinions?

[S888Wheel]

<<
Well that's obviously why sockpuppet wheel is suing me. I didn't call him a
"proven pedophile".


You said I was a "widely reported pedophile" which seems to imply proven.

[Bruce J. Richman]

Scott wrote:


><<
>Well that's obviously why sockpuppet wheel is suing me. I didn't call him a
>"proven pedophile".
>
>
>You said I was a "widely reported pedophile" which seems to imply proven.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Agreed. Arguing with Krueger about semantics changes nothing. The statement
he made was clearly defamatory and false. And the Google record of his posts
concerning you would also indicate that it was made with malice.


Bruce J. Richman

[Arny Krueger]

"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message


> Agreed. Arguing with Krueger about semantics changes nothing. The
> statement he made was clearly defamatory and false. And the Google
> record of his posts concerning you would also indicate that it was
> made with malice.

Richman, why do you repeatedly ignore the numerous times that your friends
like Middius call me a "proven pedophile"?

[Arny Krueger]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message


> Well that's obviously why sockpuppet wheel is suing me. I didn't call
> him a "proven pedophile".

> You said I was a "widely reported pedophile" which seems to imply proven.

That would be a conclusion that you made all by yourself sockpuppet wheel,
which is simply not my fault. Thanks for showing how you try to hold me
accountable for your own thoughts and fantasies in order to avoid taking
responsibility for them yourself.

BTW sockpuppet wheel, nice try at avoiding taking notice of the fact that
Middius just called me a "proven pedophile" a number of times, showing once
again that RAO is a disorderly place where wild claims mean very little.

[Bruce J. Richman]

Arny Krueger wrote:


>"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message

>
>> Agreed. Arguing with Krueger about semantics changes nothing. The
>> statement he made was clearly defamatory and false. And the Google
>> record of his posts concerning you would also indicate that it was
>> made with malice.
>
>Richman, why do you repeatedly ignore the numerous times that your friends
>like Middius call me a "proven pedophile"?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Krueger, I'm not ignoring anything. The post I made was in response to Mr.
Wheeler's comment, nothing else. By the same token, I could ask you why you
have ignored numerous libelous comments made about me by your friend McKelvy?

The fact remains that you are currently being sued by Mr. Wheeler for libel.
It appears the courts will decide whether or not his suit has merit.



Bruce J. Richman

[Arny Krueger]

"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>
>> "Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> Agreed. Arguing with Krueger about semantics changes nothing. The
>>> statement he made was clearly defamatory and false. And the Google
>>> record of his posts concerning you would also indicate that it was
>>> made with malice.
>>
>> Richman, why do you repeatedly ignore the numerous times that your
>> friends like Middius call me a "proven pedophile"?

> Krueger, I'm not ignoring anything.

Sure you are Richman. Your silence is deafening. Your historical role around
here is to assist Middius in his foul deeds against me. You support his lies
and libel against me virtually every chance you get.

>The post I made was in response to Mr. Wheeler's comment, nothing else.

Richman, the posts you make have generally ignored any and all foul acts
committed against me. This would partially be due to the fact that you are a
leading perpetrator of such acts.

> By the same token, I could
> ask you why you have ignored numerous libelous comments made about me
> by your friend McKelvy?

I am generally unaware of them. Why don't you quote one for me and I'll
comment on it.

> The fact remains that you are currently being sued by Mr. Wheeler for
> libel. It appears the courts will decide whether or not his suit has
> merit.

The fact remains Richman that you're a one-sided source of information, and
habitually ignore attacks on me when you aren't assisting with them. This of
course ruins any pretense of objectivity that you might want to maintain.

[Lionel]

S888Wheel wrote:

> <<
> Well that's obviously why sockpuppet wheel is suing me. I didn't call him a
> "proven pedophile".
>
>
> You said I was a "widely reported pedophile" which seems to imply proven.

You are trying to take an easy shortcut which is a pity for a man with
your IQ... ;-)
Perhaps Mr. Krueger said you are a "widely reported pedophile" because
here in France some people also think that you are a pedophile : me for
example. In this case widely means say "all around the world". ;-)
You will be a "proven pedophile" when the justice will condamn you for
this crime. I just hope it will not take too much time.

[Lionel]

Bruce J. Richman wrote:

> Scott wrote:
>
>
>
>><<
>>Well that's obviously why sockpuppet wheel is suing me. I didn't call him a
>>"proven pedophile".
>>
>>
>>You said I was a "widely reported pedophile" which seems to imply proven.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Agreed. Arguing with Krueger about semantics changes nothing. The statement
> he made was clearly defamatory and false. And the Google record of his posts
> concerning you would also indicate that it was made with malice.
>
>

Mr. Richman,

You are a licenced psychologist and you are gently discussing and
approving one of the worst psychopath I've ever seen on usenet : Georg
M. Middius.
Is there any deontological or ethical law in your job which would
obliged you to a minimum of reserve before openly, publicly take the
party of an insane guy like Georg M. Middius ?

[Arny Krueger]

"Lionel" > wrote in message

> S888Wheel wrote:
>
>> <<
>> Well that's obviously why sockpuppet wheel is suing me. I didn't
>> call him a "proven pedophile".
>>
>>
>> You said I was a "widely reported pedophile" which seems to imply
>> proven.
>
> You are trying to take an easy shortcut which is a pity for a man with
> your IQ... ;-)

That would be "Purported IQ".

> Perhaps Mr. Krueger said you are a "widely reported pedophile" because
> here in France some people also think that you are a pedophile : me
> for example. In this case widely means say "all around the world". ;-)

Clearly, sockpuppet wheel's interpretation of what I said is his
interpretation, and not a objective fact.

> You will be a "proven pedophile" when the justice will condemn you for
> this crime. I just hope it will not take too much time.

If nothing else sockpuppet wheel is a proven crybaby and hypocrite. I wonder
if his purported IQ is capable of counting up the number of times I've been
called various kinds of "pedophile" since he filed his suit against me.

[Lionel]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>
>
>>S888Wheel wrote:
>>
>>
>>><<
>>>Well that's obviously why sockpuppet wheel is suing me. I didn't
>>>call him a "proven pedophile".
>>>
>>>
>>>You said I was a "widely reported pedophile" which seems to imply
>>>proven.
>>
>>You are trying to take an easy shortcut which is a pity for a man with
>>your IQ... ;-)
>
>
> That would be "Purported IQ".
>
>
>>Perhaps Mr. Krueger said you are a "widely reported pedophile" because
>>here in France some people also think that you are a pedophile : me
>>for example. In this case widely means say "all around the world". ;-)
>
>
> Clearly, sockpuppet wheel's interpretation of what I said is his
> interpretation, and not a objective fact.
>
>
>>You will be a "proven pedophile" when the justice will condemn you for
>>this crime. I just hope it will not take too much time.
>
>
> If nothing else sockpuppet wheel is a proven crybaby and hypocrite. I wonder
> if his purported IQ is capable of counting up the number of times I've been
> called various kinds of "pedophile" since he filed his suit against me.
>

Moreover, he has already pretented to play with humans as he plays
piano, his boastfulness discredits him.

[Arny Krueger]

"Lionel" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> S888Wheel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> <<
>>>> Well that's obviously why sockpuppet wheel is suing me. I didn't
>>>> call him a "proven pedophile".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You said I was a "widely reported pedophile" which seems to imply
>>>> proven.
>>>
>>> You are trying to take an easy shortcut which is a pity for a man
>>> with your IQ... ;-)
>>
>>
>> That would be "Purported IQ".
>>
>>
>>> Perhaps Mr. Krueger said you are a "widely reported pedophile"
>>> because here in France some people also think that you are a
>>> pedophile : me for example. In this case widely means say "all
>>> around the world". ;-)
>>
>>
>> Clearly, sockpuppet wheel's interpretation of what I said is his
>> interpretation, and not a objective fact.
>>
>>
>>> You will be a "proven pedophile" when the justice will condemn you
>>> for this crime. I just hope it will not take too much time.
>>
>>
>> If nothing else sockpuppet wheel is a proven crybaby and hypocrite.
>> I wonder if his purported IQ is capable of counting up the number of
>> times I've been called various kinds of "pedophile" since he filed
>> his suit against me.
>>
>
> Moreover, he has already pretended to play with humans as he plays
> piano, his boastfulness discredits him.

This would be a true claim:

From: (S888Wheel)
Date: 20 Oct 2003 16:57:44 GMT
Message-ID: >


"I would say I've been playing you like a piano (thanks for the extra
evidence
you provided for my case) but I don't play the piano nearly so well."

You know, this sockpuppet wheel character might just be a little arrogant.

;-)

[dave weil]

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 03:54:45 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>>> Richman, why do you repeatedly ignore the numerous times that your
>>> friends like Middius call me a "proven pedophile"?
>
>> Krueger, I'm not ignoring anything.
>
>Sure you are Richman. Your silence is deafening.

Yesterday, you charaterized this silence as a good thing.

[Bruce J. Richman]

Arny Krueger wrote:


>"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message

>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>> Agreed. Arguing with Krueger about semantics changes nothing. The
>>>> statement he made was clearly defamatory and false. And the Google
>>>> record of his posts concerning you would also indicate that it was
>>>> made with malice.
>>>
>>> Richman, why do you repeatedly ignore the numerous times that your
>>> friends like Middius call me a "proven pedophile"?
>
>> Krueger, I'm not ignoring anything.
>
>Sure you are Richman. Your silence is deafening. Your historical role around
>here is to assist Middius in his foul deeds against me. You support his lies
>and libel against me virtually every chance you get.
>

Prove it! You are lying again, Krueger. Many of the negative comments made
about you constantly because of your despicable behavior are ignored by me.
Note whose names appear in this thread the most. Mine is not among them.


>>The post I made was in response to Mr. Wheeler's comment, nothing else.
>
>Richman, the posts you make have generally ignored any and all foul acts
>committed against me. This would partially be due to the fact that you are a
>leading perpetrator of such acts.
>

You are lying again, Krueger. Part of your ongoing paranoia and desire to
create conspiracy theories, as the Google record clearly reflects.


>> By the same token, I could
>> ask you why you have ignored numerous libelous comments made about me
>> by your friend McKelvy?
>
>I am generally unaware of them. Why don't you quote one for me and I'll
>comment on it.
>

So you are claiming you do not read and support McKelvy's libelous comments
against me? I don't believe you. You are known among all as his primary
supporter and defender. The 2 of you act as a team to prop up each other and
defend each other's libelous false claims against all who disagree with you.



>> The fact remains that you are currently being sued by Mr. Wheeler for
>> libel. It appears the courts will decide whether or not his suit has
>> merit.
>
>The fact remains Richman that you're a one-sided source of information, and
>habitually ignore attacks on me when you aren't assisting with them. This of
>course ruins any pretense of objectivity that you might want to maintain.
>
>

Given your history of compulsive lying on RAO about myself and many others,
your credibility is zero. You have no objectivity whatsoever and routinely
attack all who disagree with your anti-personal--preference, anti-subjectivist,
anti-vinyl and anti-tube biases. As others have pointed out, you never admit
errors, constantly engage in personal attacks towards many who don't share your
zealous biases, and unlike anybody else on RAO, seem to have attracted more
"enemies" (your words, not mine) than virtually any other poster.



Bruce J. Richman

[Bruce J. Richman]

Dave Weil wrote:


>On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 03:54:45 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>wrote:
>
>>>> Richman, why do you repeatedly ignore the numerous times that your
>>>> friends like Middius call me a "proven pedophile"?
>>
>>> Krueger, I'm not ignoring anything.
>>
>>Sure you are Richman. Your silence is deafening.
>
>Yesterday, you charaterized this silence as a good thing.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

It's certainly not unusual for Krueger to contradict himself with different
lies on different days of the week, it would appear. The major determinant for
Krueger in making comments about my posts or those of many others is this - How
can he best make a personal attack complete with false claims at any given
moment? That is obviously his major priority and goal on RAO.



Bruce J. Richman

[Bruce J. Richman]

Lionel wrote:

>Bruce J. Richman wrote:
>
>> Scott wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>><<
>>>Well that's obviously why sockpuppet wheel is suing me. I didn't call him a
>>>"proven pedophile".
>>>
>>>
>>>You said I was a "widely reported pedophile" which seems to imply proven.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Agreed. Arguing with Krueger about semantics changes nothing. The
>statement
>> he made was clearly defamatory and false. And the Google record of his
>posts
>> concerning you would also indicate that it was made with malice.
>>
>>
>
>Mr. Richman,
>
>You are a licenced psychologist and you are gently discussing and
>approving one of the worst psychopath I've ever seen on usenet : Georg
>M. Middius.
>Is there any deontological or ethical law in your job which would
>obliged you to a minimum of reserve before openly, publicly take the
>party of an insane guy like Georg M. Middius ?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Lionel - it is Dr. Richman, not Mr. Richman - or you can simply call me Bruce.

There is no evidence - professionally seeking - to indicate that George M.
Middius is insane. The fact that you don't agree with him has nothing to do
with his mental status - nor that of anybody else with whom you happen to
disagree.

As far as ethics are concerned, Krueger has made false claims about my
professional qualifications in the past and supported pathological liars like
Mike McKelvy that have done likewise. Perhaps you should question their ethics
rather than mine.

As I've said, it is for the courts to decide whether Mr. Wheeler's libel claims
have merit.

And for the record, "insane" - is a term used in the United States at least -
by lawyers primarily in criminal procedings and also in involuntary
committments to psychiatric hospitals. It is not a psychological term and is
not used to diagnose people by psychologists and/or psychiatrists. Of course,
the term is used on RAO just to insult people as we all know - LOL.



Bruce J. Richman

[S888Wheel]

<<
> Well that's obviously why sockpuppet wheel is suing me. I didn't call
> him a "proven pedophile".

> You said I was a "widely reported pedophile" which seems to imply proven.

That would be a conclusion that you made all by yourself sockpuppet wheel,
which is simply not my fault. Thanks for showing how you try to hold me
accountable for your own thoughts and fantasies in order to avoid taking
responsibility for them yourself.

BTW sockpuppet wheel, nice try at avoiding taking notice of the fact that
Middius just called me a "proven pedophile" a number of times, showing once
again that RAO is a disorderly place where wild claims mean very little.




Tell it to the judge. LOL

[S888Wheel]

<<
You are trying to take an easy shortcut which is a pity for a man with
your IQ... ;-)
Perhaps Mr. Krueger said you are a "widely reported pedophile" because
here in France some people also think that you are a pedophile : me for
example. In this case widely means say "all around the world". ;-)
You will be a "proven pedophile" when the justice will condamn you for
this crime. I just hope it will not take too much time.






LOL. another post for the judge to read.

[S888Wheel]

<<
That would be "Purported IQ".
>>

<<
If nothing else sockpuppet wheel is a proven crybaby and hypocrite. I wonder
if his purported IQ is capable of counting up the number of times I've been
called various kinds of "pedophile" since he filed his suit against me.
>>

What is that "purported IQ" Arny? I guess you are ignoring my offer for the two
of us to take standardized IQ tests at our local MENSA offices. Figures. If you
feel that you have been libeled by people calling you a pedophile then you can
always take action against those people. Of course you would be up to your ears
in countersuits. I am quite capable of counting the number of times you have
called other people pedophiles. I bet the judge will also be capable. You have
a rich history of doing so on RAO. One has to wonder what people who have not
been desensitized to your behavior will think when deciding punitive damages.

