Question for duh-Mikey

[George M. Middius]

Hello Mickey! Watch out for the anthill -- oops, too late. Well, you can
always lick yourself clean.

Anyway..... Lately there's a been a spate of people realizing how
goddamned stupid you are. I think I've seen 7 or 8 different people make
a comment to the effect of "That Mickey is a real dumbass." So my
question is: Why don't you shut yourself off and sign up for cryonic
suspension? Maybe in a hundred years, they'll be able to fix your
genetic code so you're not such a moron. What say, Mickey?

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
>
> Hello Mickey! Watch out for the anthill -- oops, too late. Well, you can
> always lick yourself clean.
>
> Anyway..... Lately there's a been a spate of people realizing how
> goddamned stupid you are. I think I've seen 7 or 8 different people make
> a comment to the effect of "That Mickey is a real dumbass." So my
> question is: Why don't you shut yourself off and sign up for cryonic
> suspension? Maybe in a hundred years, they'll be able to fix your
> genetic code so you're not such a moron. What say, Mickey?
>
>
>
>
I have several questions in response.

1. Why do you care?
2 Are you sure they are all different people?
3. When did you become such an altruist?
4. Why are you such a disgusting pig?

If it bothers you so much just don't read what I post.
It works for me on most of what you write.
Disagreeing with me doesn't make you right.

[Arny Krueger]

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


> Anyway..... Lately there's a been a spate of people
> realizing how goddamned stupid you are. I think I've seen
> 7 or 8 different people make a comment to the effect of
> "That Mickey is a real dumbass."

People are also posting about what an idiot you are, Middius. Are you going
to take it to heart adn wise up?

[124]

[George M. Middius's abusive post deleted.]
George should have left this forum years
ago. Almost all of his posts here are abusive.

--124

[Arny Krueger]

"124" > wrote in
message
oups.com
> [George M. Middius's abusive post deleted.]
> George should have left this forum years
> ago. Almost all of his posts here are abusive.

Dealing out abuse seems to be George's whole reason for existing. He almost
never posts on-topic. He might have made 5 on-topic posts in the past 5
years.

First and foremost George wants to have people agree with him. Had RAO been
overwhelmingly objectivist when he first started posting here, he'd probably
be vigorously attacking subjectivists to this day.

[124]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "124" > wrote in
> message
> oups.com
> > [George M. Middius's abusive post deleted.]
> > George should have left this forum years
> > ago. Almost all of his posts here are abusive.
>
> Dealing out abuse seems to be George's whole reason for existing. He almost
> never posts on-topic. He might have made 5 on-topic posts in the past 5
> years.
>
> First and foremost George wants to have people agree with him. Had RAO been
> overwhelmingly objectivist when he first started posting here, he'd probably
> be vigorously attacking subjectivists to this day.

If I was a subjectivist, I would be deeply ashamed to have someone like
George on my side. George, perhaps more than any other person on
this forum, discredits the subjectivists. If one cannot supply any
evidence to support one's position, one must resort to insults or
abusive posts. Of course, not all subjectivists resort to insults or
abusive posts--e.g., Jenn. If only all subjectivists were like Jenn,
then this forum could be a place for civilized debate.

--124

[Arny Krueger]

"124" > wrote in
message
ups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "124" > wrote in
>> message
>> oups.com
>>> [George M. Middius's abusive post deleted.]
>>> George should have left this forum years
>>> ago. Almost all of his posts here are abusive.
>>
>> Dealing out abuse seems to be George's whole reason for
>> existing. He almost never posts on-topic. He might have
>> made 5 on-topic posts in the past 5 years.
>>
>> First and foremost George wants to have people agree
>> with him. Had RAO been overwhelmingly objectivist when
>> he first started posting here, he'd probably be
>> vigorously attacking subjectivists to this day.

> If I was a subjectivist, I would be deeply ashamed to
> have someone like George on my side.

Some people seem to be "getting" that.

> George, perhaps
> more than any other person on
> this forum, discredits the subjectivists.

I think that Art Sackman ("Clyde Slick" this week) comes close.

> If one cannot
> supply any evidence to support one's position, one must
> resort to insults or abusive posts.

If you read carefully, George is against stuff like hard evidence.

> Of course, not all
> subjectivists resort to insults or abusive posts--e.g.,
> Jenn. If only all subjectivists were like Jenn, then
> this forum could be a place for civilized debate.

Jeen plays here own sick little game of pretentious superiority based on a
deep dark secret that she can talk about but can't reveal. She's obviously a
sockpuppet, but whose?

[Forwarder]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "124" > wrote in

>
>> Of course, not all
>>subjectivists resort to insults or abusive posts--e.g.,
>>Jenn. If only all subjectivists were like Jenn, then
>>this forum could be a place for civilized debate.
>
>
> Jeen plays here own sick little game of pretentious superiority based on a
> deep dark secret that she can talk about but can't reveal. She's obviously a
> sockpuppet, but whose?
>
>

So much for "civilized debate, eh 124? It's enough to be a
"subjectivist" to insult and offend the turdborg, obviously.. The same
goes for mickeymickmickey, btw..

And what's wrong with George's posts anyway? He *does* try to warn
mickmickey that watch out, you'll hit that desk, or anthill, etc, what
in the world do you think is wrong with that? I ask you, I beseech you.
He is actually trying to help out, says I.

[Pooh Bear]

Forwarder wrote:

> And what's wrong with George's posts anyway?

Most of them are simply personal insults !

It's rare for 'George' to post anything about audio at all.

Graham

[George M. Middius]

4 of 12 said:

> If I was a subjectivist, I would be deeply ashamed to have someone like
> George on my side. George, perhaps more than any other person on
> this forum, discredits the subjectivists. If one cannot supply any
> evidence to support one's position, one must resort to insults or
> abusive posts.

<sneer>
<guffaw>
<other assorted sounds of derision>

Did you ever consider that it's just plain fun making fun of the
feeble-minded?

BTW, the "subjectivists" don't give a crap about your pathetic quest for
"debating trade" points. No Normal cares about having credibility in
your eyes. We know how ****ed-up your fear and hatred of consumer audio
are, so why would we seek to obtain your approval?

Oh, one other thing: You obviously have no ****ing clue about my own
personal approach to audio for my own personal use. But that's par for
the 'borg course, isn't it.


What did you say your name is, little coward? ;-)

[Forwarder]

Pooh Bear wrote:

>
> Forwarder wrote:
>
>
>>And what's wrong with George's posts anyway?
>
>
> Most of them are simply personal insults !

But they *are* funny. And good command of the english language as well!
And they are witty too. There was this insult dog, or somesuch in Conan
O'brien show, somewhat similar stuff, almost art...


>
> It's rare for 'George' to post anything about audio at all.

Look at how krueger approaches "Jenn" though, right here in this thread,
and you might get a hint as to why George's abuses are somewhat related
to audio in the final analysis, as it were.