[Arny Krueger]

"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>
>> "Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
>>
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Agreed. Arguing with Krueger about semantics changes nothing.
>>>>> The statement he made was clearly defamatory and false. And the
>>>>> Google record of his posts concerning you would also indicate
>>>>> that it was made with malice.
>>>>
>>>> Richman, why do you repeatedly ignore the numerous times that your
>>>> friends like Middius call me a "proven pedophile"?
>>
>>> Krueger, I'm not ignoring anything.
>>
>> Sure you are Richman. Your silence is deafening. Your historical
>> role around here is to assist Middius in his foul deeds against me.
>> You support his lies and libel against me virtually every chance you
>> get.

> Prove it!

The proof is right here. You jumped right in on top of sockpuppet wheel's
deceptive post. You weren't mentioned, so your involvement was entirely
gratuitous.

>You are lying again, Krueger.

If this is what you call a lie, then it reflects more on you than me,
Richman.

> Many of the negative
> comments made about you constantly because of your despicable
> behavior are ignored by me. Note whose names appear in this thread
> the most. Mine is not among them.

OK Richman so many of your posts go ignored by most people. Probably due to
their repetitive, sing-song nature.

>>> The post I made was in response to Mr. Wheeler's comment, nothing
>>> else.

>> Richman, the posts you make have generally ignored any and all foul
>> acts committed against me. This would partially be due to the fact
>> that you are a leading perpetrator of such acts.

> You are lying again, Krueger.

Prove it!

> Part of your ongoing paranoia and
> desire to create conspiracy theories, as the Google record clearly
> reflects.

So Richman, you didn't notice the times Weil bragged about conspiring
against me?


>>> By the same token, I could
>>> ask you why you have ignored numerous libelous comments made about
>>> me by your friend McKelvy?

>> I am generally unaware of them. Why don't you quote one for me and
>> I'll comment on it.

> So you are claiming you do not read and support McKelvy's libelous
> comments against me?

Right. Richman, I've asked you to provide examples and I notice that you
have none to provide. I guess that means that you were lying about them.

> I don't believe you. You are known among all
> as his primary supporter and defender. The 2 of you act as a team to
> prop up each other and defend each other's libelous false claims
> against all who disagree with you.

I asked for evidence and all I get is attacks and posturing from you,
Richman. I guess that means that you have no evidence to back up your claim.
Since there is no evidence to back up your claim, that means that you were
lying.

>>> The fact remains that you are currently being sued by Mr. Wheeler
>>> for libel. It appears the courts will decide whether or not his
>>> suit has merit.

>> The fact remains Richman that you're a one-sided source of
>> information, and habitually ignore attacks on me when you aren't
>> assisting with them. This of course ruins any pretense of
>> objectivity that you might want to maintain.

> Given your history of compulsive lying on RAO about myself and many
> others, your credibility is zero.

Richman, your inability to back up your claims about McKelvy is now a matter
of fact. It makes you out to be a liar.

> You have no objectivity whatsoever
> and routinely attack all who disagree with your
> anti-personal--preference, anti-subjectivist, anti-vinyl and
> anti-tube biases.

You call them attacks, I call them contrary opinions.

>As others have pointed out, you never admit
> errors, constantly engage in personal attacks towards many who don't
> share your zealous biases, and unlike anybody else on RAO, seem to
> have attracted more "enemies" (your words, not mine) than virtually
> any other poster.

Sure Richman, there are many who like you are willing to parrot whatever
garbage that proven liars like Middius say. Just because you march to his
beat doesn't mean that everything he says is the revealed truth you make it
out to be.

As you've just proven by default Richman, you are unable to back up even
trivial claims that you make about others like McKelvey.

I gave you a fair chance to support your claims Richman, but you failed.

[Arny Krueger]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

> <<
> You are trying to take an easy shortcut which is a pity for a man with
> your IQ... ;-)
> Perhaps Mr. Krueger said you are a "widely reported pedophile" because
> here in France some people also think that you are a pedophile : me
> for example. In this case widely means say "all around the world". ;-)
> You will be a "proven pedophile" when the justice will condamn you for
> this crime. I just hope it will not take too much time.

> LOL. another post for the judge to read.

Why? It's all hearsay.

[Arny Krueger]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

> <<
> That would be "Purported IQ".
> >>
>
> <<
> If nothing else sockpuppet wheel is a proven crybaby and hypocrite. I
> wonder if his purported IQ is capable of counting up the number of
> times I've been called various kinds of "pedophile" since he filed
> his suit against me. >>
>
> What is that "purported IQ" Arny? I guess you are ignoring my offer
> for the two of us to take standardized IQ tests at our local MENSA
> offices.

Why waste time with meaningless exercises?

> Figures. If you feel that you have been libeled by people
> calling you a pedophile then you can always take action against those
> people.

I'm not a crybaby like you are, sockpuppet wheel. I'm not so unsure of my
social position that I have to go running to my Superior State court every
time someone says something that could possibly hurt my feelings. In short,
unlike you I know that RAO isn't the real world.

> Of course you would be up to your ears in countersuits. I am
> quite capable of counting the number of times you have called other
> people pedophiles.

Prove it.

>I bet the judge will also be capable. You have a
> rich history of doing so on RAO. One has to wonder what people who
> have not been desensitized to your behavior will think when deciding
> punitive damages.

I seriously doubt that your Superior State Court wants to encourage
crybabys, sockpuppet wheel.

[S888Wheel]

<<
> <<
> You are trying to take an easy shortcut which is a pity for a man with
> your IQ... ;-)
> Perhaps Mr. Krueger said you are a "widely reported pedophile" because
> here in France some people also think that you are a pedophile : me
> for example. In this case widely means say "all around the world". ;-)
> You will be a "proven pedophile" when the justice will condamn you for
> this crime. I just hope it will not take too much time.

> LOL. another post for the judge to read.

Why? It's all hearsay.




It's evidence of general damages. You can try to persuade the judge it isn't.
Oh wait, no you can't. You were a no show.

[S888Wheel]

I said

<<
> What is that "purported IQ" Arny? I guess you are ignoring my offer
> for the two of us to take standardized IQ tests at our local MENSA
> offices.
>

Arny said

<<
Why waste time with meaningless exercises? >


Meaningless? While no IQ test measures all intellectual abilities they are
hardly meaningless. You are the one talking about my IQ without any relevant
facts. I guess you are not interested in relevant facts.

I said

<<
> Figures. If you feel that you have been libeled by people
> calling you a pedophile then you can always take action against those
> people.


Arny said



<<

I'm not a crybaby like you are, sockpuppet wheel.


Arny, you whine more than most dogs left out in the cold. It is obvious that
you instigated all the **** flinging and you are whining about me not taking
your side. Pathetic.

Arny said


<< I'm not so unsure of my
social position that I have to go running to my Superior State court every
time someone says something that could possibly hurt my feelings. In short,
unlike you I know that RAO isn't the real world.


Archived publications available world wide are what they are and are subject to
the same laws as any other publication. Your disconnect with this reality may
cost you.

I said


<<
> Of course you would be up to your ears in countersuits. I am
> quite capable of counting the number of times you have called other
> people pedophiles.


Arny said



<<
Prove it.


I will in court where rational people evaluate the evidence.

I said


<<
>I bet the judge will also be capable. You have a
> rich history of doing so on RAO. One has to wonder what people who
> have not been desensitized to your behavior will think when deciding
> punitive damages.



<<
I seriously doubt that your Superior State Court wants to encourage
crybabys, sockpuppet wheel.


You also predicted that the clerk would reject my lawsuit. You also said you
would run up my legal bills with expensive motions that I would have to pay
for. You also said that the clerk would intentionally run up my legal bill. You
have made a lot of stupid predictions on this lawsuit Arny. I bet this is just
another of many such failed predictions. P.S. It is crybabies not crybabys.

[Lionel]

S888Wheel wrote:
> <<
> You are trying to take an easy shortcut which is a pity for a man with
> your IQ... ;-)
> Perhaps Mr. Krueger said you are a "widely reported pedophile" because
> here in France some people also think that you are a pedophile : me for
> example. In this case widely means say "all around the world". ;-)
> You will be a "proven pedophile" when the justice will condamn you for
> this crime. I just hope it will not take too much time.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> LOL. another post for the judge to read.

I like when you laugh. ;-)

[Bruce J. Richman]

Mr. Wheeler wrote:


>I said
>
><<
>> What is that "purported IQ" Arny? I guess you are ignoring my offer
>> for the two of us to take standardized IQ tests at our local MENSA
>> offices.
> >
>
>Arny said
>
><<
>Why waste time with meaningless exercises? >
>
>
>Meaningless? While no IQ test measures all intellectual abilities they are
>hardly meaningless. You are the one talking about my IQ without any relevant
>facts. I guess you are not interested in relevant facts.
>
>I said
>
><<
>> Figures. If you feel that you have been libeled by people
>> calling you a pedophile then you can always take action against those
>> people.
>
>
>Arny said
>
>
>
><<
>
>I'm not a crybaby like you are, sockpuppet wheel.
>
>
>Arny, you whine more than most dogs left out in the cold. It is obvious that
>you instigated all the **** flinging and you are whining about me not taking
>your side. Pathetic.
>
>Arny said
>
>
><< I'm not so unsure of my
>social position that I have to go running to my Superior State court every
>time someone says something that could possibly hurt my feelings. In short,
>unlike you I know that RAO isn't the real world.
>
>
>Archived publications available world wide are what they are and are subject
>to
>the same laws as any other publication. Your disconnect with this reality may
>cost you.
>
>I said
>
>
><<
>> Of course you would be up to your ears in countersuits. I am
>> quite capable of counting the number of times you have called other
>> people pedophiles.
>
>
>Arny said
>
>
>
><<
>Prove it.
>
>
>I will in court where rational people evaluate the evidence.
>
>I said
>
>
><<
>>I bet the judge will also be capable. You have a
>> rich history of doing so on RAO. One has to wonder what people who
>> have not been desensitized to your behavior will think when deciding
>> punitive damages.
>
>
>
><<
>I seriously doubt that your Superior State Court wants to encourage
>crybabys, sockpuppet wheel.
>
>
>You also predicted that the clerk would reject my lawsuit. You also said you
>would run up my legal bills with expensive motions that I would have to pay
>for. You also said that the clerk would intentionally run up my legal bill.
>You
>have made a lot of stupid predictions on this lawsuit Arny. I bet this is
>just
>another of many such failed predictions. P.S. It is crybabies not crybabys.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

As I've stated previously, standardized intelligence tests are not meaningless,
so Krueger has made yet another false claim. Of course, he's also made false
claims about the profession of psychology and its licensing procedures, so I'm
not surprised.

The most widely used intelligence test for males in such areas as personnel
selection, intellectual evaluations, forensic proceedings, etc. is the Wechsler
Adult Intelligence Test. It yields 3 IQ scores - a Verbal IQ, Performance IQ
(measured by various motor tasks), and a Full Scale IQ. It is also "normed"
for different ages so that testees are directly compared against people from
the same age bracket in which they find themselves (e.g. 50 to 59, etc.)



Bruce J. Richman

[Bruce J. Richman]

Arny Krueger wrote:


>Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message

>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Agreed. Arguing with Krueger about semantics changes nothing.
>>>>>> The statement he made was clearly defamatory and false. And the
>>>>>> Google record of his posts concerning you would also indicate
>>>>>> that it was made with malice.
>>>>>
>>>>> Richman, why do you repeatedly ignore the numerous times that your
>>>>> friends like Middius call me a "proven pedophile"?
>>>
>>>> Krueger, I'm not ignoring anything.
>>>
>>> Sure you are Richman. Your silence is deafening. Your historical
>>> role around here is to assist Middius in his foul deeds against me.
>>> You support his lies and libel against me virtually every chance you
>>> get.
>
>> Prove it!
>
>The proof is right here. You jumped right in on top of sockpuppet wheel's
>deceptive post. You weren't mentioned, so your involvement was entirely
>gratuitous.
>
>>You are lying again, Krueger.
>
>If this is what you call a lie, then it reflects more on you than me,
>Richman.
>

Your deceptive deletion of selected text is duly noted. Your lies are a matter
of Google record.


>> Many of the negative
>> comments made about you constantly because of your despicable
>> behavior are ignored by me. Note whose names appear in this thread
>> the most. Mine is not among them.
>
>OK Richman so many of your posts go ignored by most people. Probably due to
>their repetitive, sing-song nature.
>

Actually, that last false claim is simply due to your unsupported mind reading.
You, OTOH, have a proven Google record of cut-and-paste repetitiions of the
same stupid insulting phrases within the same post. LOL!

It is very clear, via the Google record, whose posts are the most stupid,
inane, and repetitive in their use of unprovoked personal attacks on others.
Krueger, you have no equal in that regard.


>>>> The post I made was in response to Mr. Wheeler's comment, nothing
>>>> else.
>
>>> Richman, the posts you make have generally ignored any and all foul
>>> acts committed against me. This would partially be due to the fact
>>> that you are a leading perpetrator of such acts.
>
>> You are lying again, Krueger.
>
>Prove it!
>

The Google record proves it.




>> Part of your ongoing paranoia and
>> desire to create conspiracy theories, as the Google record clearly
>> reflects.
>
>So Richman, you didn't notice the times Weil bragged about conspiring
>against me?
>
>

Contrary to your suspicions, Krueger, I don't monitor every post containing
your name or those of your many apparent enemies. Prove that Weil has bragged
"many times" about conspiring aginst you. Generally speaking a conspiracy
involves more than one person, or hadn't you noticed?

LOL!



>>>> By the same token, I could
>>>> ask you why you have ignored numerous libelous comments made about
>>>> me by your friend McKelvy?
>
>>> I am generally unaware of them. Why don't you quote one for me and
>>> I'll comment on it.
>
>> So you are claiming you do not read and support McKelvy's libelous
>> comments against me?
>
>Right. Richman, I've asked you to provide examples and I notice that you
>have none to provide. I guess that means that you were lying about them.
>

A false claim. I have no need to quote what is already in the Google record .
A simple keyword search using the terms <McKelvy> and <Richman> is available
for anybody who doubts my word. So far, this would apply only to you,
McKelvy's sole defender and supporter AFAIK on RAO.


>> I don't believe you. You are known among all
>> as his primary supporter and defender. The 2 of you act as a team to
>> prop up each other and defend each other's libelous false claims
>> against all who disagree with you.
>
>I asked for evidence and all I get is attacks and posturing from you,
>Richman. I guess that means that you have no evidence to back up your claim.
>Since there is no evidence to back up your claim, that means that you were
>lying.
>

False logic and a false claim. One has only to do a keyword search using the
terms <McKelvy> and <Krueger> to see the numerous occasaions, over a lengthy
period, in which you and he have supported each others' libelous claims about
your many enemies over the years on RAO.