I've read most of Jenn' posts, not all, but most, and not in one single
of the said posts did I encounter "sick little game"s or "deep dark
secrets" .. And anyone that does not conform to the borg doctrine is
almost automatically a sockpuppet. If someone is insulted by just the
mere fact that the other thinks different then that someone deserves the
consequential direct insults, IMHO.

>
> Graham
>

[Arny Krueger]

"Forwarder" > wrote in message

> Pooh Bear wrote:
>
>>
>> Forwarder wrote:
>>
>>
>>> And what's wrong with George's posts anyway?
>>
>>
>> Most of them are simply personal insults !
>
> But they *are* funny. And good command of the english
> language as well! And they are witty too.

Everybody who is surprised or confused by the following should raise their
hand...

Post headers:

Path:
border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!ne wsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.hanau.net!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!newsfeed.cw.net!cw.n et!news-FFM2.ecrc.de!uio.no!newsfeed.kolumbus.fi!feeder2.n ews.jippii.net!reader1.news.jippii.net!53ab2750!no t-for-mail
From: Forwarder >
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.8)
Gecko/20050511
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
Subject: Re: [Meta] George's Abusive Posts
References: >
. com>
>
om>
>
>
>
In-Reply-To: >
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 33
Message-ID: >
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 18:20:17 +0200
NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.110.108.33
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace: reader1.news.jippii.net 1138119781 193.110.108.33 (Tue, 24 Jan 2006
18:23:01 EET)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 18:23:01 EET
Organization: Saunalahti Customer

The posting IP address traces back to:

netname: F-SECURE-NET
descr: F-Secure OYj
descr: PL 24
descr: 00180 HELSINKI
country: FI
admin-c: ML17360-RIPE
tech-c: FSH11-RIPE
status: ASSIGNED PI
mnt-by: KQFI-NOC-MNT
mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-PI-MNT
mnt-lower: RIPE-NCC-HM-PI-MNT
mnt-routes: F-SECURE-MNT
source: RIPE # Filtered

role: F-Secure Hostmaster
address: F-Secure Corporation
address: PL 24
address: 00181 Helsinki
phone: +358 9 2520 0700
fax-no: +358 9 2520 5001
e-mail:
remarks: trouble:
admin-c: ML17360-RIPE
tech-c: JN1652-RIPE
nic-hdl: FSH11-RIPE
mnt-by: DATANET-NOC
source: RIPE # Filtered

person: Miika Lehikoinen
address: PL 24
address: 00181 Helsinki
phone: +358 9 2520 5531
fax-no: +358 9 2520 5015
nic-hdl: ML17360-RIPE
mnt-by: DATANET-NOC
source: RIPE # Filtered

Finland, right? ;-)

[Forwarder]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Forwarder" > wrote in message
>
>
>>Pooh Bear wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Forwarder wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>And what's wrong with George's posts anyway?
>>>
>>>
>>>Most of them are simply personal insults !
>>
>>But they *are* funny. And good command of the english
>>language as well! And they are witty too.
>
>
> Everybody who is surprised or confused by the following should raise their
> hand...
>
> Post headers:
>
>
> Finland, right? ;-)
>
>

Hmmm, I fail to see the relevance here.

[George M. Middius]

Poopie said:

> It's rare for 'George' to post anything about audio at all.

You sound much different from the Krooglebeast. I hope you take that as
a compliment.

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "124" > wrote in
> message
> oups.com
>> [George M. Middius's abusive post deleted.]
>> George should have left this forum years
>> ago. Almost all of his posts here are abusive.
>
> Dealing out abuse seems to be George's whole reason for existing. He
> almost never posts on-topic. He might have made 5 on-topic posts in the
> past 5 years.
>
> First and foremost George wants to have people agree with him. Had RAO
> been overwhelmingly objectivist when he first started posting here, he'd
> probably be vigorously attacking subjectivists to this day.
>
Personally, I think he lives for the people who disagree with him, those are
the ones he talks to most. The others he speaks to only by way of agreeing
with him about the people he disagrees with.

Without the people he disagees with, he'd have nothing to say.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "124" > wrote in
> message
> ups.com
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >
> >> "124" > wrote in
> >> message
> >> oups.com
> >>> [George M. Middius's abusive post deleted.]
> >>> George should have left this forum years
> >>> ago. Almost all of his posts here are abusive.
> >>
> >> Dealing out abuse seems to be George's whole reason for
> >> existing. He almost never posts on-topic. He might have
> >> made 5 on-topic posts in the past 5 years.
> >>
> >> First and foremost George wants to have people agree
> >> with him. Had RAO been overwhelmingly objectivist when
> >> he first started posting here, he'd probably be
> >> vigorously attacking subjectivists to this day.
>
> > If I was a subjectivist, I would be deeply ashamed to
> > have someone like George on my side.
>
> Some people seem to be "getting" that.
>
> > George, perhaps
> > more than any other person on
> > this forum, discredits the subjectivists.
>
> I think that Art Sackman ("Clyde Slick" this week) comes close.
>
> > If one cannot
> > supply any evidence to support one's position, one must
> > resort to insults or abusive posts.
>
> If you read carefully, George is against stuff like hard evidence.
>
> > Of course, not all
> > subjectivists resort to insults or abusive posts--e.g.,
> > Jenn. If only all subjectivists were like Jenn, then
> > this forum could be a place for civilized debate.
>
> Jeen plays here own sick little game of pretentious superiority

LOL Pot, meet kettle. I don't claim to be superior to anyone. What
gives you that idea?

> based on a
> deep dark secret that she can talk about but can't reveal.

What secret is that, Arny?

> She's obviously a
> sockpuppet, but whose?

I'm no one's "sock", Arny. Why do you think that?

[Forwarder]

Jenn wrote:

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>
>>"124" > wrote in
>>message
ups.com
>>
>>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"124" > wrote in
>>>>message
oups.com
>>>>
>>>>>[George M. Middius's abusive post deleted.]
>>>>>George should have left this forum years
>>>>>ago. Almost all of his posts here are abusive.
>>>>
>>>>Dealing out abuse seems to be George's whole reason for
>>>>existing. He almost never posts on-topic. He might have
>>>>made 5 on-topic posts in the past 5 years.
>>>>
>>>>First and foremost George wants to have people agree
>>>>with him. Had RAO been overwhelmingly objectivist when
>>>>he first started posting here, he'd probably be
>>>>vigorously attacking subjectivists to this day.
>>
>>>If I was a subjectivist, I would be deeply ashamed to
>>>have someone like George on my side.
>>
>>Some people seem to be "getting" that.
>>
>>
>>>George, perhaps
>>>more than any other person on
>>>this forum, discredits the subjectivists.
>>
>>I think that Art Sackman ("Clyde Slick" this week) comes close.
>>
>>
>>> If one cannot
>>>supply any evidence to support one's position, one must
>>>resort to insults or abusive posts.
>>
>>If you read carefully, George is against stuff like hard evidence.
>>
>>
>>> Of course, not all
>>>subjectivists resort to insults or abusive posts--e.g.,
>>>Jenn. If only all subjectivists were like Jenn, then
>>>this forum could be a place for civilized debate.
>>
>>Jeen plays here own sick little game of pretentious superiority
>
>
> LOL Pot, meet kettle. I don't claim to be superior to anyone. What
> gives you that idea?
>
>
>>based on a
>>deep dark secret that she can talk about but can't reveal.
>
>
> What secret is that, Arny?
>
>
>>She's obviously a
>>sockpuppet, but whose?
>
>
> I'm no one's "sock", Arny. Why do you think that?