>>>> The fact remains that you are currently being sued by Mr. Wheeler
>>>> for libel. It appears the courts will decide whether or not his
>>>> suit has merit.
>
>>> The fact remains Richman that you're a one-sided source of
>>> information, and habitually ignore attacks on me when you aren't
>>> assisting with them. This of course ruins any pretense of
>>> objectivity that you might want to maintain.
>
>> Given your history of compulsive lying on RAO about myself and many
>> others, your credibility is zero.
>
>Richman, your inability to back up your claims about McKelvy is now a matter
>of fact. It makes you out to be a liar.
>

False claim and blatant lie duly noted.



>> You have no objectivity whatsoever
>> and routinely attack all who disagree with your
>> anti-personal--preference, anti-subjectivist, anti-vinyl and
>> anti-tube biases.
>
>You call them attacks, I call them contrary opinions.
>

If they were simply contrary opinions, they would not include terms such as
"vinyl bigot", "tube bigot" and other derogatory terms you rouitinely spew.
They would also not contain personal attacks within the same posts. Nobody
believes they are simply cointrary opinions - that is why your "message" is
scorned by most. Others, such as your friend, Nousaine, may say the same
things, but unlike youm, have not been banned from RAHE and ridiculed and hated
here. The reason - he, at least, knows how to engage in civilized
disagreements. You do not.


>>As others have pointed out, you never admit
>> errors, constantly engage in personal attacks towards many who don't
>> share your zealous biases, and unlike anybody else on RAO, seem to
>> have attracted more "enemies" (your words, not mine) than virtually
>> any other poster.
>
>Sure Richman, there are many who like you are willing to parrot whatever
>garbage that proven liars like Middius say. Just because you march to his
>beat doesn't mean that everything he says is the revealed truth you make it
>out to be.
>

Another series of blatant lies and false assumptions. Prove them! LOL!

I form my own ideas and reach my own conclusions re. audio, politics, etc. The
fact that I agree with the contempt with which you are held by most, is based
primarily on your behavior towards me directly and your obvious inability to
tell the truth and/or engage in appropriate social interactions with others on
RAO.


>As you've just proven by default Richman, you are unable to back up even
>trivial claims that you make about others like McKelvey.
>
>I gave you a fair chance to support your claims Richman, but you failed.
>
>

Only in your delusional mind. Any compulsive liar such as yourself, Krueger,
can yell "Prove it" as part of a need to avoid telling the truth. Nobody is
fooled, however, by your evasive tactics. Everybody can read Google and the
posts you spew here with your friend, McKelvy, and reach their own conclusions.


As Dave Weil likes to say,

You lose.

Again.



Bruce J. Richman

[George M. Middius]

Bruce J. Richman said:

> If they were simply contrary opinions, they would not include terms such as
> "vinyl bigot", "tube bigot" and other derogatory terms you rouitinely spew.
> They would also not contain personal attacks within the same posts. Nobody
> believes they are simply cointrary opinions - that is why your "message" is
> scorned by most.

Krooger thinks he's a "scientist". Go figure. ;-)


> Others, such as your friend, Nousaine, may say the same things, but unlike
> youm, have not been banned from RAHE and ridiculed and hated here.
> The reason - he, at least, knows how to engage in civilized disagreements.

Except with John Atkinson, note. The class envy runs fetid and thick
from the Hive.

[Lionel]

Bruce J. Richman wrote:
> Lionel wrote:
>
>
>>Bruce J. Richman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Scott wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>><<
>>>>Well that's obviously why sockpuppet wheel is suing me. I didn't call him a
>>>>"proven pedophile".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You said I was a "widely reported pedophile" which seems to imply proven.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Agreed. Arguing with Krueger about semantics changes nothing. The
>>
>>statement
>>
>>>he made was clearly defamatory and false. And the Google record of his
>>
>>posts
>>
>>>concerning you would also indicate that it was made with malice.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Mr. Richman,
>>
>>You are a licenced psychologist and you are gently discussing and
>>approving one of the worst psychopath I've ever seen on usenet : Georg
>>M. Middius.
>>Is there any deontological or ethical law in your job which would
>>obliged you to a minimum of reserve before openly, publicly take the
>>party of an insane guy like Georg M. Middius ?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Lionel - it is Dr. Richman, not Mr. Richman - or you can simply call me Bruce.
>
> There is no evidence - professionally seeking - to indicate that George M.
> Middius is insane. The fact that you don't agree with him has nothing to do
> with his mental status - nor that of anybody else with whom you happen to
> disagree.

Agree with you for most of them except for Georg M. Middius.

> As far as ethics are concerned, Krueger has made false claims about my
> professional qualifications in the past and supported pathological liars like
> Mike McKelvy that have done likewise. Perhaps you should question their ethics
> rather than mine.

I was speaking about *professional* ethical and deontological rules.
McKelvy is an idiot.

> As I've said, it is for the courts to decide whether Mr. Wheeler's libel claims
> have merit.

Mr. Wheeler is a jerk. I'm afraid that he has enough money, influence
and support to win in his lawsuit. Anyway I confirm my point of view
that in the RAO context in will not be a victory of the law, but just
the success of a wealthy man's caprice, extravagance.

>
> And for the record, "insane" - is a term used in the United States at least -
> by lawyers primarily in criminal procedings and also in involuntary
> committments to psychiatric hospitals. It is not a psychological term and is
> not used to diagnose people by psychologists and/or psychiatrists. Of course,
> the term is used on RAO just to insult people as we all know - LOL.

Thank you for the tip Bruce.
I am interested because sincerely I wasn't looking to insult Georg M.
Middius but to caracterize with a medical vocabulary his pathological
obsession for Arnold Krueger.


Lionel Chapuis

[Bruce J. Richman]

Lionel wrote:


>Bruce J. Richman wrote:
>> Lionel wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Bruce J. Richman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Scott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>><<
>>>>>Well that's obviously why sockpuppet wheel is suing me. I didn't call him
>a
>>>>>"proven pedophile".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You said I was a "widely reported pedophile" which seems to imply proven.
>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Agreed. Arguing with Krueger about semantics changes nothing. The
>>>
>>>statement
>>>
>>>>he made was clearly defamatory and false. And the Google record of his
>>>
>>>posts
>>>
>>>>concerning you would also indicate that it was made with malice.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Mr. Richman,
>>>
>>>You are a licenced psychologist and you are gently discussing and
>>>approving one of the worst psychopath I've ever seen on usenet : Georg
>>>M. Middius.
>>>Is there any deontological or ethical law in your job which would
>>>obliged you to a minimum of reserve before openly, publicly take the
>>>party of an insane guy like Georg M. Middius ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Lionel - it is Dr. Richman, not Mr. Richman - or you can simply call me
>Bruce.
>>
>> There is no evidence - professionally seeking - to indicate that George M.
>> Middius is insane. The fact that you don't agree with him has nothing to
>do
>> with his mental status - nor that of anybody else with whom you happen to
>> disagree.
>
>Agree with you for most of them except for Georg M. Middius.
>

Ok. That is your right, of course, Lionel. We will simply agree to disagree
on this matter re. Mr. Middius.


>> As far as ethics are concerned, Krueger has made false claims about my
>> professional qualifications in the past and supported pathological liars
>like
>> Mike McKelvy that have done likewise. Perhaps you should question their
>ethics
>> rather than mine.
>
>I was speaking about *professional* ethical and deontological rules.
>McKelvy is an idiot.
>

Your assessment of McKelvy is the same as mine.

I don't see ethics being involved here from a professional point of views. I
don't discuss patients by name publically for example, which would be an
ethical violation. And I don't formally diagnose people that I have never met,
which would be unethical. However, I have actually quoted a section of the
American diagnostic literature which describes a condition known as Paranoid
Personality Disorder. It is my belief that Krueger exhibits many of the
symptoms described there on RAO; you may choose to disagree. Note that I am
expressing my opinion,not giving a diagnosis. There are legal definitions for
insanity in the US, and they involve ability to distinguish right from wrong
in the comission of a crime at the time the crime was committed. For example,
John Hinckley, who tried to assassinate President Reagan and was allegedly
"obsessed with Jodie Foster" was found to be "Not Guilty by Reason of
Insanity". He has been committed to a hospital for the criminally insane for
over 20 years. This defense does not usually work, however. Being able to
afford very expensive lawyers probably helped him.

>> As I've said, it is for the courts to decide whether Mr. Wheeler's libel
>claims
>> have merit.
>
>Mr. Wheeler is a jerk. I'm afraid that he has enough money, influence
>and support to win in his lawsuit. Anyway I confirm my point of view
>that in the RAO context in will not be a victory of the law, but just
>the success of a wealthy man's caprice, extravagance.
>

I have never met Mr. Wheeler and have no personal knowledge of his financial
circumstances.


>>
>> And for the record, "insane" - is a term used in the United States at least
>-
>> by lawyers primarily in criminal procedings and also in involuntary
>> committments to psychiatric hospitals. It is not a psychological term and
>is
>> not used to diagnose people by psychologists and/or psychiatrists. Of
>course,
>> the term is used on RAO just to insult people as we all know - LOL.
>
>Thank you for the tip Bruce.
>I am interested because sincerely I wasn't looking to insult Georg M.
>Middius but to caracterize with a medical vocabulary his pathological
>obsession for Arnold Krueger.
>
>
>Lionel Chapuis
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



Bruce J. Richman

[Lionel]

Bruce J. Richman wrote:

> Ok. That is your right, of course, Lionel. We will simply agree to disagree
> on this matter re. Mr. Middius.
>

Ok you have given your point of view concerning Arnold Krueger.
But how to explain, how to qualify Middius obsession, all the insults he
uses to write, this conception of the world in which if you aren't
against Krueger you are his enemy or an "insane" (this is the word he
used) male-female hybrid ?

Middius' writings have "the beauty of the devil" this is 99% of his
charm... You can understand why it not operates on me. (lol)

Sincerely, I'm afraid that most of you are a little bit afraid to be
openly opposed to him. That's my point of view.

Lionel

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
...
> Scott wrote:
>
>
> ><<
> >Well that's obviously why sockpuppet wheel is suing me. I didn't call him
a
> >"proven pedophile".
> >
> >
> >You said I was a "widely reported pedophile" which seems to imply proven.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Agreed. Arguing with Krueger about semantics changes nothing. The
statement
> he made was clearly defamatory and false. And the Google record of his
posts
> concerning you would also indicate that it was made with malice.
>
>
> Bruce J. Richman
>
In Krooger's mind, there is a difference between "telling" a lie and
"spreading" a lie.




----== 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 =---

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Scott Gardner" > wrote in message
>
> > On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 14:26:21 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>
> Scott tips his hand - he's in the sockpuppet wheel camp. I'd bet he's at
> least as much of a real person as sockpuppet Yustabe...
>


I am just a figment of your imagination.




----== 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 =---

[The Stainless Steel Boob Orchestra]

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 00:23:29 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:

>Ok you have given your point of view concerning Arnold Krueger.
>But how to explain, how to qualify Middius obsession, all the insults he
>uses to write, this conception of the world in which if you aren't
>against Krueger you are his enemy or an "insane" (this is the word he
>used) male-female hybrid ?
>
>Middius' writings have "the beauty of the devil" this is 99% of his
>charm... You can understand why it not operates on me. (lol)
>
>Sincerely, I'm afraid that most of you are a little bit afraid to be
>openly opposed to him. That's my point of view.

Don't the war, mention.

--
td

[Michael Mckelvy]

"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
...
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>
> >"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
>
> >
> >> Agreed. Arguing with Krueger about semantics changes nothing. The
> >> statement he made was clearly defamatory and false. And the Google
> >> record of his posts concerning you would also indicate that it was
> >> made with malice.
> >
> >Richman, why do you repeatedly ignore the numerous times that your
friends
> >like Middius call me a "proven pedophile"?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Krueger, I'm not ignoring anything. The post I made was in response to
Mr.
> Wheeler's comment, nothing else. By the same token, I could ask you why
you
> have ignored numerous libelous comments made about me by your friend
McKelvy?
>
> The fact remains that you are currently being sued by Mr. Wheeler for
libel.
> It appears the courts will decide whether or not his suit has merit.
>
>
>
> Bruce J. Richman

I've already decided, you have no merit.

[Michael Mckelvy]

"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Weil wrote:
>
>
> >On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 03:54:45 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> >wrote:
> >
> >>>> Richman, why do you repeatedly ignore the numerous times that your
> >>>> friends like Middius call me a "proven pedophile"?
> >>
> >>> Krueger, I'm not ignoring anything.
> >>
> >>Sure you are Richman. Your silence is deafening.
> >
> >Yesterday, you charaterized this silence as a good thing.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> It's certainly not unusual for Krueger to contradict himself with
different
> lies on different days of the week, it would appear. The major
determinant for
> Krueger in making comments about my posts or those of many others is
this - How
> can he best make a personal attack complete with false claims at any given
> moment? That is obviously his major priority and goal on RAO.
>
>
>
Obviously he can't use you as a role model. Your personal attacks seem more
like a broken record as the Google record clearly shows, you lie and keep
repeating the same lies in nearly the same verbage every time.

Frankly, you're a boring liar. I guess if you had any imagination you
wouldn't be a bean counter and you'd have your own practice instead of
living off the bones that real shrinks throw your way.

How does that work any way? Do they say this person's so ****ed in the head
that I'll let Quackenbush have them and save myself from the possibilty
they'll drive me nuts, or is more like, this is another boring piece of ****
so I'll let Blow Job Richman take them?

[Bruce J. Richman]

Michael McKelvy wrote:


>Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
...
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>
>> >"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
>>
>> >
>> >> Agreed. Arguing with Krueger about semantics changes nothing. The
>> >> statement he made was clearly defamatory and false. And the Google
>> >> record of his posts concerning you would also indicate that it was
>> >> made with malice.
>> >
>> >Richman, why do you repeatedly ignore the numerous times that your
>friends
>> >like Middius call me a "proven pedophile"?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Krueger, I'm not ignoring anything. The post I made was in response to
>Mr.
>> Wheeler's comment, nothing else. By the same token, I could ask you why
>you
>> have ignored numerous libelous comments made about me by your friend
>McKelvy?
>>
>> The fact remains that you are currently being sued by Mr. Wheeler for
>libel.
>> It appears the courts will decide whether or not his suit has merit.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bruce J. Richman
>
>I've already decided, you have no merit.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Who cares? You're an idiot



Bruce J. Richman

[Bruce J. Richman]

The compulsive liar, duh-Mikey continues with blather:

>"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
...
>> Dave Weil wrote:
>>
>>
>> >On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 03:54:45 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>>> Richman, why do you repeatedly ignore the numerous times that your
>> >>>> friends like Middius call me a "proven pedophile"?
>> >>
>> >>> Krueger, I'm not ignoring anything.
>> >>
>> >>Sure you are Richman. Your silence is deafening.
>> >
>> >Yesterday, you charaterized this silence as a good thing.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> It's certainly not unusual for Krueger to contradict himself with
>different
>> lies on different days of the week, it would appear. The major
>determinant for
>> Krueger in making comments about my posts or those of many others is
>this - How
>> can he best make a personal attack complete with false claims at any given
>> moment? That is obviously his major priority and goal on RAO.
>>
>>
>>
>Obviously he can't use you as a role model. Your personal attacks seem more
>like a broken record as the Google record clearly shows, you lie and keep
>repeating the same lies in nearly the same verbage every time.
>
>Frankly, you're a boring liar. I guess if you had any imagination you
>wouldn't be a bean counter and you'd have your own practice instead of
>living off the bones that real shrinks throw your way.
>
>How does that work any way? Do they say this person's so ****ed in the head
>that I'll let Quackenbush have them and save myself from the possibilty
>they'll drive me nuts, or is more like, this is another boring piece of ****
>so I'll let Blow Job Richman take them?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Rather than respond to your every gutteral, moronic utterance, let's just
commene on your use of juvenile name-calling, neverending search of past Google
posts to attack, and continuous dedication to showing all of RAO just how
stupid, predictable, repetititve, and above all, mentally disturbed you truly
are.