Jenn, be carefull, Arny might look at the headers of your post and find
out which country you are posting from, which ISP/security gateway you
are using, etc.

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> 4 of 12 said:
>
>> If I was a subjectivist, I would be deeply ashamed to have someone like
>> George on my side. George, perhaps more than any other person on
>> this forum, discredits the subjectivists. If one cannot supply any
>> evidence to support one's position, one must resort to insults or
>> abusive posts.
>
> <sneer>
> <guffaw>
> <other assorted sounds of derision>
>
> Did you ever consider that it's just plain fun making fun of the
> feeble-minded?
>
> BTW, the "subjectivists" don't give a crap about your pathetic quest for
> "debating trade" points.

Nor do they gie a crap about reality and the facts about audio either.

No Normal cares about having credibility in
> your eyes. We know how ****ed-up your fear and hatred of consumer audio
> are, so why would we seek to obtain your approval?

It's not hatred of consumer audio, it's disdain for those who are involved
in consumer audio for the sole reason of getting consumers to pay outrageous
sums of money for things that do nothing.
When they stop selling $400.00 wooden volume knobs and speaker wire that
sells for $100.00 plus per foot which is no better than the stuff that costs
..23 cents per foot, then maybe nobody would express their disdain. In any
other field, these kind of products would most likely be taken off the
market, but because the typical high end audiophile, doesn't beilieve that
these products are shams, the con artists keep on with the deceptions.


>
> Oh, one other thing: You obviously have no ****ing clue about my own
> personal approach to audio for my own personal use. But that's par for
> the 'borg course, isn't it.
>
It's hard to have a clue about something you never speak of.
>
> What did you say your name is, little coward? ;-)
>
>
The coward is the guy posting through Finland.
SO aside from EddieM, and "Fella" who else are you pretending to be?

[Jenn]

In article >,
Forwarder > wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"124" > wrote in
> >>message
> ups.com
> >>
> >>>Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"124" > wrote in
> >>>>message
> oups.com
> >>>>
> >>>>>[George M. Middius's abusive post deleted.]
> >>>>>George should have left this forum years
> >>>>>ago. Almost all of his posts here are abusive.
> >>>>
> >>>>Dealing out abuse seems to be George's whole reason for
> >>>>existing. He almost never posts on-topic. He might have
> >>>>made 5 on-topic posts in the past 5 years.
> >>>>
> >>>>First and foremost George wants to have people agree
> >>>>with him. Had RAO been overwhelmingly objectivist when
> >>>>he first started posting here, he'd probably be
> >>>>vigorously attacking subjectivists to this day.
> >>
> >>>If I was a subjectivist, I would be deeply ashamed to
> >>>have someone like George on my side.
> >>
> >>Some people seem to be "getting" that.
> >>
> >>
> >>>George, perhaps
> >>>more than any other person on
> >>>this forum, discredits the subjectivists.
> >>
> >>I think that Art Sackman ("Clyde Slick" this week) comes close.
> >>
> >>
> >>> If one cannot
> >>>supply any evidence to support one's position, one must
> >>>resort to insults or abusive posts.
> >>
> >>If you read carefully, George is against stuff like hard evidence.
> >>
> >>
> >>> Of course, not all
> >>>subjectivists resort to insults or abusive posts--e.g.,
> >>>Jenn. If only all subjectivists were like Jenn, then
> >>>this forum could be a place for civilized debate.
> >>
> >>Jeen plays here own sick little game of pretentious superiority
> >
> >
> > LOL Pot, meet kettle. I don't claim to be superior to anyone. What
> > gives you that idea?
> >
> >
> >>based on a
> >>deep dark secret that she can talk about but can't reveal.
> >
> >
> > What secret is that, Arny?
> >
> >
> >>She's obviously a
> >>sockpuppet, but whose?
> >
> >
> > I'm no one's "sock", Arny. Why do you think that?
>
> Jenn, be carefull, Arny might look at the headers of your post and find
> out which country you are posting from, which ISP/security gateway you
> are using, etc.

Oh dread!

[Powell]

"Pooh Bear" wrote

> Forwarder wrote:
>
> > And what's wrong with George's posts anyway?
>
> Most of them are simply personal insults !
>
> It's rare for 'George' to post anything about audio at all.
>
It's "rare" to read anything about new empirical
experiences or new technology by anyone on this
board. Trade debating opponents fear exposing
themselves. They have anger, frustration and
feelings of inadequacy baggage issues.

[Powell]

"Arny Krueger" wrote

> Had RAO been overwhelmingly objectivist when he
> first started posting here, he'd probably be vigorously
> attacking subjectivists to this day.
>
And yet you keep fighting *what is.* Why is that?

[Powell]

"124" wrote

> If one cannot supply any evidence to support one's
> position, one must resort to insults or abusive posts.
>
True enough. And others like you withdraw when
your belief system is challenged. What's worse?
Both are failures to communicate.

[Arny Krueger]

"Forwarder" > wrote in message


> Jenn, be carefull, Arny might look at the headers of your
> post and find out which country you are posting from,
> which ISP/security gateway you are using, etc.

Lat time I looked, she uses the SBC anonymizer, which is almost as good as
AOL's.

[Arny Krueger]

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



> Oh, one other thing: You obviously have no ****ing clue
> about my own personal approach to audio for my own
> personal use. But that's par for the 'borg course, isn't
> it.

You hide it well, but with a little educated guessing about who pulls your
strings Mr. Sockpuppet...

[Arny Krueger]

"Powell" > wrote in message

> "124" wrote
>
>> If one cannot supply any evidence to support one's
>> position, one must resort to insults or abusive posts.
>>
> True enough. And others like you withdraw when
> your belief system is challenged. What's worse?
> Both are failures to communicate.

Reminds me of a guy around here who interpreted just about every question
about his peculiar brand of radical subjectivism in terms of class warfare.
Relevant phrase was, as I recall: "Broke-ass". ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Powell" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" wrote
>
>> Had RAO been overwhelmingly objectivist when he
>> first started posting here, he'd probably be vigorously
>> attacking subjectivists to this day.
>>
> And yet you keep fighting *what is.* Why is that?

Which *what is* might that be? ;-)

[dave weil]

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:39:56 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>> Of course, not all
>> subjectivists resort to insults or abusive posts--e.g.,
>> Jenn. If only all subjectivists were like Jenn, then
>> this forum could be a place for civilized debate.
>
>Jeen plays here own sick little game of pretentious superiority based on a
>deep dark secret that she can talk about but can't reveal. She's obviously a
>sockpuppet, but whose?