Your routine, daily spewage of garbage is just more of the same old, same old -
as your only friend on RAO would no doubt tell you during your mutual
admiration (or was that another type of mutual behavior) meetings, duh-Mikey?



Bruce J. Richman

[Robert Morein]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> dave weil wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 20:59:45 +0100, Lionel >
> > wrote:
> >
[snip]
> ...No, it's a phantasm. :-(
>
> I have seen Arnold's site linked in many audio sites in USA, Europe,
> Australia. Audio cards tests and Pcabx are referenced as to be
> "interesting" on many specialized sites.
> He has done a job which is available *free of charge* on the internet
> and people from prestigious companies are interested in his job... No
> reasons to kill the dog. This is my point of view.
>
> Arnold job can be compared to free software development, you like you
> use, you don't like you forget. In this job pride is the only salary, so
> if you refuse them pride...
>
There is a lot of useful information on Arny's website, as well as analysis.
Unfortunately, Arny contaminates the whole pile by claiming a domain of
application that far exceeds the actual.

If Arny had properly limited his domain of investigation, instead of taking
the attitude that he has mastered the audio universe, a case could be made
that his contribution was significant.

Unfortunately, he made a major error. It's a lot like the error made by
religious doctrinists when they claim (or claimed) that "the Jews killed
Christ." While a reasonable historian could take the position that some Jews
in Jerusalem had some responsibility for the death of Christ, this cannot be
logically extended to "The Jews killed Christ." Yet some mystically inclined
theologians believe this.

Analogously, Arny did a careful study of sound cards, and reproduction of
sound through sound cards, and concluded, without actual verification, that
this was a methodology he could use to make comparisons of certain kinds of
equipment remotely available.
BIG, TRAGIC MISTAKE!
Along the way, Arny remarked to himself that he had heard five or so
amplifiers that sounded the same. Hence, he concluded, it was unlikely that
the universe of fine amplifiers would contain examples of distinctive sound.
BIG MISTAKE!
Having created a marvelous tool, Arny decided that those who chose not to
use it should not be allowed to post without harassment about their own
listening experiences. Arny decided that he had been given a job, a MISSION,
to change the rule of human discourse in the late 20th century. Suddenly,
anybody who wanted to share an experience, without using his flawed
methodology -- or a more valid, and even more unobtainable ABX
methodology -- was subject to Arny's censure.
BIG MISTAKE!
Thus we witness the gradual metamorphosis of someone who was a fairly normal
human being, Arny Krueger, into a monster.
BIG TRAGEDY!

A tragedy, not only in the nusiance he has created, but because he actually
has some technical competence. Unfortunately, he has fallen victim to the
Peter Principle, which states that a person tends to rise to the level at
which he can no longer perform his job competently.

[Lionel Chapuis]

Robert Morein a écrit :

> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>dave weil wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 20:59:45 +0100, Lionel >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>
> [snip]
>
>>...No, it's a phantasm. :-(
>>
>>I have seen Arnold's site linked in many audio sites in USA, Europe,
>>Australia. Audio cards tests and Pcabx are referenced as to be
>>"interesting" on many specialized sites.
>>He has done a job which is available *free of charge* on the internet
>>and people from prestigious companies are interested in his job... No
>>reasons to kill the dog. This is my point of view.
>>
>>Arnold job can be compared to free software development, you like you
>>use, you don't like you forget. In this job pride is the only salary, so
>>if you refuse them pride...
>>
>
> There is a lot of useful information on Arny's website, as well as analysis.
> Unfortunately, Arny contaminates the whole pile by claiming a domain of
> application that far exceeds the actual.
>
> If Arny had properly limited his domain of investigation, instead of taking
> the attitude that he has mastered the audio universe, a case could be made
> that his contribution was significant.
>
> Unfortunately, he made a major error. It's a lot like the error made by
> religious doctrinists when they claim (or claimed) that "the Jews killed
> Christ." While a reasonable historian could take the position that some Jews
> in Jerusalem had some responsibility for the death of Christ, this cannot be
> logically extended to "The Jews killed Christ." Yet some mystically inclined
> theologians believe this.
>
> Analogously, Arny did a careful study of sound cards, and reproduction of
> sound through sound cards, and concluded, without actual verification, that
> this was a methodology he could use to make comparisons of certain kinds of
> equipment remotely available.
> BIG, TRAGIC MISTAKE!
> Along the way, Arny remarked to himself that he had heard five or so
> amplifiers that sounded the same. Hence, he concluded, it was unlikely that
> the universe of fine amplifiers would contain examples of distinctive sound.
> BIG MISTAKE!
> Having created a marvelous tool, Arny decided that those who chose not to
> use it should not be allowed to post without harassment about their own
> listening experiences. Arny decided that he had been given a job, a MISSION,
> to change the rule of human discourse in the late 20th century. Suddenly,
> anybody who wanted to share an experience, without using his flawed
> methodology -- or a more valid, and even more unobtainable ABX
> methodology -- was subject to Arny's censure.
> BIG MISTAKE!
> Thus we witness the gradual metamorphosis of someone who was a fairly normal
> human being, Arny Krueger, into a monster.
> BIG TRAGEDY!
>
> A tragedy, not only in the nusiance he has created, but because he actually
> has some technical competence. Unfortunately, he has fallen victim to the
> Peter Principle, which states that a person tends to rise to the level at
> which he can no longer perform his job competently.
>

Once again thank you for your kind attention Bob.
You have an audio knowledge and in the above you're arguing using your
background, this is the fair way.

I understand that from a technician point of view the behaviour you
describe isn't acceptable.
But audio is really a strange world in which there are so much crooks
that I can also understand Arnold reaction.
Can we discuss seriously ?
In a french audio well known audio magazine a famous reviewer use to say
that you must keep 10% of your audio project to purchase cable !
Bob this guy is speaking about cable like you can speak about a parfum,
a wine, or a music with more nuances and adjectives that you can imagine...
I'm telling that but you surely have the same in USA.
When you attempt to criticize such guy you also have to fight the army
of idiots who have spent so *huge* amount of intelligence and money in
cable that they are obliged to defend their prophet. You cannot deal
with them they are like religious fanatics.
"What a guy who have spent $10.00 to customzie a phone wire have the
same results than me who have spent $300.00 ? IMPOSSIBLE ! The
discussion is closed"
After that they usually try to make a fool of you speaking about your
poor hear, your lake of intelligence, and over everything else that your
claim is only based on "*CLASS ENVY*".

Are these technical arguments ?

Krueger is Krueger. I'm definitively agree with you.
But sincerely in an audio context I prefer Krueger technical
intransigence than Middius' scatologic delirium.

RAO is bipolar.
If you are not 100% against Krueger you suddenly become Middius' mockery
and insults target. I don't know what was the situation 5 years ago but
now I think that Middius' behaviour is more toxic that Krueger's one.

Most of people on RAO are scary by Middius they will never tell him that
they aren't agree with his behaviour. He knows that and perfectly plays
with that. But when you undress his words and sentences you have a poor
guy full of complexes and contradictions.

Few fun to finish.
Recently Middius has written that he has a "killfile".
In RAO context I think this is totaly absurd but nobody seems to notice
that. Can you understand or believe that in RAO context this guy censure
himself to protect himself ?
This remember me a famous answer that Ayatollah Khomeiny gave tho an
Iranian journalist after he came back in Iran in 1979.
The journalist asked "How is it possible to live in Europe among
infidels without commiting mortal sin ?" and Khomeiny answered "I was
only looking to my feet" LOL.

All the best,
Lionel

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message

> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> dave weil wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 20:59:45 +0100, Lionel >
>>> wrote:
>>>
> [snip]
>> ...No, it's a phantasm. :-(
>>
>> I have seen Arnold's site linked in many audio sites in USA, Europe,
>> Australia. Audio cards tests and Pcabx are referenced as to be
>> "interesting" on many specialized sites.
>> He has done a job which is available *free of charge* on the internet
>> and people from prestigious companies are interested in his job... No
>> reasons to kill the dog. This is my point of view.
>>
>> Arnold job can be compared to free software development, you like you
>> use, you don't like you forget. In this job pride is the only
>> salary, so if you refuse them pride...

> There is a lot of useful information on Arny's website, as well as
> analysis. Unfortunately, Arny contaminates the whole pile by claiming
> a domain of application that far exceeds the actual.

Why don't you document this claim, Morein? Provide us with text from the
sites that proves your claim that I contaminated the whole pile by claiming
a domain of application that far exceeds the actual.

> If Arny had properly limited his domain of investigation, instead of
> taking the attitude that he has mastered the audio universe, a case
> could be made that his contribution was significant.

Why don't you document this claim, Morein? Provide us with text from the
sites that proves your claim that I think I've mastered the universe.

> Unfortunately, he made a major error. It's a lot like the error made
> by religious doctrinists when they claim (or claimed) that "the Jews
> killed Christ."

You've got all of Christianity confused with the Roman Catholic Church,
Morein. There are a ton of Christians who think that this assertion of
theirs is way over the top, and that even with subsequent retrenchments, the
position of the RCC is pretty strange. If you want to talk about this sort
of weirdness Morein, at least properly and specifically attribute it.

>While a reasonable historian could take the position
> that some Jews in Jerusalem had some responsibility for the death of
> Christ, this cannot be logically extended to "The Jews killed
> Christ." Yet some mystically inclined theologians believe this.

So what?

> Analogously, Arny did a careful study of sound cards, and
> reproduction of sound through sound cards, and concluded, without
> actual verification, that this was a methodology he could use to make
> comparisons of certain kinds of equipment remotely available.
> BIG, TRAGIC MISTAKE!

Big dramatic insight! Not only can this work well, but it provides some
interesting opportunities, such as facilitating time synching when it is
otherwise difficult, and repeating the process to increase the ear's
sensitivity to the kinds of sonic contamination that some equipment adds to
the signals it processes.

> Along the way, Arny remarked to himself that he had heard five or so
> amplifiers that sounded the same.

Big dramatic error by Morein. I exploited this technology to allow people to
actually hear relatively easily, how these amplifiers contaminate the
signals they process. Therefore I help people understand the degree to which
they sound different.

> Hence, he concluded, it was
> unlikely that the universe of fine amplifiers would contain examples
> of distinctive sound. BIG MISTAKE!

As one and all can now see, Morein is writing about how he misunderstands
the operation of this part of www.pcabx.com . See (and even hear) Morein's
errors for yourself - visit my web site!

> Having created a marvelous tool, Arny decided that those who chose
> not to use it should not be allowed to post without harassment about
> their own listening experiences. Arny decided that he had been given
> a job, a MISSION, to change the rule of human discourse in the late
> 20th century. Suddenly, anybody who wanted to share an experience,
> without using his flawed methodology -- or a more valid, and even
> more unobtainable ABX methodology -- was subject to Arny's censure.
> BIG MISTAKE!

This would be Morein's big mistake. He doesn't know how to look at simple
facts and report them accurately. Probably one reason why he was refused a
PhD by Drexel University after years of study.

> Thus we witness the gradual metamorphosis of someone who was a fairly
> normal human being, Arny Krueger, into a monster.
> BIG TRAGEDY!

At this point Morein is going further off the metaphorical deep end. He
makes it sound like he was with me until I made this purported big mistake
at www.pcabx.com.

I've already cited numerous examples where Morein was fighting with me on
RAO over these issues, tooth and nail, for years BEFORE there ever was
www.pcabx.com . Just check google. The PCABX web site came into existence in
September 1999. Just check Morein's posts on RAO prior to that date. You see
that he vigorously disagreed with me over the audibility of power amplifiers
well before that date.

Here's an example:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=351988FD.CB8C366B%40netreach.net

Note the similarity to some of Morien's recent posts to RAO.

> A tragedy, not only in the nuisance he has created, but because he
> actually has some technical competence. Unfortunately, he has fallen
> victim to the Peter Principle, which states that a person tends to
> rise to the level at which he can no longer perform his job
> competently.

Regrettably, that happened to Morein before he got his PhD, but it took a
highly-publicized court case and refusal by the Supreme Court of The United
States to *convince* him.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
> > dave weil wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 20:59:45 +0100, Lionel >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> [snip]
> > ...No, it's a phantasm. :-(
> >
> > I have seen Arnold's site linked in many audio sites in USA, Europe,
> > Australia. Audio cards tests and Pcabx are referenced as to be
> > "interesting" on many specialized sites.
> > He has done a job which is available *free of charge* on the internet
> > and people from prestigious companies are interested in his job... No
> > reasons to kill the dog. This is my point of view.
> >
> > Arnold job can be compared to free software development, you like you
> > use, you don't like you forget. In this job pride is the only salary, so
> > if you refuse them pride...
> >
> There is a lot of useful information on Arny's website, as well as
analysis.
> Unfortunately, Arny contaminates the whole pile by claiming a domain of
> application that far exceeds the actual.
>
How would you know?

> If Arny had properly limited his domain of investigation, instead of
taking
> the attitude that he has mastered the audio universe, a case could be made
> that his contribution was significant.
>
Please document this allegation.

> Unfortunately, he made a major error.

How would yuo know?

snip of stuid stuff

>
> Analogously, Arny did a careful study of sound cards, and reproduction of
> sound through sound cards, and concluded, without actual verification,

Pkease document this allegation.

that
> this was a methodology he could use to make comparisons of certain kinds
of
> equipment remotely available.
> BIG, TRAGIC MISTAKE!

How would you know?

> Along the way, Arny remarked to himself that he had heard five or so
> amplifiers that sounded the same. Hence, he concluded, it was unlikely
that
> the universe of fine amplifiers would contain examples of distinctive
sound.
> BIG MISTAKE!

Now you're just plain lying. He has made no such claim.

Other research has been done and concludes that properly functioning amps
not driven to clipping and without audible distortion and with FR that falls
within certain criteria, are indistinguishable from each other.

Please don't bother with the tired crap of yours about how your own NON
level matched, sighted comparisons show something different.

> Having created a marvelous tool, Arny decided that those who chose not to
> use it should not be allowed to post without harassment about their own
> listening experiences.

Bull****.

Arny decided that he had been given a job, a MISSION,
> to change the rule of human discourse in the late 20th century. Suddenly,
> anybody who wanted to share an experience, without using his flawed
> methodology -- or a more valid, and even more unobtainable ABX
> methodology -- was subject to Arny's censure.

OSAF!

> BIG MISTAKE!
> Thus we witness the gradual metamorphosis of someone who was a fairly
normal
> human being, Arny Krueger, into a monster.
> BIG TRAGEDY!
>
I prefer his approach to audio to your nonsensical anecdotes.