See, THIS is exactly why you're ignoring the REAL problem around here,
Mr. 7.

If you could get past your enabling of the above poster, you'd come a
little closer to understand why some feel compelled to be as
outrageous as possible.

You can ask people like the mild-mannered Paul Packer what happens if
you disagree with Mr. Krueger. Even James Johnston, whom you might or
might not remember (former member of Bell Labs and a leading
"objectivist" most of the time and one of the leading researchers in
perceptual coding), was eventually sickened by Mr. Krueger's behavior
by the end of his tenure here on RAO.

[George M. Middius]

dave weil said to 4 of 12:

> >Jeen[sic] plays here own sick little game of pretentious superiority based on a
> >deep dark secret that she can talk about but can't reveal. She's obviously a
> >sockpuppet, but whose?
>
> See, THIS is exactly why you're ignoring the REAL problem around here,
> Mr. 7.
>
> If you could get past your enabling of the above poster, you'd come a
> little closer to understand why some feel compelled to be as
> outrageous as possible.

We've seen 4's behavior pattern before by other 'borgs. Arnii didn't
actually call Jenn any nasty names, so Mr. **** gets a pass. Not being real
people, the 'borgs have a peculiar approach to social intercourse. ;-)

I defy any rational creature, either cybernetic or Organic, to call out the
Krooborg on why it's "obvious" Jenn is a "sockpuppet".

BTW, dave, why did you call 4 "Mr. 7"? Do you know something the rest of us
don't know? <G>

[ScottW]

dave weil wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:39:56 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
> >> Of course, not all
> >> subjectivists resort to insults or abusive posts--e.g.,
> >> Jenn. If only all subjectivists were like Jenn, then
> >> this forum could be a place for civilized debate.
> >
> >Jeen plays here own sick little game of pretentious superiority based on a
> >deep dark secret that she can talk about but can't reveal. She's obviously a
> >sockpuppet, but whose?
>
> See, THIS is exactly why you're ignoring the REAL problem around here,
> Mr. 7.
>
> If you could get past your enabling of the above poster, you'd come a
> little closer to understand why some feel compelled to be as
> outrageous as possible.

You mean people who can only endure their own pathetic insecure lives
by fixating on and magnifying someone else's own disturbing issues?

>
> You can ask people like the mild-mannered Paul Packer what happens if
> you disagree with Mr. Krueger. Even James Johnston, whom you might or
> might not remember (former member of Bell Labs and a leading
> "objectivist" most of the time and one of the leading researchers in
> perceptual coding), was eventually sickened by Mr. Krueger's behavior
> by the end of his tenure here on RAO.

Don't BS Dave. JJ had plenty of exchanges with Arny and despised
Arny's constant diminishment of others in a futile attempt to prop up
his own ego... but in the long run... the constant harrassment of
George was just as tiresome for him to deal with and as much or more of
a reason for his departure.

For those who weren't around at the time... just do a google search
of this group and Phoebe. You'll find George vendetta along with
posts like this
where JJ expresses his opinion of Georges civility.

ScottW

[George M. Middius]

Scottie gives credit where, sadly, it isn't due.

> the constant harrassment of
> George was just as tiresome for him to deal with and as much or more of
> a reason for his departure.

<blush>

That's way too kind of you, Terrierborg. I wish I could lay claim to the
departure of that emotionally stunted, socially inept, booger-eating,
'borg-loving nerd from RAO. But I can't take the credit, in all honesty.

Perhaps you've conveniently forgotten Phoebe's screeching about the
"anti-science" contingent. Not to mention the Witch's gentle caressing of
the Krooborg's tormented soul (such as it is). Or -- and let me know if I'm
going out on a limb here -- perhaps you are all too willing to forgive
Phoebe's snottiness and bitchiness because she, like you, hates the
gentrification of the high end.

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
ups.com

> Don't BS Dave. JJ had plenty of exchanges with Arny
> and despised Arny's constant diminishment of others in a
> futile attempt to prop up his own ego...

Ah, a futile attempt by ScottW to do a little ego propping of his own.

Actually, JJ was suffering from cognitive dissonance at the time because he
was being agressively romanced by Atkinson (promotion JJ's spatial
microphone) and Shain (various perks and gifts). . Unfortunately they are
just posers, so in the end JJ lost a bit of face. On top of that, AT&T labs
sort of collapsed under him.

Well it was all a good breaking point, and JJ now seems to be doing well at
MS. I guess we can call that a happy ending.

[ScottW]

George M. Middius wrote:
> Scottie gives credit where, sadly, it isn't due.
>
> > the constant harrassment of
> > George was just as tiresome for him to deal with and as much or more of
> > a reason for his departure.
>
> <blush>
>
> That's way too kind of you, Terrierborg. I wish I could lay claim to the
> departure of that emotionally stunted, socially inept, booger-eating,
> 'borg-loving nerd from RAO. But I can't take the credit, in all honesty.

George mounts a defense based on his own impotence.

>
> Perhaps you've conveniently forgotten Phoebe's screeching about the
> "anti-science" contingent. Not to mention the Witch's gentle caressing of
> the Krooborg's tormented soul (such as it is). Or -- and let me know if I'm
> going out on a limb here -- perhaps you are all too willing to forgive
> Phoebe's snottiness and bitchiness because she, like you, hates the
> gentrification of the high end.

Funny George... I never thought that the state of being gentrified
made it high end to you.

JJ appreciated pure performance. If something outperformed for a
price... there was value... if it didn't.... there wasn't. Amazing
that such a simple concept can be so lost on people... and even more
amazing that those who acknowledge the wisdom of such a concept... can
be despised for it.

ScottW

[Jenn]

In article >,
George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
wrote:

> dave weil said to 4 of 12:
>
> > >Jeen[sic] plays here own sick little game of pretentious superiority based
> > >on a
> > >deep dark secret that she can talk about but can't reveal. She's obviously
> > >a
> > >sockpuppet, but whose?
> >
> > See, THIS is exactly why you're ignoring the REAL problem around here,
> > Mr. 7.
> >
> > If you could get past your enabling of the above poster, you'd come a
> > little closer to understand why some feel compelled to be as
> > outrageous as possible.
>
> We've seen 4's behavior pattern before by other 'borgs. Arnii didn't
> actually call Jenn any nasty names, so Mr. **** gets a pass. Not being real
> people, the 'borgs have a peculiar approach to social intercourse. ;-)
>
> I defy any rational creature, either cybernetic or Organic, to call out the
> Krooborg on why it's "obvious" Jenn is a "sockpuppet".

I wouldn't expect an answer, were I you.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Forwarder" > wrote in message
>
>
> > Jenn, be carefull, Arny might look at the headers of your
> > post and find out which country you are posting from,
> > which ISP/security gateway you are using, etc.
>
> Lat time I looked,

Why would you look?

> she uses the SBC anonymizer, which is almost as good as
> AOL's.

I guess that I "use" it, in as much as I'm a SBC subscriber.

[dave weil]

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 15:07:16 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>BTW, dave, why did you call 4 "Mr. 7"? Do you know something the rest of us
>don't know? <G>

I can add.

[dave weil]

On 24 Jan 2006 12:09:36 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:

> Don't BS Dave. JJ had plenty of exchanges with Arny and despised
>Arny's constant diminishment of others in a futile attempt to prop up
>his own ego... but in the long run... the constant harrassment of
>George was just as tiresome for him to deal with and as much or more of
>a reason for his departure.

Did YOU have any private correspondence with him that touched on these
subjects? I did.

Now, turn around the first part of your last sentence. the converse is
that Arnold was *just* as tiresome as George was to him. And that's
pretty much true, if his posts to me are to be believed. Howard was
ALSO getting on his last nerve.

I remember that he once called Arnold "half of the problem" here on
RAO. The other "half of the problem", according to him, was George and
Trotsky. Of course, that doesn't quite compute <chuckle>. Arnold's
saving grace, according to jj was the fact that he "could be quite
civil behind the scenes". Of course, as some of us have heard, "Roy
Briggs" found out otherwise, when he called to try to have a
rapproachment with our boy.

[dave weil]

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:06:49 GMT, Jenn >
wrote:

>In article >,
> George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
> wrote:
>
>> dave weil said to 4 of 12:
>>
>> > >Jeen[sic] plays here own sick little game of pretentious superiority based
>> > >on a
>> > >deep dark secret that she can talk about but can't reveal. She's obviously
>> > >a
>> > >sockpuppet, but whose?
>> >
>> > See, THIS is exactly why you're ignoring the REAL problem around here,
>> > Mr. 7.
>> >
>> > If you could get past your enabling of the above poster, you'd come a
>> > little closer to understand why some feel compelled to be as
>> > outrageous as possible.
>>
>> We've seen 4's behavior pattern before by other 'borgs. Arnii didn't
>> actually call Jenn any nasty names, so Mr. **** gets a pass. Not being real
>> people, the 'borgs have a peculiar approach to social intercourse. ;-)
>>
>> I defy any rational creature, either cybernetic or Organic, to call out the
>> Krooborg on why it's "obvious" Jenn is a "sockpuppet".
>
>I wouldn't expect an answer, were I you.

Nice to see the subjunctive, even if it *is* used a little
anachronistically. It's a fading art, the subjunctive.

[Jenn]

In article >,
dave weil > wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:06:49 GMT, Jenn >
> wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> dave weil said to 4 of 12:
> >>
> >> > >Jeen[sic] plays here own sick little game of pretentious superiority
> >> > >based
> >> > >on a
> >> > >deep dark secret that she can talk about but can't reveal. She's
> >> > >obviously
> >> > >a
> >> > >sockpuppet, but whose?
> >> >
> >> > See, THIS is exactly why you're ignoring the REAL problem around here,
> >> > Mr. 7.
> >> >
> >> > If you could get past your enabling of the above poster, you'd come a
> >> > little closer to understand why some feel compelled to be as
> >> > outrageous as possible.
> >>
> >> We've seen 4's behavior pattern before by other 'borgs. Arnii didn't
> >> actually call Jenn any nasty names, so Mr. **** gets a pass. Not being
> >> real
> >> people, the 'borgs have a peculiar approach to social intercourse. ;-)
> >>
> >> I defy any rational creature, either cybernetic or Organic, to call out
> >> the
> >> Krooborg on why it's "obvious" Jenn is a "sockpuppet".
> >
> >I wouldn't expect an answer, were I you.
>
> Nice to see the subjunctive, even if it *is* used a little
> anachronistically.

That's me in a nutshell, I suppose: an anachronism.

> It's a fading art, the subjunctive.

:-)

[dave weil]

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:09:30 GMT, Jenn >
wrote:

>In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Forwarder" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>> > Jenn, be carefull, Arny might look at the headers of your
>> > post and find out which country you are posting from,
>> > which ISP/security gateway you are using, etc.
>>
>> Lat time I looked,
>
>Why would you look?
>
>> she uses the SBC anonymizer, which is almost as good as
>> AOL's.
>
>I guess that I "use" it, in as much as I'm a SBC subscriber.

Yes, he once accused me of the same thing, since apparently Bell South
does something similar.

Of course, he also thought that he had discovered that I was the
guitarist for a white-hot Atlanta band as well.

Ironically, the picture that he uncovered had the subject wearing a
hat very similar to one that I enjoy wearing. It was freaky! And now,
it turns out that I have a slightly similar guitar to the one that
this Dave Weil was playing, even though I didn't have it at the time.
Perhaps, in about 10 years, we WILL be the same person. Of course,
that would imply that I could play the guitar halfway decently. That
will probably *never* happen.

So watch out. He'll probably search and search until he finds a
picture of some Jennifer that happens to do some conducting. I hope
for your sake that she ends up looking like the cellist of the Brodsky
Quartet, whose name at least starts with the same letter as yours
(she's even *more* attractive attractive in person than in pictures,
BTW).

[George M. Middius]

dave weil said:

> >I wouldn't expect an answer, were I you.

> Nice to see the subjunctive, even if it *is* used a little
> anachronistically. It's a fading art, the subjunctive.

What are we drinking tonite?

[paul packer]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > Of course, not all
> > subjectivists resort to insults or abusive posts--e.g.,
> > Jenn. If only all subjectivists were like Jenn, then
> > this forum could be a place for civilized debate.
>
> Jeen plays here own sick little game of pretentious superiority based on a
> deep dark secret that she can talk about but can't reveal. She's obviously a
> sockpuppet, but whose?

Arnie, how come you can spell "pretentious superiority" correctly, yet
can't spell "Jenn" or 'her"? Just asking.

And please don't correct the spelling in your reply.

[dave weil]

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 18:53:15 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>dave weil said:
>
>> >I wouldn't expect an answer, were I you.
>
>> Nice to see the subjunctive, even if it *is* used a little
>> anachronistically. It's a fading art, the subjunctive.
>
>What are we drinking tonite?

Nothing. That's the problem...

[paul packer]

dave weil wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:39:56 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
> You can ask people like the mild-mannered Paul Packer what happens if
> you disagree with Mr. Krueger.

Hmmm...after a description like that I might try leaping tall buildings
in a single bound. :-)

Actually Arnie has never bothered me, which news I'm sure will come as
a severe blow to him. He just doesn't have the intellectual penetration
or, I suspect, the imagination to really hurt. No, I actually agree
with those posters who suggest that George's jibes are more cutting;
George just has a more natural talent in that area, as well as a more
profound vindictiveness. Sorry, George, but I have to give "credit"
where credit's due. We all have our special talents, and we all hone
those talents as best we can.