> A tragedy, not only in the nusiance he has created, but because he
actually
> has some technical competence.

More than you, by a long shot.

Unfortunately, he has fallen victim to the
> Peter Principle, which states that a person tends to rise to the level at
> which he can no longer perform his job competently.
>

OSAF!

You fell victim to it before you ever showed up here.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>
> > "Lionel" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> dave weil wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 20:59:45 +0100, Lionel >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> > [snip]
> >> ...No, it's a phantasm. :-(
> >>
> >> I have seen Arnold's site linked in many audio sites in USA, Europe,
> >> Australia. Audio cards tests and Pcabx are referenced as to be
> >> "interesting" on many specialized sites.
> >> He has done a job which is available *free of charge* on the internet
> >> and people from prestigious companies are interested in his job... No
> >> reasons to kill the dog. This is my point of view.
> >>
> >> Arnold job can be compared to free software development, you like you
> >> use, you don't like you forget. In this job pride is the only
> >> salary, so if you refuse them pride...
>
> > There is a lot of useful information on Arny's website, as well as
> > analysis. Unfortunately, Arny contaminates the whole pile by claiming
> > a domain of application that far exceeds the actual.
>
> Why don't you document this claim, Morein? Provide us with text from the
> sites that proves your claim that I contaminated the whole pile by
claiming
> a domain of application that far exceeds the actual.
>
> > If Arny had properly limited his domain of investigation, instead of
> > taking the attitude that he has mastered the audio universe, a case
> > could be made that his contribution was significant.
>
> Why don't you document this claim, Morein? Provide us with text from the
> sites that proves your claim that I think I've mastered the universe.
>
> > Unfortunately, he made a major error. It's a lot like the error made
> > by religious doctrinists when they claim (or claimed) that "the Jews
> > killed Christ."
>
> You've got all of Christianity confused with the Roman Catholic Church,
> Morein. There are a ton of Christians who think that this assertion of
> theirs is way over the top, and that even with subsequent retrenchments,
the
> position of the RCC is pretty strange. If you want to talk about this sort
> of weirdness Morein, at least properly and specifically attribute it.
>
> >While a reasonable historian could take the position
> > that some Jews in Jerusalem had some responsibility for the death of
> > Christ, this cannot be logically extended to "The Jews killed
> > Christ." Yet some mystically inclined theologians believe this.
>
> So what?
>
> > Analogously, Arny did a careful study of sound cards, and
> > reproduction of sound through sound cards, and concluded, without
> > actual verification, that this was a methodology he could use to make
> > comparisons of certain kinds of equipment remotely available.
> > BIG, TRAGIC MISTAKE!
>
> Big dramatic insight! Not only can this work well, but it provides some
> interesting opportunities, such as facilitating time synching when it is
> otherwise difficult, and repeating the process to increase the ear's
> sensitivity to the kinds of sonic contamination that some equipment adds
to
> the signals it processes.
>
> > Along the way, Arny remarked to himself that he had heard five or so
> > amplifiers that sounded the same.
>
> Big dramatic error by Morein. I exploited this technology to allow people
to
> actually hear relatively easily, how these amplifiers contaminate the
> signals they process. Therefore I help people understand the degree to
which
> they sound different.
>
> > Hence, he concluded, it was
> > unlikely that the universe of fine amplifiers would contain examples
> > of distinctive sound. BIG MISTAKE!
>
> As one and all can now see, Morein is writing about how he misunderstands
> the operation of this part of www.pcabx.com . See (and even hear) Morein's
> errors for yourself - visit my web site!
>
> > Having created a marvelous tool, Arny decided that those who chose
> > not to use it should not be allowed to post without harassment about
> > their own listening experiences. Arny decided that he had been given
> > a job, a MISSION, to change the rule of human discourse in the late
> > 20th century. Suddenly, anybody who wanted to share an experience,
> > without using his flawed methodology -- or a more valid, and even
> > more unobtainable ABX methodology -- was subject to Arny's censure.
> > BIG MISTAKE!
>
> This would be Morein's big mistake. He doesn't know how to look at simple
> facts and report them accurately. Probably one reason why he was refused a
> PhD by Drexel University after years of study.
>
> > Thus we witness the gradual metamorphosis of someone who was a fairly
> > normal human being, Arny Krueger, into a monster.
> > BIG TRAGEDY!
>
> At this point Morein is going further off the metaphorical deep end. He
> makes it sound like he was with me until I made this purported big mistake
> at www.pcabx.com.
>
> I've already cited numerous examples where Morein was fighting with me on
> RAO over these issues, tooth and nail, for years BEFORE there ever was
> www.pcabx.com . Just check google. The PCABX web site came into existence
in
> September 1999. Just check Morein's posts on RAO prior to that date. You
see
> that he vigorously disagreed with me over the audibility of power
amplifiers
> well before that date.
>
> Here's an example:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=351988FD.CB8C366B%40netreach.net
>
> Note the similarity to some of Morien's recent posts to RAO.
>
> > A tragedy, not only in the nuisance he has created, but because he
> > actually has some technical competence. Unfortunately, he has fallen
> > victim to the Peter Principle, which states that a person tends to
> > rise to the level at which he can no longer perform his job
> > competently.
>
> Regrettably, that happened to Morein before he got his PhD, but it took a
> highly-publicized court case and refusal by the Supreme Court of The
United
> States to *convince* him.
>
>
His mind is made up, don't confuse him with facts.

[Arny Krueger]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message


> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...

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

>>> I have seen Arnold's site linked in many audio sites in USA, Europe,
>>> Australia. Audio cards tests and Pcabx are referenced as to be
>>> "interesting" on many specialized sites.

>>> He has done a job which is available *free of charge* on the
>>> internet and people from prestigious companies are interested in
>>> his job... No reasons to kill the dog. This is my point of view.

>>> Arnold job can be compared to free software development, you like
>>> you use, you don't like you forget. In this job pride is the only
>>> salary, so if you refuse them pride...

Who is refusing me pride? Do they matter?

AFAIK PCABX and PCAVTech are reasonably well-respected in just about every
place, but not among a select group of RAO trolls. Since RAO is not the real
world, and the select group of RAO trolls are horrifically intellectually
marginalized, their opinions hardly matter to me unless I can somehow sift
something of value from their ranting and raving.

There's no doubt that my two web sites are successful beyond anything that
any of the RAO trolls have ever implemented on their own. AFAIK there is no
RAO regular who has a web site domain that they personally own, that
outdraws or is in any sense more influential either PCABX or PCAVTech. I can
think of one occasional poster who might have a web site that is in the same
league. His site might be superior to PCABX in some ways. Our sites work
together. We're on the same page, and the same side of all important issues.

Obviously there may be others who are involved with corporate web sites that
outdraw or are in some sense more influential than my web sites. But those
web sites aren't their personal property and they aren't their personal
creations like mine are. They didn't personally raise all the money and pay
all the bills, and they didn't personally put online all the HTML code at
those domains. They didn't author it all. I did.

I've *used* RAO as a worst case testing platform for concepts like PCABX and
PCAVTech, expecting them to be totally trashed by a select group of RAO
trolls. It's just worst case testing. In worst case testing, it is expected
that the product may be trashed. The value of worst-case testing is that
the trashing can then be analyzed to find weak points. Once a number of weak
points were detected, I addressed them as I saw fit. This included
considering the weirdness and intellectual isolation of the trashers and
disregarding them.

>> There is a lot of useful information on Arny's website, as well as
>> analysis. Unfortunately, Arny contaminates the whole pile by
>> claiming a domain of application that far exceeds the actual.

> How would you know?

Morein's problem is very obvious. He's got a mid-1950's concept of audio, in
which virtually all audio gear that he listens to, even the most technically
perfect of his DACs, has a characteristic sound. Reality is simply that some
audio gear sounds different and some doesn't. Morein seems to have a
pathological hatred for this idea. He seems to fear it greatly. He has a
track record of misstating it, and horrifically twisting it. He avoids
involving himself personally in a careful investigation of my claims, even
though he can do so pretty easily and anonymously.

Note that even Bruce Richman and I on occasion agree more about audio than
Morein and I:

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 07:17:17 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

"Frankly, all this obsessing over the digital domain side is bad priorities.
Attention would usually be more appropriately lavished on the analog side.
Instead of blowing $400 on a Card Deluxe, a good record cleaning machine
could be obtained for less money or the same amount. Used intelligently it
would no doubt improve the dynamic range of the finished product by more dB,
and more perceptibly."

From: (Bruce J. Richman)
Message-ID:

"There is no question that using a wet-cleaning/vacuum machine such as one
of
the Nitty Gritty or VPI models can make a substantial difference in what you
hear. I've had the same VPI 16.5 RCM for 10 years, it's noisy, but is built
like a tank and does the job. You are correct also that embedded dirt that
often can not be seen with the naked eye gets into the grooves and cause
severe
audible noise in some cases."

Richman went on to say:

"In my experience, phono preamplifiers vary considerably as to S/N level and
the
sonic signatures (to use a subjective phrase) they tend to impart. The
extent
to which these variables effect audible impressions is of course subjective
and
individualized."

I agree with this completely. Phono preamps and cartridges have relatively
large variations in technical performance and therefore perceived sound
quality. Differences in both noise levels and coloration (frequency
response) are very common. There may also be some phono preamps with
overload problems, when paired with high-output magnetic cartridges.

This may relate to Morein's conundrum as follows: Old time audiophiles lived
in a world where in fact most audio components sounded different. As new
technology evolved they continued to perceive that components sounded
different, whether or not they actually did, because of the lack of
level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled listening tests. Nobody should
presume that level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled listening tests of
a range of phono preamps and cartridges or many old-time power amps will be
as difficult as similar tests of good CD players.


>> If Arny had properly limited his domain of investigation, instead of
taking
>> the attitude that he has mastered the audio universe, a case could
>> be made that his contribution was significant.

> Please document this allegation.

Basically, Morein's task is to somehow twist my well-considered and
fully-documented claim that: "Some things sound the same and some things
sound different" into a claim that I have "mastered the audio universe". He
seems to try, but he has to fail because it's obviously a fool's journey.
Morein does have a pretty good track record for playing the fool.

>> Unfortunately, he made a major error.

> How would you know?

The ground rules for Morein to actually prove his claims are pretty clear.
He has to take something I said (as opposed to his hysterical paraphrases
and made-up anecdotes about what I said) and falsify it.

> snip of stupid stuff

>> Analogously, Arny did a careful study of sound cards, and
>> reproduction of sound through sound cards, and concluded, without
>> actual verification,

> Please document this allegation.

He can't because I did the careful studies via both measurements and
carefully-controlled listening tests. Furthermore, anybody who wants to can
repeat my listening tests for themselves because all the specialized tools
for performing them are freely available.

>> that this was a methodology he could use to make comparisons of certain
kinds of
>> equipment remotely available.

>> BIG, TRAGIC MISTAKE!

> How would you know?

Other than making unsupported claims in capital letters, Morein presents
zero evidence, and zero detailed arguments to support his claim. Therefore,
the only logical thing to do is dismiss Morein's claims until he can provide
reliable evidence AND logical arguments to support them.

Since PCABX has now been in operation for more than 4 years the outcome of
any scientific attempt to deconstruct PCABX is predictable. The scientific
evidence will verify the procedures, tools and evidence presented by the
site and Morein will either have to change how he thinks or shut up.

>> Along the way, Arny remarked to himself that he had heard five or so
>> amplifiers that sounded the same. Hence, he concluded, it was unlikely
that
>> the universe of fine amplifiers would contain examples of
>> distinctive sound. BIG MISTAKE!

> Now you're just plain lying. He has made no such claim.

Exactly. This is just another example of Morein's hysterical paraphrases and
made-up anecdotes. With the entire Google archive of 10,000's of my posts at
his disposal, Morein cannot document me saying what he claims. If he were a
logical person, a big light would go on in his head. He's wrong! There's no
evidence to support his attacks on me. He makes up his supporting evidence
as he goes along.

> Other research has been done and concludes that properly functioning
> amps not driven to clipping and without audible distortion and with
> FR that falls within certain criteria, are indistinguishable from
> each other.

Right. This is hardly new news. It's old news. PCABX is just one of many
methodologies that produce this result.

> Please don't bother with the tired crap of yours about how your own
> NON level matched, sighted comparisons show something different.

Exactly. Morein claims to be a superior electronics expert to me, but yet
somehow he can't figure out how to do a level-matched, time-synched,
bias-controlled listening test, something that thousands of people who make
no such claims of electronics expertise have already managed.

>> Having created a marvelous tool, Arny decided that those who chose
>> not to use it should not be allowed to post without harassment about
>> their own listening experiences.

> Bull****.

Morein seems to be very weak about the concept of a forum in which various
opinions are presented. He gets to say what he wants to say here and so does
everybody else, including me. I think his problem is that when I deconstruct
his opinions I often have a ton of documentation and evidence that backs me
up. He doesn't.

>> Arny decided that he had been given a job, a MISSION,
>> to change the rule of human discourse in the late 20th century.

Bullcrap. This is all about audio and little more. Certainly, this is not
about the rule of human discourse in the late 20th century if for no other
reason than it's no longer the 20th century. I guess we could interpret this
statement from Morein as meaning that he is so out of it, that he doesn't
even know what century he is living in! This slip-up is ironic because in
terms of his audio beliefs, Morein seems to be still living in the
middle-late 20th century.

>> Suddenly, anybody who wanted to share an experience, without using
>> his flawed methodology -- or a more valid, and even more
>> unobtainable ABX methodology -- was subject to Arny's censure.

can I really ever *censure* someone on RAO? In fact what happens is that
they say something and sometimes I say that I disagree and here are the
reasons why. "Censure" means to express official disapproval of some one or
some thing. Since I have zero official standing on RAO, I can't possibly
"censure" anything. Again Morein is proven wrong.

> OSAF!

>> BIG MISTAKE!
>> Thus we witness the gradual metamorphosis of someone who was a
>> fairly normal human being, Arny Krueger, into a monster.

If Bruce Richman were really the "Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D. Licensed
Psychologist" he should be all over Morein for his paranoia. But as we all
know, Richman is all about his own hurt feelings and his personal agenda,
and he's not about truth or fairness. He can't even bring himself to
criticize JBorg's filthy attacks on innocent parties when reminded of it
several times. For all we know, Richman is the author of JBorg's filth,
since JBorg is anonymous. We do know for sure that Bruce Richman and JBorg
have similar agendas. At best, its another case of one filthy hand washing
another.

>> BIG TRAGEDY!

> I prefer his approach to audio to your nonsensical anecdotes.

I suspect that many people feel the same way, which is one thing that drives
trolls like Richman and Morein.

>> A tragedy, not only in the nuisance he has created, but because he
actually
>> has some technical competence.

> More than you, by a long shot.

In terms of what's visible on RAO that regrettably appears to be the case.
Of course its a false deceit to treat RAO postings like they are a reliable
formal test of technical competence. OTOH, I've challenged Morein to show
from the google archives that he has provided evidence on Usenet that he
knows very simple very basic things like the difference between an ohm and a
volt. I'm still waiting.

>> Unfortunately, he has fallen victim to the
>> Peter Principle, which states that a person tends to rise to the
>> level at which he can no longer perform his job competently.