Looking forward to your next post. :-)

[ScottW]

dave weil wrote:
> On 24 Jan 2006 12:09:36 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > Don't BS Dave. JJ had plenty of exchanges with Arny and despised
> >Arny's constant diminishment of others in a futile attempt to prop up
> >his own ego... but in the long run... the constant harrassment of
> >George was just as tiresome for him to deal with and as much or more of
> >a reason for his departure.
>
> Did YOU have any private correspondence with him that touched on these
> subjects? I did.

Yes I did. But I have no intention of revealing nor implying any
content of those mails.

>
> Now, turn around the first part of your last sentence. the converse is
> that Arnold was *just* as tiresome as George was to him.

Sure... although Arny wasn't near as vociferous as George was.

> And that's
> pretty much true, if his posts to me are to be believed. Howard was
> ALSO getting on his last nerve.
>
> I remember that he once called Arnold "half of the problem" here on
> RAO. The other "half of the problem", according to him, was George and
> Trotsky. Of course, that doesn't quite compute <chuckle>

They were in a mutual admiration society at one time occupying a very
similar space.

> Arnold's
> saving grace, according to jj was the fact that he "could be quite
> civil behind the scenes". Of course, as some of us have heard, "Roy
> Briggs" found out otherwise, when he called to try to have a
> rapproachment with our boy.

Funny, you're trying to equate JJ with a sockpuppet. Really... who
is "Roy Briggs"?
Anyway, I recall you going bonkers when I accidentally e-mailed you one
time instead of posting. Buttons are side by side... but clearly based
upon your response to an e-mail you wouldn't feel the need for civility
in an undesired phone call.
I've read the transcript and find it rather mild compared to Middius
in full assault mode.... recall him turning on Singh with the
mommyF'er tirade. There are matters of degree to all things...
George took his schtick to a level Arny couldn't even aspire too.

ScottW

[paul packer]

George M. Middius wrote:
> Scottie gives credit where, sadly, it isn't due.
>
> > the constant harrassment of
> > George was just as tiresome for him to deal with and as much or more of
> > a reason for his departure.
>
> <blush>
>
> That's way too kind of you, Terrierborg. I wish I could lay claim to the
> departure of that emotionally stunted, socially inept, booger-eating,
> 'borg-loving nerd from RAO. But I can't take the credit, in all honesty.

Of course you can, George. Judging by this post alone, it's obvious he
felt the warmth of your affection from afar. :-)

[Jenn]

In article >,
dave weil > wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:09:30 GMT, Jenn >
> wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Forwarder" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>
> >> > Jenn, be carefull, Arny might look at the headers of your
> >> > post and find out which country you are posting from,
> >> > which ISP/security gateway you are using, etc.
> >>
> >> Lat time I looked,
> >
> >Why would you look?
> >
> >> she uses the SBC anonymizer, which is almost as good as
> >> AOL's.
> >
> >I guess that I "use" it, in as much as I'm a SBC subscriber.
>
> Yes, he once accused me of the same thing, since apparently Bell South
> does something similar.
>
> Of course, he also thought that he had discovered that I was the
> guitarist for a white-hot Atlanta band as well.
>
> Ironically, the picture that he uncovered had the subject wearing a
> hat very similar to one that I enjoy wearing. It was freaky! And now,
> it turns out that I have a slightly similar guitar to the one that
> this Dave Weil was playing, even though I didn't have it at the time.

What guitar do you play?

>
> Perhaps, in about 10 years, we WILL be the same person. Of course,
> that would imply that I could play the guitar halfway decently. That
> will probably *never* happen.
>
> So watch out. He'll probably search and search until he finds a
> picture of some Jennifer that happens to do some conducting. I hope
> for your sake that she ends up looking like the cellist of the Brodsky
> Quartet, whose name at least starts with the same letter as yours
> (she's even *more* attractive attractive in person than in pictures,
> BTW).

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Scottie gives credit where, sadly, it isn't due.
>
>> the constant harrassment of
>> George was just as tiresome for him to deal with and as much or more of
>> a reason for his departure.
>
> <blush>
>
> That's way too kind of you, Terrierborg. I wish I could lay claim to the
> departure of that emotionally stunted, socially inept, booger-eating,
> 'borg-loving nerd from RAO. But I can't take the credit, in all honesty.
>
> Perhaps you've conveniently forgotten Phoebe's screeching about the
> "anti-science" contingent. Not to mention the Witch's gentle caressing of
> the Krooborg's tormented soul (such as it is). Or -- and let me know if
> I'm
> going out on a limb here -- perhaps you are all too willing to forgive
> Phoebe's snottiness and bitchiness because she, like you, hates the
> gentrification of the high end.
>
>
>
JJ agreed with Arny about 99% of the time and said that his statements
regarding audio were essentially correct 99% of the time.

He didn't like you much, but then that's a sign of a healthy and sane
individual.

JJ thought, as do most people with any active neurons, that high end was
mostly bull****, and that most of it was smoke and mirrors.

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> I actually agree
> with those posters who suggest that George's jibes are more cutting;
> George just has a more natural talent in that area, as well as a more
> profound vindictiveness.

Wrong word. Perhaps you meant viciousness? rancorous? venomous? malevolent?
I could go on, but I'm sure you used the wrong word.


> Sorry, George, but I have to give "credit"
> where credit's due. We all have our special talents, and we all hone
> those talents as best we can.

Krooger is markedly deficient in all continua where talent can be observed.
No shame in calling a 'borg a 'borg.

Besides, all one has to do in order to calibrate the scale is observe the
quality of thought characteristic of those who rally 'round Mr. ****.

[dave weil]

On 24 Jan 2006 16:19:50 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:

>
>dave weil wrote:
>> On 24 Jan 2006 12:09:36 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>>
>> > Don't BS Dave. JJ had plenty of exchanges with Arny and despised
>> >Arny's constant diminishment of others in a futile attempt to prop up
>> >his own ego... but in the long run... the constant harrassment of
>> >George was just as tiresome for him to deal with and as much or more of
>> >a reason for his departure.
>>
>> Did YOU have any private correspondence with him that touched on these
>> subjects? I did.
>
> Yes I did. But I have no intention of revealing nor implying any
>content of those mails.

Well then, I guess we can just pretty much dismiss them out of hand.

>> Now, turn around the first part of your last sentence. the converse is
>> that Arnold was *just* as tiresome as George was to him.
>
> Sure... although Arny wasn't near as vociferous as George was.

Then, I wasn't BS'ing, was I?

>> And that's
>> pretty much true, if his posts to me are to be believed. Howard was
>> ALSO getting on his last nerve.
>>
>> I remember that he once called Arnold "half of the problem" here on
>> RAO. The other "half of the problem", according to him, was George and
>> Trotsky. Of course, that doesn't quite compute <chuckle>
>
> They were in a mutual admiration society at one time occupying a very
>similar space.

So? I also remember that they fought like cats and dogs too. But it
doesn't really have anything to do with my original contention - that
jj found Arnold to be a problem, one that definitely contributed to
his leaving RAO.

>> Arnold's
>> saving grace, according to jj was the fact that he "could be quite
>> civil behind the scenes". Of course, as some of us have heard, "Roy
>> Briggs" found out otherwise, when he called to try to have a
>> rapproachment with our boy.
>
> Funny, you're trying to equate JJ with a sockpuppet. Really... who
>is "Roy Briggs"?

It's the name that a certain poster used to protect his anonymimity.
Even *I* don't know his full "real name", even though I've talked to
him on numerous occasions on the phone, mostly about photography. As
we have seen just today, there's a real concern that some people have
about protecting themselves. I completely understand someone wanted to
preserve some of their privacy. If someone chooses not to, that's fine
too. You have chosen to use your real name (I presume). I have as well
and Arnold has chosen to publish his home address. All that's fine,
but it's a choice that we have made on our own.

>Anyway, I recall you going bonkers when I accidentally e-mailed you one
>time instead of posting. Buttons are side by side... but clearly based
>upon your response to an e-mail you wouldn't feel the need for civility
>in an undesired phone call.

However, if you called to try to try to reach some common ground,
*and* attempt an apology for things that you had written, as "Roy"
did, II'd give you some lattitude. I seem to remember when you
accidentally emailed me, I publically accepted your explanation of
accident. I've done the same thing myself.

> I've read the transcript and find it rather mild compared to Middius
>in full assault mode.... recall him turning on Singh with the
>mommyF'er tirade. There are matters of degree to all things...
>George took his schtick to a level Arny couldn't even aspire too.

Well, in terms of scatological content, perhaps. However, I disagree
about your analysis of "levels".

[dave weil]

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 00:23:39 GMT, Jenn >
wrote:

>In article >,
> dave weil > wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:09:30 GMT, Jenn >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article >,
>> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Forwarder" > wrote in message
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > Jenn, be carefull, Arny might look at the headers of your
>> >> > post and find out which country you are posting from,
>> >> > which ISP/security gateway you are using, etc.
>> >>
>> >> Lat time I looked,
>> >
>> >Why would you look?
>> >
>> >> she uses the SBC anonymizer, which is almost as good as
>> >> AOL's.
>> >
>> >I guess that I "use" it, in as much as I'm a SBC subscriber.
>>
>> Yes, he once accused me of the same thing, since apparently Bell South
>> does something similar.
>>
>> Of course, he also thought that he had discovered that I was the
>> guitarist for a white-hot Atlanta band as well.
>>
>> Ironically, the picture that he uncovered had the subject wearing a
>> hat very similar to one that I enjoy wearing. It was freaky! And now,
>> it turns out that I have a slightly similar guitar to the one that
>> this Dave Weil was playing, even though I didn't have it at the time.
>
>What guitar do you play?

I've got a "Carlo Robelli", which is Sam Ash's knockoff of a Gretsch
6120, which is similar to what the Dave Weil in Atlanta was pictured
playing (his band seems to be a rockabilly/blues/rock
'n roll-tinged band). Mine is a really beautiful piano-black lacquer
model with gold hardware, a faux Bigsby and a cool plexiglass
pickguard. It's a very well-made model that was probably made in the
Far East factory that Samick uses. IIRC, his was the classic blonde
Gretsch look.

I've also got a faux Goldtop Les Paul from Dillion. Another well-made
clone. It's got P-90 soapbars and yes, another clone Bigsby.

I've got a cheap black Squier Strat that I'm relic'ing up to get a
"Blackie" vibe. Cost me $65 almost brand new at the pawnshop, so I can
afford to be a bit nasty with it.

As you can see, I've limited my financial exposure due to my limited
musical ability <g>.

[Clyde Slick]

"124" > wrote in message
ups.com...

>
> If I was a subjectivist, I would be deeply ashamed to have someone like
> George on my side. George, perhaps more than any other person on
> this forum, discredits the subjectivists. If one cannot supply any
> evidence to support one's position, one must resort to insults or
> abusive posts. Of course, not all subjectivists resort to insults or
> abusive posts--e.g., Jenn. If only all subjectivists were like Jenn,
> then this forum could be a place for civilized debate.
>


And it was just a few days ago that Arny took a **** on Jenn.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "124" > wrote in
> message
> ups.com
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>> "124" > wrote in
>>> message
>>> oups.com
>>>> [George M. Middius's abusive post deleted.]
>>>> George should have left this forum years
>>>> ago. Almost all of his posts here are abusive.
>>>
>>> Dealing out abuse seems to be George's whole reason for
>>> existing. He almost never posts on-topic. He might have
>>> made 5 on-topic posts in the past 5 years.
>>>
>>> First and foremost George wants to have people agree
>>> with him. Had RAO been overwhelmingly objectivist when
>>> he first started posting here, he'd probably be
>>> vigorously attacking subjectivists to this day.
>
>> If I was a subjectivist, I would be deeply ashamed to
>> have someone like George on my side.
>
> Some people seem to be "getting" that.
>
>> George, perhaps
>> more than any other person on
>> this forum, discredits the subjectivists.
>
> I think that Art Sackman ("Clyde Slick" this week) comes close.
>

That's 'Mr. Slick', to you.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>like hard evidence.
>
>> Of course, not all
>> subjectivists resort to insults or abusive posts--e.g.,
>> Jenn. If only all subjectivists were like Jenn, then
>> this forum could be a place for civilized debate.
>
> Jeen plays here own sick little game of pretentious superiority based on a
> deep dark secret that she can talk about but can't reveal.


Maybe she home recorded some pathetic church choir last Sunday.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[Clyde Slick]

"Powell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Pooh Bear" wrote
>
>> Forwarder wrote:
>>
>> > And what's wrong with George's posts anyway?
>>
>> Most of them are simply personal insults !
>>
>> It's rare for 'George' to post anything about audio at all.
>>
> It's "rare" to read anything about new empirical
> experiences or new technology by anyone on this
> board. Trade debating opponents fear exposing
> themselves. They have anger, frustration and
> feelings of inadequacy baggage issues.
>


We are not much interested in
"empirical experiences". So, we don't
write about them.

BTW, what was the last empirical experience
that busted your nuts?



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[Jenn]

In article >,
dave weil > wrote:

> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 00:23:39 GMT, Jenn >
> wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > dave weil > wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:09:30 GMT, Jenn >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article >,
> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Forwarder" > wrote in message
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > Jenn, be carefull, Arny might look at the headers of your
> >> >> > post and find out which country you are posting from,
> >> >> > which ISP/security gateway you are using, etc.
> >> >>
> >> >> Lat time I looked,
> >> >
> >> >Why would you look?
> >> >
> >> >> she uses the SBC anonymizer, which is almost as good as
> >> >> AOL's.
> >> >
> >> >I guess that I "use" it, in as much as I'm a SBC subscriber.
> >>
> >> Yes, he once accused me of the same thing, since apparently Bell South
> >> does something similar.
> >>
> >> Of course, he also thought that he had discovered that I was the
> >> guitarist for a white-hot Atlanta band as well.
> >>
> >> Ironically, the picture that he uncovered had the subject wearing a
> >> hat very similar to one that I enjoy wearing. It was freaky! And now,
> >> it turns out that I have a slightly similar guitar to the one that
> >> this Dave Weil was playing, even though I didn't have it at the time.
> >
> >What guitar do you play?
>
> I've got a "Carlo Robelli", which is Sam Ash's knockoff of a Gretsch
> 6120, which is similar to what the Dave Weil in Atlanta was pictured
> playing (his band seems to be a rockabilly/blues/rock
> 'n roll-tinged band). Mine is a really beautiful piano-black lacquer
> model with gold hardware, a faux Bigsby and a cool plexiglass
> pickguard. It's a very well-made model that was probably made in the
> Far East factory that Samick uses. IIRC, his was the classic blonde
> Gretsch look.