This would seem to be a misapplication of a questionable principle. There's
nothing questionable about the possibility that this can happen, but its not
a given that it has to happen. Therefore as given, it's misstated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle

"The Peter Principle is a theory originated by Dr. Laurence J. Peter which
states that employees within a hierarchical organization advance to their
highest level of competence, are then promoted to a level where they are
incompetent, and then stay in that position."

Note that the definition is not [perfectly global, it was limited by its
author to hierarchical organizations, which RAO, Usenet and indeed much of
the world is not. Furthermore it was made a certain point in time that was
decades ago, and even hierarchical organizations can change their ways. The
source goes on to say:

"One way that organizations attempt to avoid this effect is to refrain from
promoting a person until that person already shows the skills or habits
necessary to succeed at the next higher position. Thus, a person is not
promoted to manage others who does not already show leadership, for
instance."

IOW, while hierarchical organizations can run afoul of the Peter Principle,
it's not written in stone that they will always run afoul of it. In general,
the organization of the world, Usenet, and even RAO is chaotic, reaching the
modest levels of a loosely-connected network.

Therefore it is safe to say that Morein has again misinterpreted both
reality and some of the theories that we use to try to understand it.

> OSAF!

> You fell victim to it before you ever showed up here.

It's my impression that when Morein first showed up here about 5 years ago,
he was already in the midst of a number of regrettable personal
catastrophes. I think he needs to change his world view in order to emerge
from them.

[Bruce J. Richman]

Arny Krueger wrote:


>"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message

>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>
>>>> I have seen Arnold's site linked in many audio sites in USA, Europe,
>>>> Australia. Audio cards tests and Pcabx are referenced as to be
>>>> "interesting" on many specialized sites.
>
>>>> He has done a job which is available *free of charge* on the
>>>> internet and people from prestigious companies are interested in
>>>> his job... No reasons to kill the dog. This is my point of view.
>
>>>> Arnold job can be compared to free software development, you like
>>>> you use, you don't like you forget. In this job pride is the only
>>>> salary, so if you refuse them pride...
>
>Who is refusing me pride? Do they matter?
>
>AFAIK PCABX and PCAVTech are reasonably well-respected in just about every
>place, but not among a select group of RAO trolls. Since RAO is not the real
>world, and the select group of RAO trolls are horrifically intellectually
>marginalized, their opinions hardly matter to me unless I can somehow sift
>something of value from their ranting and raving.
>
>There's no doubt that my two web sites are successful beyond anything that
>any of the RAO trolls have ever implemented on their own. AFAIK there is no
>RAO regular who has a web site domain that they personally own, that
>outdraws or is in any sense more influential either PCABX or PCAVTech. I can
>think of one occasional poster who might have a web site that is in the same
>league. His site might be superior to PCABX in some ways. Our sites work
>together. We're on the same page, and the same side of all important issues.
>
>Obviously there may be others who are involved with corporate web sites that
>outdraw or are in some sense more influential than my web sites. But those
>web sites aren't their personal property and they aren't their personal
>creations like mine are. They didn't personally raise all the money and pay
>all the bills, and they didn't personally put online all the HTML code at
>those domains. They didn't author it all. I did.
>
>I've *used* RAO as a worst case testing platform for concepts like PCABX and
>PCAVTech, expecting them to be totally trashed by a select group of RAO
>trolls. It's just worst case testing. In worst case testing, it is expected
>that the product may be trashed. The value of worst-case testing is that
>the trashing can then be analyzed to find weak points. Once a number of weak
>points were detected, I addressed them as I saw fit. This included
>considering the weirdness and intellectual isolation of the trashers and
>disregarding them.
>
>>> There is a lot of useful information on Arny's website, as well as
>>> analysis. Unfortunately, Arny contaminates the whole pile by
>>> claiming a domain of application that far exceeds the actual.
>
>> How would you know?
>
>Morein's problem is very obvious. He's got a mid-1950's concept of audio, in
>which virtually all audio gear that he listens to, even the most technically
>perfect of his DACs, has a characteristic sound. Reality is simply that some
>audio gear sounds different and some doesn't. Morein seems to have a
>pathological hatred for this idea. He seems to fear it greatly. He has a
>track record of misstating it, and horrifically twisting it. He avoids
>involving himself personally in a careful investigation of my claims, even
>though he can do so pretty easily and anonymously.
>
>Note that even Bruce Richman and I on occasion agree more about audio than
>Morein and I:
>
>On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 07:17:17 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>wrote:
>
>"Frankly, all this obsessing over the digital domain side is bad priorities.
>Attention would usually be more appropriately lavished on the analog side.
>Instead of blowing $400 on a Card Deluxe, a good record cleaning machine
>could be obtained for less money or the same amount. Used intelligently it
>would no doubt improve the dynamic range of the finished product by more dB,
>and more perceptibly."
>
>From: (Bruce J. Richman)
>Message-ID:
>
>"There is no question that using a wet-cleaning/vacuum machine such as one
>of
>the Nitty Gritty or VPI models can make a substantial difference in what you
>hear. I've had the same VPI 16.5 RCM for 10 years, it's noisy, but is built
>like a tank and does the job. You are correct also that embedded dirt that
>often can not be seen with the naked eye gets into the grooves and cause
>severe
>audible noise in some cases."
>
>Richman went on to say:
>
>"In my experience, phono preamplifiers vary considerably as to S/N level and
>the
>sonic signatures (to use a subjective phrase) they tend to impart. The
>extent
>to which these variables effect audible impressions is of course subjective
>and
>individualized."
>
>I agree with this completely. Phono preamps and cartridges have relatively
>large variations in technical performance and therefore perceived sound
>quality. Differences in both noise levels and coloration (frequency
>response) are very common. There may also be some phono preamps with
>overload problems, when paired with high-output magnetic cartridges.
>
>This may relate to Morein's conundrum as follows: Old time audiophiles lived
>in a world where in fact most audio components sounded different. As new
>technology evolved they continued to perceive that components sounded
>different, whether or not they actually did, because of the lack of
>level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled listening tests. Nobody should
>presume that level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled listening tests of
>a range of phono preamps and cartridges or many old-time power amps will be
>as difficult as similar tests of good CD players.
>
>
>>> If Arny had properly limited his domain of investigation, instead of
>taking
>>> the attitude that he has mastered the audio universe, a case could
>>> be made that his contribution was significant.
>
>> Please document this allegation.
>
>Basically, Morein's task is to somehow twist my well-considered and
>fully-documented claim that: "Some things sound the same and some things
>sound different" into a claim that I have "mastered the audio universe". He
>seems to try, but he has to fail because it's obviously a fool's journey.
>Morein does have a pretty good track record for playing the fool.
>
> >> Unfortunately, he made a major error.
>
>> How would you know?
>
>The ground rules for Morein to actually prove his claims are pretty clear.
>He has to take something I said (as opposed to his hysterical paraphrases
>and made-up anecdotes about what I said) and falsify it.
>
>> snip of stupid stuff
>
>>> Analogously, Arny did a careful study of sound cards, and
>>> reproduction of sound through sound cards, and concluded, without
>>> actual verification,
>
>> Please document this allegation.
>
>He can't because I did the careful studies via both measurements and
>carefully-controlled listening tests. Furthermore, anybody who wants to can
>repeat my listening tests for themselves because all the specialized tools
>for performing them are freely available.
>
>>> that this was a methodology he could use to make comparisons of certain
>kinds of
>>> equipment remotely available.
>
>>> BIG, TRAGIC MISTAKE!
>
>> How would you know?
>
>Other than making unsupported claims in capital letters, Morein presents
>zero evidence, and zero detailed arguments to support his claim. Therefore,
>the only logical thing to do is dismiss Morein's claims until he can provide
>reliable evidence AND logical arguments to support them.
>
>Since PCABX has now been in operation for more than 4 years the outcome of
>any scientific attempt to deconstruct PCABX is predictable. The scientific
>evidence will verify the procedures, tools and evidence presented by the
>site and Morein will either have to change how he thinks or shut up.
>
>>> Along the way, Arny remarked to himself that he had heard five or so
>>> amplifiers that sounded the same. Hence, he concluded, it was unlikely
>that
>>> the universe of fine amplifiers would contain examples of
>>> distinctive sound. BIG MISTAKE!
>
>> Now you're just plain lying. He has made no such claim.
>
>Exactly. This is just another example of Morein's hysterical paraphrases and
>made-up anecdotes. With the entire Google archive of 10,000's of my posts at
>his disposal, Morein cannot document me saying what he claims. If he were a
>logical person, a big light would go on in his head. He's wrong! There's no
>evidence to support his attacks on me. He makes up his supporting evidence
>as he goes along.
>
>> Other research has been done and concludes that properly functioning
>> amps not driven to clipping and without audible distortion and with
>> FR that falls within certain criteria, are indistinguishable from
>> each other.
>
>Right. This is hardly new news. It's old news. PCABX is just one of many
>methodologies that produce this result.
>
>> Please don't bother with the tired crap of yours about how your own
>> NON level matched, sighted comparisons show something different.
>
>Exactly. Morein claims to be a superior electronics expert to me, but yet
>somehow he can't figure out how to do a level-matched, time-synched,
>bias-controlled listening test, something that thousands of people who make
>no such claims of electronics expertise have already managed.
>
>>> Having created a marvelous tool, Arny decided that those who chose
>>> not to use it should not be allowed to post without harassment about
>>> their own listening experiences.
>
>> Bull****.
>
>Morein seems to be very weak about the concept of a forum in which various
>opinions are presented. He gets to say what he wants to say here and so does
>everybody else, including me. I think his problem is that when I deconstruct
>his opinions I often have a ton of documentation and evidence that backs me
>up. He doesn't.
>
>>> Arny decided that he had been given a job, a MISSION,
>>> to change the rule of human discourse in the late 20th century.
>
>Bullcrap. This is all about audio and little more. Certainly, this is not
>about the rule of human discourse in the late 20th century if for no other
>reason than it's no longer the 20th century. I guess we could interpret this
>statement from Morein as meaning that he is so out of it, that he doesn't
>even know what century he is living in! This slip-up is ironic because in
>terms of his audio beliefs, Morein seems to be still living in the
>middle-late 20th century.
>
>>> Suddenly, anybody who wanted to share an experience, without using
>>> his flawed methodology -- or a more valid, and even more
>>> unobtainable ABX methodology -- was subject to Arny's censure.
>
>can I really ever *censure* someone on RAO? In fact what happens is that
>they say something and sometimes I say that I disagree and here are the
>reasons why. "Censure" means to express official disapproval of some one or
>some thing. Since I have zero official standing on RAO, I can't possibly
>"censure" anything. Again Morein is proven wrong.
>
>> OSAF!
>
>>> BIG MISTAKE!
>>> Thus we witness the gradual metamorphosis of someone who was a
>>> fairly normal human being, Arny Krueger, into a monster.
>
>If Bruce Richman were really the "Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D. Licensed
>Psychologist" he should be all over Morein for his paranoia. But as we all
>know, Richman is all about his own hurt feelings and his personal agenda,
>and he's not about truth or fairness. He can't even bring himself to
>criticize JBorg's filthy attacks on innocent parties when reminded of it
>several times. For all we know, Richman is the author of JBorg's filth,
>since JBorg is anonymous. We do know for sure that Bruce Richman and JBorg
>have similar agendas. At best, its another case of one filthy hand washing
>another.
>
>>> BIG TRAGEDY!
>
>> I prefer his approach to audio to your nonsensical anecdotes.
>
>I suspect that many people feel the same way, which is one thing that drives
>trolls like Richman and Morein.
>
>>> A tragedy, not only in the nuisance he has created, but because he
>actually
>>> has some technical competence.
>
>> More than you, by a long shot.
>
>In terms of what's visible on RAO that regrettably appears to be the case.
>Of course its a false deceit to treat RAO postings like they are a reliable
>formal test of technical competence. OTOH, I've challenged Morein to show
>from the google archives that he has provided evidence on Usenet that he
>knows very simple very basic things like the difference between an ohm and a
>volt. I'm still waiting.
>
>>> Unfortunately, he has fallen victim to the
>>> Peter Principle, which states that a person tends to rise to the
>>> level at which he can no longer perform his job competently.
>
>This would seem to be a misapplication of a questionable principle. There's
>nothing questionable about the possibility that this can happen, but its not
>a given that it has to happen. Therefore as given, it's misstated.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle
>
>"The Peter Principle is a theory originated by Dr. Laurence J. Peter which
>states that employees within a hierarchical organization advance to their
>highest level of competence, are then promoted to a level where they are
>incompetent, and then stay in that position."
>
>Note that the definition is not [perfectly global, it was limited by its
>author to hierarchical organizations, which RAO, Usenet and indeed much of
>the world is not. Furthermore it was made a certain point in time that was
>decades ago, and even hierarchical organizations can change their ways. The
>source goes on to say:
>
>"One way that organizations attempt to avoid this effect is to refrain from
>promoting a person until that person already shows the skills or habits
>necessary to succeed at the next higher position. Thus, a person is not
>promoted to manage others who does not already show leadership, for
>instance."
>
>IOW, while hierarchical organizations can run afoul of the Peter Principle,
>it's not written in stone that they will always run afoul of it. In general,
>the organization of the world, Usenet, and even RAO is chaotic, reaching the
>modest levels of a loosely-connected network.
>
>Therefore it is safe to say that Morein has again misinterpreted both
>reality and some of the theories that we use to try to understand it.
>
>> OSAF!
>
>> You fell victim to it before you ever showed up here.
>
>It's my impression that when Morein first showed up here about 5 years ago,
>he was already in the midst of a number of regrettable personal
>catastrophes. I think he needs to change his world view in order to emerge
>from them.
>
>
>
>

Arny Krueger has an extremely lengthy Google history of unproovoked personal
attacks against me. His attempt above to continjue with yet another
unsuppolrted conspiracy theory is just the latest example of his neverending
agenda - to libel, distort and misrepresent information about me. In point of
fact, he has continually failed to produce any evidence to support his false
claims about my identity, my credentials, or about his paranoid allegations of
my involvement in sockpuppetry - the latter being one of his more bizarre and
extreme fabrications.

Also, quite predictably, he hypocritically asks for condemnation of a post from
JBorg while simultaneously continuing to endorse and support the psychotic,
libelous rantings of McKelvy. Indeed in thte case of these 2 compulsive and
pathological liars, the term "folie a deux" seems to fit quite well.


Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist
>

[Michael McKelvy]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>
>
> > "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> >> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> >> ...
>
> >>> I have seen Arnold's site linked in many audio sites in USA, Europe,
> >>> Australia. Audio cards tests and Pcabx are referenced as to be
> >>> "interesting" on many specialized sites.
>
> >>> He has done a job which is available *free of charge* on the
> >>> internet and people from prestigious companies are interested in
> >>> his job... No reasons to kill the dog. This is my point of view.
>
> >>> Arnold job can be compared to free software development, you like
> >>> you use, you don't like you forget. In this job pride is the only
> >>> salary, so if you refuse them pride...
>
> Who is refusing me pride? Do they matter?
>
> AFAIK PCABX and PCAVTech are reasonably well-respected in just about every
> place, but not among a select group of RAO trolls. Since RAO is not the
real
> world, and the select group of RAO trolls are horrifically intellectually
> marginalized, their opinions hardly matter to me unless I can somehow sift
> something of value from their ranting and raving.
>
> There's no doubt that my two web sites are successful beyond anything that
> any of the RAO trolls have ever implemented on their own. AFAIK there is
no
> RAO regular who has a web site domain that they personally own, that
> outdraws or is in any sense more influential either PCABX or PCAVTech. I
can
> think of one occasional poster who might have a web site that is in the
same
> league. His site might be superior to PCABX in some ways. Our sites work
> together. We're on the same page, and the same side of all important
issues.
>
> Obviously there may be others who are involved with corporate web sites
that
> outdraw or are in some sense more influential than my web sites. But those
> web sites aren't their personal property and they aren't their personal
> creations like mine are. They didn't personally raise all the money and
pay
> all the bills, and they didn't personally put online all the HTML code at
> those domains. They didn't author it all. I did.
>
> I've *used* RAO as a worst case testing platform for concepts like PCABX
and
> PCAVTech, expecting them to be totally trashed by a select group of RAO
> trolls. It's just worst case testing. In worst case testing, it is
expected
> that the product may be trashed. The value of worst-case testing is that
> the trashing can then be analyzed to find weak points. Once a number of
weak
> points were detected, I addressed them as I saw fit. This included
> considering the weirdness and intellectual isolation of the trashers and
> disregarding them.
>
> >> There is a lot of useful information on Arny's website, as well as
> >> analysis. Unfortunately, Arny contaminates the whole pile by
> >> claiming a domain of application that far exceeds the actual.
>
> > How would you know?
>
> Morein's problem is very obvious. He's got a mid-1950's concept of audio,
in
> which virtually all audio gear that he listens to, even the most
technically
> perfect of his DACs, has a characteristic sound. Reality is simply that
some
> audio gear sounds different and some doesn't. Morein seems to have a
> pathological hatred for this idea. He seems to fear it greatly. He has a
> track record of misstating it, and horrifically twisting it. He avoids
> involving himself personally in a careful investigation of my claims, even
> though he can do so pretty easily and anonymously.
>
> Note that even Bruce Richman and I on occasion agree more about audio than
> Morein and I:
>
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 07:17:17 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
> "Frankly, all this obsessing over the digital domain side is bad
priorities.
> Attention would usually be more appropriately lavished on the analog side.
> Instead of blowing $400 on a Card Deluxe, a good record cleaning machine
> could be obtained for less money or the same amount. Used intelligently it
> would no doubt improve the dynamic range of the finished product by more
dB,
> and more perceptibly."
>
> From: (Bruce J. Richman)
> Message-ID:
>
> "There is no question that using a wet-cleaning/vacuum machine such as one
> of
> the Nitty Gritty or VPI models can make a substantial difference in what
you
> hear. I've had the same VPI 16.5 RCM for 10 years, it's noisy, but is
built
> like a tank and does the job. You are correct also that embedded dirt
that
> often can not be seen with the naked eye gets into the grooves and cause
> severe
> audible noise in some cases."
>
> Richman went on to say:
>
> "In my experience, phono preamplifiers vary considerably as to S/N level
and
> the
> sonic signatures (to use a subjective phrase) they tend to impart. The
> extent
> to which these variables effect audible impressions is of course
subjective
> and
> individualized."
>
> I agree with this completely. Phono preamps and cartridges have relatively
> large variations in technical performance and therefore perceived sound
> quality. Differences in both noise levels and coloration (frequency
> response) are very common. There may also be some phono preamps with
> overload problems, when paired with high-output magnetic cartridges.
>
> This may relate to Morein's conundrum as follows: Old time audiophiles
lived
> in a world where in fact most audio components sounded different. As new
> technology evolved they continued to perceive that components sounded
> different, whether or not they actually did, because of the lack of
> level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled listening tests. Nobody
should
> presume that level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled listening tests
of
> a range of phono preamps and cartridges or many old-time power amps will
be
> as difficult as similar tests of good CD players.
>
>
> >> If Arny had properly limited his domain of investigation, instead of
> taking
> >> the attitude that he has mastered the audio universe, a case could
> >> be made that his contribution was significant.
>
> > Please document this allegation.
>
> Basically, Morein's task is to somehow twist my well-considered and
> fully-documented claim that: "Some things sound the same and some things
> sound different" into a claim that I have "mastered the audio universe".
He
> seems to try, but he has to fail because it's obviously a fool's journey.
> Morein does have a pretty good track record for playing the fool.
>
> >> Unfortunately, he made a major error.
>
> > How would you know?
>
> The ground rules for Morein to actually prove his claims are pretty clear.
> He has to take something I said (as opposed to his hysterical paraphrases
> and made-up anecdotes about what I said) and falsify it.
>
> > snip of stupid stuff
>
> >> Analogously, Arny did a careful study of sound cards, and
> >> reproduction of sound through sound cards, and concluded, without
> >> actual verification,
>
> > Please document this allegation.
>
> He can't because I did the careful studies via both measurements and
> carefully-controlled listening tests. Furthermore, anybody who wants to
can
> repeat my listening tests for themselves because all the specialized tools
> for performing them are freely available.
>
> >> that this was a methodology he could use to make comparisons of
certain
> kinds of
> >> equipment remotely available.
>
> >> BIG, TRAGIC MISTAKE!
>
> > How would you know?
>
> Other than making unsupported claims in capital letters, Morein presents
> zero evidence, and zero detailed arguments to support his claim.
Therefore,
> the only logical thing to do is dismiss Morein's claims until he can
provide
> reliable evidence AND logical arguments to support them.
>
> Since PCABX has now been in operation for more than 4 years the outcome of
> any scientific attempt to deconstruct PCABX is predictable. The scientific
> evidence will verify the procedures, tools and evidence presented by the
> site and Morein will either have to change how he thinks or shut up.
>
> >> Along the way, Arny remarked to himself that he had heard five or so
> >> amplifiers that sounded the same. Hence, he concluded, it was unlikely
> that
> >> the universe of fine amplifiers would contain examples of
> >> distinctive sound. BIG MISTAKE!
>
> > Now you're just plain lying. He has made no such claim.
>
> Exactly. This is just another example of Morein's hysterical paraphrases
and
> made-up anecdotes. With the entire Google archive of 10,000's of my posts
at
> his disposal, Morein cannot document me saying what he claims. If he were
a
> logical person, a big light would go on in his head. He's wrong! There's
no
> evidence to support his attacks on me. He makes up his supporting evidence
> as he goes along.
>
> > Other research has been done and concludes that properly functioning
> > amps not driven to clipping and without audible distortion and with
> > FR that falls within certain criteria, are indistinguishable from
> > each other.
>
> Right. This is hardly new news. It's old news. PCABX is just one of many
> methodologies that produce this result.
>
> > Please don't bother with the tired crap of yours about how your own
> > NON level matched, sighted comparisons show something different.
>
> Exactly. Morein claims to be a superior electronics expert to me, but yet
> somehow he can't figure out how to do a level-matched, time-synched,
> bias-controlled listening test, something that thousands of people who
make
> no such claims of electronics expertise have already managed.
>
> >> Having created a marvelous tool, Arny decided that those who chose
> >> not to use it should not be allowed to post without harassment about
> >> their own listening experiences.
>
> > Bull****.
>
> Morein seems to be very weak about the concept of a forum in which various
> opinions are presented. He gets to say what he wants to say here and so
does
> everybody else, including me. I think his problem is that when I
deconstruct
> his opinions I often have a ton of documentation and evidence that backs
me
> up. He doesn't.
>
> >> Arny decided that he had been given a job, a MISSION,
> >> to change the rule of human discourse in the late 20th century.
>
> Bullcrap. This is all about audio and little more. Certainly, this is not
> about the rule of human discourse in the late 20th century if for no other
> reason than it's no longer the 20th century. I guess we could interpret
this
> statement from Morein as meaning that he is so out of it, that he doesn't
> even know what century he is living in! This slip-up is ironic because in
> terms of his audio beliefs, Morein seems to be still living in the
> middle-late 20th century.
>
> >> Suddenly, anybody who wanted to share an experience, without using
> >> his flawed methodology -- or a more valid, and even more
> >> unobtainable ABX methodology -- was subject to Arny's censure.
>
> can I really ever *censure* someone on RAO? In fact what happens is that
> they say something and sometimes I say that I disagree and here are the
> reasons why. "Censure" means to express official disapproval of some one
or
> some thing. Since I have zero official standing on RAO, I can't possibly
> "censure" anything. Again Morein is proven wrong.
>
> > OSAF!
>
> >> BIG MISTAKE!
> >> Thus we witness the gradual metamorphosis of someone who was a
> >> fairly normal human being, Arny Krueger, into a monster.
>
> If Bruce Richman were really the "Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D. Licensed
> Psychologist" he should be all over Morein for his paranoia. But as we all
> know, Richman is all about his own hurt feelings and his personal agenda,
> and he's not about truth or fairness. He can't even bring himself to
> criticize JBorg's filthy attacks on innocent parties when reminded of it
> several times. For all we know, Richman is the author of JBorg's filth,
> since JBorg is anonymous. We do know for sure that Bruce Richman and JBorg
> have similar agendas. At best, its another case of one filthy hand washing
> another.
>
> >> BIG TRAGEDY!
>
> > I prefer his approach to audio to your nonsensical anecdotes.
>
> I suspect that many people feel the same way, which is one thing that
drives
> trolls like Richman and Morein.
>
> >> A tragedy, not only in the nuisance he has created, but because he
> actually
> >> has some technical competence.
>
> > More than you, by a long shot.
>
> In terms of what's visible on RAO that regrettably appears to be the case.
> Of course its a false deceit to treat RAO postings like they are a
reliable
> formal test of technical competence. OTOH, I've challenged Morein to show
> from the google archives that he has provided evidence on Usenet that he
> knows very simple very basic things like the difference between an ohm and
a
> volt. I'm still waiting.
>
> >> Unfortunately, he has fallen victim to the
> >> Peter Principle, which states that a person tends to rise to the
> >> level at which he can no longer perform his job competently.
>
> This would seem to be a misapplication of a questionable principle.
There's
> nothing questionable about the possibility that this can happen, but its
not
> a given that it has to happen. Therefore as given, it's misstated.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle
>
> "The Peter Principle is a theory originated by Dr. Laurence J. Peter which
> states that employees within a hierarchical organization advance to their
> highest level of competence, are then promoted to a level where they are
> incompetent, and then stay in that position."
>
> Note that the definition is not [perfectly global, it was limited by its
> author to hierarchical organizations, which RAO, Usenet and indeed much of
> the world is not.

If RAO were a hierchical organization, I'd shudder to think who might be in
charge.

Furthermore it was made a certain point in time that was
> decades ago, and even hierarchical organizations can change their ways.
The
> source goes on to say:
>
> "One way that organizations attempt to avoid this effect is to refrain
from
> promoting a person until that person already shows the skills or habits
> necessary to succeed at the next higher position. Thus, a person is not
> promoted to manage others who does not already show leadership, for
> instance."
>
> IOW, while hierarchical organizations can run afoul of the Peter
Principle,
> it's not written in stone that they will always run afoul of it. In
general,
> the organization of the world, Usenet, and even RAO is chaotic, reaching
the
> modest levels of a loosely-connected network.
>
> Therefore it is safe to say that Morein has again misinterpreted both
> reality and some of the theories that we use to try to understand it.
>
> > OSAF!
>
> > You fell victim to it before you ever showed up here.
>
> It's my impression that when Morein first showed up here about 5 years
ago,
> he was already in the midst of a number of regrettable personal
> catastrophes. I think he needs to change his world view in order to emerge
> from them.
>
>

[Michael McKelvy]

"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
...
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>
> >"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>
> >
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >
> >>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >
> >>>> I have seen Arnold's site linked in many audio sites in USA, Europe,
> >>>> Australia. Audio cards tests and Pcabx are referenced as to be
> >>>> "interesting" on many specialized sites.
> >
> >>>> He has done a job which is available *free of charge* on the
> >>>> internet and people from prestigious companies are interested in
> >>>> his job... No reasons to kill the dog. This is my point of view.
> >
> >>>> Arnold job can be compared to free software development, you like
> >>>> you use, you don't like you forget. In this job pride is the only
> >>>> salary, so if you refuse them pride...
> >
> >Who is refusing me pride? Do they matter?
> >
> >AFAIK PCABX and PCAVTech are reasonably well-respected in just about
every
> >place, but not among a select group of RAO trolls. Since RAO is not the
real
> >world, and the select group of RAO trolls are horrifically intellectually
> >marginalized, their opinions hardly matter to me unless I can somehow
sift
> >something of value from their ranting and raving.
> >
> >There's no doubt that my two web sites are successful beyond anything
that
> >any of the RAO trolls have ever implemented on their own. AFAIK there is
no
> >RAO regular who has a web site domain that they personally own, that
> >outdraws or is in any sense more influential either PCABX or PCAVTech. I
can
> >think of one occasional poster who might have a web site that is in the
same
> >league. His site might be superior to PCABX in some ways. Our sites work
> >together. We're on the same page, and the same side of all important
issues.
> >
> >Obviously there may be others who are involved with corporate web sites
that
> >outdraw or are in some sense more influential than my web sites. But
those
> >web sites aren't their personal property and they aren't their personal
> >creations like mine are. They didn't personally raise all the money and
pay
> >all the bills, and they didn't personally put online all the HTML code at
> >those domains. They didn't author it all. I did.
> >
> >I've *used* RAO as a worst case testing platform for concepts like PCABX
and
> >PCAVTech, expecting them to be totally trashed by a select group of RAO
> >trolls. It's just worst case testing. In worst case testing, it is
expected
> >that the product may be trashed. The value of worst-case testing is that
> >the trashing can then be analyzed to find weak points. Once a number of
weak
> >points were detected, I addressed them as I saw fit. This included
> >considering the weirdness and intellectual isolation of the trashers and
> >disregarding them.
> >
> >>> There is a lot of useful information on Arny's website, as well as
> >>> analysis. Unfortunately, Arny contaminates the whole pile by
> >>> claiming a domain of application that far exceeds the actual.
> >
> >> How would you know?
> >
> >Morein's problem is very obvious. He's got a mid-1950's concept of audio,
in
> >which virtually all audio gear that he listens to, even the most
technically
> >perfect of his DACs, has a characteristic sound. Reality is simply that
some
> >audio gear sounds different and some doesn't. Morein seems to have a
> >pathological hatred for this idea. He seems to fear it greatly. He has a
> >track record of misstating it, and horrifically twisting it. He avoids
> >involving himself personally in a careful investigation of my claims,
even
> >though he can do so pretty easily and anonymously.
> >
> >Note that even Bruce Richman and I on occasion agree more about audio
than
> >Morein and I:
> >
> >On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 07:17:17 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> >wrote:
> >
> >"Frankly, all this obsessing over the digital domain side is bad
priorities.
> >Attention would usually be more appropriately lavished on the analog
side.
> >Instead of blowing $400 on a Card Deluxe, a good record cleaning machine
> >could be obtained for less money or the same amount. Used intelligently
it
> >would no doubt improve the dynamic range of the finished product by more
dB,
> >and more perceptibly."
> >
> >From: (Bruce J. Richman)
> >Message-ID:
> >
> >"There is no question that using a wet-cleaning/vacuum machine such as
one
> >of
> >the Nitty Gritty or VPI models can make a substantial difference in what
you
> >hear. I've had the same VPI 16.5 RCM for 10 years, it's noisy, but is
built
> >like a tank and does the job. You are correct also that embedded dirt
that
> >often can not be seen with the naked eye gets into the grooves and cause
> >severe
> >audible noise in some cases."
> >
> >Richman went on to say:
> >
> >"In my experience, phono preamplifiers vary considerably as to S/N level
and
> >the
> >sonic signatures (to use a subjective phrase) they tend to impart. The
> >extent
> >to which these variables effect audible impressions is of course
subjective
> >and
> >individualized."
> >
> >I agree with this completely. Phono preamps and cartridges have
relatively
> >large variations in technical performance and therefore perceived sound
> >quality. Differences in both noise levels and coloration (frequency
> >response) are very common. There may also be some phono preamps with
> >overload problems, when paired with high-output magnetic cartridges.
> >
> >This may relate to Morein's conundrum as follows: Old time audiophiles
lived
> >in a world where in fact most audio components sounded different. As new
> >technology evolved they continued to perceive that components sounded
> >different, whether or not they actually did, because of the lack of
> >level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled listening tests. Nobody
should
> >presume that level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled listening tests
of
> >a range of phono preamps and cartridges or many old-time power amps will
be
> >as difficult as similar tests of good CD players.
> >
> >
> >>> If Arny had properly limited his domain of investigation, instead of
> >taking
> >>> the attitude that he has mastered the audio universe, a case could
> >>> be made that his contribution was significant.
> >
> >> Please document this allegation.
> >
> >Basically, Morein's task is to somehow twist my well-considered and
> >fully-documented claim that: "Some things sound the same and some things
> >sound different" into a claim that I have "mastered the audio universe".
He
> >seems to try, but he has to fail because it's obviously a fool's journey.
> >Morein does have a pretty good track record for playing the fool.
> >
> > >> Unfortunately, he made a major error.
> >
> >> How would you know?
> >
> >The ground rules for Morein to actually prove his claims are pretty
clear.
> >He has to take something I said (as opposed to his hysterical paraphrases
> >and made-up anecdotes about what I said) and falsify it.
> >
> >> snip of stupid stuff
> >
> >>> Analogously, Arny did a careful study of sound cards, and
> >>> reproduction of sound through sound cards, and concluded, without
> >>> actual verification,
> >
> >> Please document this allegation.
> >
> >He can't because I did the careful studies via both measurements and
> >carefully-controlled listening tests. Furthermore, anybody who wants to
can
> >repeat my listening tests for themselves because all the specialized
tools
> >for performing them are freely available.
> >
> >>> that this was a methodology he could use to make comparisons of
certain
> >kinds of
> >>> equipment remotely available.
> >
> >>> BIG, TRAGIC MISTAKE!
> >
> >> How would you know?
> >
> >Other than making unsupported claims in capital letters, Morein presents
> >zero evidence, and zero detailed arguments to support his claim.
Therefore,
> >the only logical thing to do is dismiss Morein's claims until he can
provide
> >reliable evidence AND logical arguments to support them.
> >
> >Since PCABX has now been in operation for more than 4 years the outcome
of
>any scientific attempt to deconstruct PCABX is predictable. The
scientific
> >evidence will verify the procedures, tools and evidence presented by the
> >site and Morein will either have to change how he thinks or shut up.
> >
> >>> Along the way, Arny remarked to himself that he had heard five or so
> >>> amplifiers that sounded the same. Hence, he concluded, it was
unlikely
> >that
> >>> the universe of fine amplifiers would contain examples of
> >>> distinctive sound. BIG MISTAKE!
> >
> >> Now you're just plain lying. He has made no such claim.
> >
> >Exactly. This is just another example of Morein's hysterical paraphrases
and
> >made-up anecdotes. With the entire Google archive of 10,000's of my posts
at
> >his disposal, Morein cannot document me saying what he claims. If he were
a
> >logical person, a big light would go on in his head. He's wrong! There's
no
> >evidence to support his attacks on me. He makes up his supporting
evidence
> >as he goes along.
> >
> >> Other research has been done and concludes that properly functioning
> >> amps not driven to clipping and without audible distortion and with
> >> FR that falls within certain criteria, are indistinguishable from
> >> each other.
> >
> >Right. This is hardly new news. It's old news. PCABX is just one of many
> >methodologies that produce this result.
> >
> >> Please don't bother with the tired crap of yours about how your own
> >> NON level matched, sighted comparisons show something different.
> >
> >Exactly. Morein claims to be a superior electronics expert to me, but yet
> >somehow he can't figure out how to do a level-matched, time-synched,
> >bias-controlled listening test, something that thousands of people who
make
> >no such claims of electronics expertise have already managed.
> >
> >>> Having created a marvelous tool, Arny decided that those who chose
> >>> not to use it should not be allowed to post without harassment about
> >>> their own listening experiences.
> >
> >> Bull****.
> >
> >Morein seems to be very weak about the concept of a forum in which
various
> >opinions are presented. He gets to say what he wants to say here and so
does
> >everybody else, including me. I think his problem is that when I
deconstruct
> >his opinions I often have a ton of documentation and evidence that backs
me
> >up. He doesn't.
> >
> >>> Arny decided that he had been given a job, a MISSION,
> >>> to change the rule of human discourse in the late 20th century.
> >
> >Bullcrap. This is all about audio and little more. Certainly, this is not
> >about the rule of human discourse in the late 20th century if for no
other
> >reason than it's no longer the 20th century. I guess we could interpret
this
> >statement from Morein as meaning that he is so out of it, that he doesn't
> >even know what century he is living in! This slip-up is ironic because in
> >terms of his audio beliefs, Morein seems to be still living in the
> >middle-late 20th century.
> >
> >>> Suddenly, anybody who wanted to share an experience, without using
> >>> his flawed methodology -- or a more valid, and even more
> >>> unobtainable ABX methodology -- was subject to Arny's censure.
> >
> >can I really ever *censure* someone on RAO? In fact what happens is that
> >they say something and sometimes I say that I disagree and here are the
> >reasons why. "Censure" means to express official disapproval of some one
or
> >some thing. Since I have zero official standing on RAO, I can't possibly
> >"censure" anything. Again Morein is proven wrong.
> >
> >> OSAF!
> >
> >>> BIG MISTAKE!
> >>> Thus we witness the gradual metamorphosis of someone who was a
> >>> fairly normal human being, Arny Krueger, into a monster.
> >
> >If Bruce Richman were really the "Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D. Licensed
> >Psychologist" he should be all over Morein for his paranoia. But as we
all
> >know, Richman is all about his own hurt feelings and his personal agenda,
> >and he's not about truth or fairness. He can't even bring himself to
> >criticize JBorg's filthy attacks on innocent parties when reminded of it
> >several times. For all we know, Richman is the author of JBorg's filth,
> >since JBorg is anonymous. We do know for sure that Bruce Richman and
JBorg
> >have similar agendas. At best, its another case of one filthy hand
washing
> >another.
> >
> >>> BIG TRAGEDY!
> >
> >> I prefer his approach to audio to your nonsensical anecdotes.
> >
> >I suspect that many people feel the same way, which is one thing that
drives
> >trolls like Richman and Morein.
> >
> >>> A tragedy, not only in the nuisance he has created, but because he
> >actually
> >>> has some technical competence.
> >
> >> More than you, by a long shot.
> >
> >In terms of what's visible on RAO that regrettably appears to be the
case.
> >Of course its a false deceit to treat RAO postings like they are a
reliable
> >formal test of technical competence. OTOH, I've challenged Morein to show
> >from the google archives that he has provided evidence on Usenet that he
> >knows very simple very basic things like the difference between an ohm
and a
> >volt. I'm still waiting.
> >
> >>> Unfortunately, he has fallen victim to the
> >>> Peter Principle, which states that a person tends to rise to the
> >>> level at which he can no longer perform his job competently.
> >
> >This would seem to be a misapplication of a questionable principle.
There's
> >nothing questionable about the possibility that this can happen, but its
not
> >a given that it has to happen. Therefore as given, it's misstated.
> >
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle
> >
> >"The Peter Principle is a theory originated by Dr. Laurence J. Peter
which
> >states that employees within a hierarchical organization advance to their
> >highest level of competence, are then promoted to a level where they are
> >incompetent, and then stay in that position."
> >
> >Note that the definition is not [perfectly global, it was limited by its
> >author to hierarchical organizations, which RAO, Usenet and indeed much
of
> >the world is not. Furthermore it was made a certain point in time that
was
> >decades ago, and even hierarchical organizations can change their ways.
The
> >source goes on to say:
> >
> >"One way that organizations attempt to avoid this effect is to refrain
from
> >promoting a person until that person already shows the skills or habits
> >necessary to succeed at the next higher position. Thus, a person is not
> >promoted to manage others who does not already show leadership, for
> >instance."
> >
> >IOW, while hierarchical organizations can run afoul of the Peter
Principle,
> >it's not written in stone that they will always run afoul of it. In
general,
> >the organization of the world, Usenet, and even RAO is chaotic, reaching
the
> >modest levels of a loosely-connected network.
> >
> >Therefore it is safe to say that Morein has again misinterpreted both
> >reality and some of the theories that we use to try to understand it.
> >
> >> OSAF!
> >
> >> You fell victim to it before you ever showed up here.
> >
> >It's my impression that when Morein first showed up here about 5 years
ago,
> >he was already in the midst of a number of regrettable personal
> >catastrophes. I think he needs to change his world view in order to
emerge
> >from them.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Arny Krueger has an extremely lengthy Google history of unproovoked
personal
> attacks against me. His attempt above to continjue with yet another
> unsuppolrted conspiracy theory is just the latest example of his
neverending
> agenda - to libel, distort and misrepresent information about me. In
point of
> fact, he has continually failed to produce any evidence to support his
false
> claims about my identity, my credentials, or about his paranoid
allegations of
> my involvement in sockpuppetry - the latter being one of his more bizarre
and
> extreme fabrications.
>
> Also, quite predictably, he hypocritically asks for condemnation of a post
from
> JBorg while simultaneously continuing to endorse and support the
psychotic,
> libelous rantings of McKelvy. Indeed in thte case of these 2 compulsive
and
> pathological liars, the term "folie a deux" seems to fit quite well.
>
>
> Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
> Licensed Psychologist
> >
>
What professional organizations do you belong to?
Where and by whom are you licensed?

[Michael McKelvy]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 08:44:14 -0500, The Big Cheese
> > wrote:
>
> >You're the one that's going to get "dusted" here froggie boy, unless you
> >start writing in English when you pick on one of the resident idiots in
> >the group.
> >
> >Poor Sandman has no idea what you said to him - He'll have to find
> >another frog to translate your insult.
> >
> >Most of the morons that hang here are not bi-lingual, but then I guess
> >you know that.
> >
> >The Big Cheese
>
> How's yer Vietnamese, Bert? Kept up on all these years?

You numbah ****in 10,000. Choi duc oi. Dede mau.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Scott Gardner" > wrote in message
>
> > On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:40:56 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> > <trim>
> >>
> >> Ohh, I'm talking to Weil. <engage speaking to a dumbass mode> What I
> >> mean is describe the means by which one of my web sites obtains
> >> personal information about people who browse it or download files
> >> from it.
>
> > Evidently, they're claiming that you disclosed the identity of one or
> > more visitors to your site as being from the Sony Corporation.
>
> But thats not personal information about people.
>
> > I couldn't find your claim in a Google search, but I did find where you
> > claimed to have traced some downloads from your site to Dolby
> > Laboratories, Inc.
>
> > Here's the quote:
>
> > "OTOH, I've been told that Dolby Labs has 100 PCs that are running
> > CardD Deluxe's. Given that some downloads from www.pcabx.com are
> > traceable to Dolby..."
>
> Not personal information, which is what Weil claimed. All I know is that
> *some one* or *some thing* at Dolby downloaded some files from
www.pcabx.com
> .
>
> BTW, thanks for taking Weil's side against me. I need all the enemies I
can
> get!
>
>
Didn't strike me that way, he just seemed to trying to refresh some
memories. YMMV.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
...
> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>
>
> >Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> Agreed. Arguing with Krueger about semantics changes nothing. The
> >> >> statement he made was clearly defamatory and false. And the Google
> >> >> record of his posts concerning you would also indicate that it was
> >> >> made with malice.
> >> >
> >> >Richman, why do you repeatedly ignore the numerous times that your
> >friends
> >> >like Middius call me a "proven pedophile"?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Krueger, I'm not ignoring anything. The post I made was in response to
> >Mr.
> >> Wheeler's comment, nothing else. By the same token, I could ask you
why
> >you
> >> have ignored numerous libelous comments made about me by your friend
> >McKelvy?
> >>
> >> The fact remains that you are currently being sued by Mr. Wheeler for
> >libel.
> >> It appears the courts will decide whether or not his suit has merit.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Bruce J. Richman
> >
> >I've already decided, you have no merit.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Who cares? I'm an idiot.

More of Bruce being truthful.











Don'tcha love satire.
>
>
>
> Bruce J. Richman
>
>
>

[Bruce J. Richman]

>From: "Michael McKelvy"
>Date: 12/13/2003 9:54 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
...
>> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >> Agreed. Arguing with Krueger about semantics changes nothing. The
>> >> >> statement he made was clearly defamatory and false. And the Google
>> >> >> record of his posts concerning you would also indicate that it was
>> >> >> made with malice.
>> >> >
>> >> >Richman, why do you repeatedly ignore the numerous times that your
>> >friends
>> >> >like Middius call me a "proven pedophile"?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Krueger, I'm not ignoring anything. The post I made was in response to
>> >Mr.
>> >> Wheeler's comment, nothing else. By the same token, I could ask you
>why
>> >you
>> >> have ignored numerous libelous comments made about me by your friend
>> >McKelvy?
>> >>
>> >> The fact remains that you are currently being sued by Mr. Wheeler for
>> >libel.
>> >> It appears the courts will decide whether or not his suit has merit.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Bruce J. Richman
>> >
>> >I've already decided, you have no merit.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Who cares? I'm an idiot.
>
>More of Bruce being truthful.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Don'tcha love satire.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bruce J. Richman
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I have not read what the compulsive liar, McKelvy has written above. There is
no need to in order to respond. As pointed out previously, with each daily
addition of more idiotic and psychotic rantings and ravings - essentially as
meaningless as the ones he's posted on the previous day - he simply continues
to provide additional evidence of his desperation, his psychotic thought
processes, and of course, his hatred.

No doubt, he will keep responding with further psychotic blather to this post
as well. This assinine, seriously disturbed cretin corresponds quite closely
to a rat in a Skinner box, who robotically presses a bar to get some food. In
this case, the "bar" (metaphorically speaking) would be the voices in his head
telling him to invent more absurdities whenever he sees my name. The "food"
metaphorically speaking would, of course, be the delusional beliefs that others
are getting his "message".


Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist
Bruce J. Richman