Is it a single or double cutaway? I've wanted a good 6120 circa 1964
since I was a kid. I play one every time that I'm in L.A. and I still
love them. Probably because one of my guitar heros is Chet Atkins. I
do have a Gibson Chet Atkins Country Gentleman, which is a great guitar.
I played some really good new Gretsch pieces at the NAMM show this past
weekend.
>
> I've also got a faux Goldtop Les Paul from Dillion. Another well-made
> clone. It's got P-90 soapbars and yes, another clone Bigsby.
>
> I've got a cheap black Squier Strat that I'm relic'ing up to get a
> "Blackie" vibe. Cost me $65 almost brand new at the pawnshop, so I can
> afford to be a bit nasty with it.
>
> As you can see, I've limited my financial exposure due to my limited
> musical ability <g>.

:-)

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
link.net...
>
>>
>>
> The coward is the guy posting through Finland.

Is it cowardly to post through or from Finland?
Are they any worse than France?




--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...

>
> You hide it well, but with a little educated guessing about who pulls your
> strings Mr. Sockpuppet...
>

So, someone in Finland hates your guts.
Why am I not surprised?



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[dave weil]

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 02:06:07 GMT, Jenn >
wrote:

>In article >,
> dave weil > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 00:23:39 GMT, Jenn >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article >,
>> > dave weil > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:09:30 GMT, Jenn >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article >,
>> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "Forwarder" > wrote in message
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Jenn, be carefull, Arny might look at the headers of your
>> >> >> > post and find out which country you are posting from,
>> >> >> > which ISP/security gateway you are using, etc.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Lat time I looked,
>> >> >
>> >> >Why would you look?
>> >> >
>> >> >> she uses the SBC anonymizer, which is almost as good as
>> >> >> AOL's.
>> >> >
>> >> >I guess that I "use" it, in as much as I'm a SBC subscriber.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, he once accused me of the same thing, since apparently Bell South
>> >> does something similar.
>> >>
>> >> Of course, he also thought that he had discovered that I was the
>> >> guitarist for a white-hot Atlanta band as well.
>> >>
>> >> Ironically, the picture that he uncovered had the subject wearing a
>> >> hat very similar to one that I enjoy wearing. It was freaky! And now,
>> >> it turns out that I have a slightly similar guitar to the one that
>> >> this Dave Weil was playing, even though I didn't have it at the time.
>> >
>> >What guitar do you play?
>>
>> I've got a "Carlo Robelli", which is Sam Ash's knockoff of a Gretsch
>> 6120, which is similar to what the Dave Weil in Atlanta was pictured
>> playing (his band seems to be a rockabilly/blues/rock
>> 'n roll-tinged band). Mine is a really beautiful piano-black lacquer
>> model with gold hardware, a faux Bigsby and a cool plexiglass
>> pickguard. It's a very well-made model that was probably made in the
>> Far East factory that Samick uses. IIRC, his was the classic blonde
>> Gretsch look.
>
>Is it a single or double cutaway?

Single.

It's like this, only with a deep glossy black finish, gold hardware
and the way cool plexiglass pickguard:

http://www.tdpri.com//viewtopic.php?t=32237&highlight=&sid=507d6920bf18ee1dce2a6ddbe3ad498c

It looks really snazzy. Hard to find now though.

I could send you a pic of mine if you'd like...

>I've wanted a good 6120 circa 1964
>since I was a kid. I play one every time that I'm in L.A. and I still
>love them. Probably because one of my guitar heros is Chet Atkins. I
>do have a Gibson Chet Atkins Country Gentleman, which is a great guitar.

Very cool guitar. and the real thing <g>.

>I played some really good new Gretsch pieces at the NAMM show this past
>weekend.
>>
>> I've also got a faux Goldtop Les Paul from Dillion. Another well-made
>> clone. It's got P-90 soapbars and yes, another clone Bigsby.

This one makes the best noise of the three. And it's the most playable
(for me).

>> I've got a cheap black Squier Strat that I'm relic'ing up to get a
>> "Blackie" vibe. Cost me $65 almost brand new at the pawnshop, so I can
>> afford to be a bit nasty with it.
>>
>> As you can see, I've limited my financial exposure due to my limited
>> musical ability <g>.
>
>:-)

[Jenn]

In article >,
dave weil > wrote:

> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 02:06:07 GMT, Jenn >
> wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > dave weil > wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 00:23:39 GMT, Jenn >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article >,
> >> > dave weil > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:09:30 GMT, Jenn >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article >,
> >> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> "Forwarder" > wrote in message
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Jenn, be carefull, Arny might look at the headers of your
> >> >> >> > post and find out which country you are posting from,
> >> >> >> > which ISP/security gateway you are using, etc.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Lat time I looked,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Why would you look?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> she uses the SBC anonymizer, which is almost as good as
> >> >> >> AOL's.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I guess that I "use" it, in as much as I'm a SBC subscriber.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes, he once accused me of the same thing, since apparently Bell South
> >> >> does something similar.
> >> >>
> >> >> Of course, he also thought that he had discovered that I was the
> >> >> guitarist for a white-hot Atlanta band as well.
> >> >>
> >> >> Ironically, the picture that he uncovered had the subject wearing a
> >> >> hat very similar to one that I enjoy wearing. It was freaky! And now,
> >> >> it turns out that I have a slightly similar guitar to the one that
> >> >> this Dave Weil was playing, even though I didn't have it at the time.
> >> >
> >> >What guitar do you play?
> >>
> >> I've got a "Carlo Robelli", which is Sam Ash's knockoff of a Gretsch
> >> 6120, which is similar to what the Dave Weil in Atlanta was pictured
> >> playing (his band seems to be a rockabilly/blues/rock
> >> 'n roll-tinged band). Mine is a really beautiful piano-black lacquer
> >> model with gold hardware, a faux Bigsby and a cool plexiglass
> >> pickguard. It's a very well-made model that was probably made in the
> >> Far East factory that Samick uses. IIRC, his was the classic blonde
> >> Gretsch look.
> >
> >Is it a single or double cutaway?
>
> Single.
>
> It's like this, only with a deep glossy black finish, gold hardware
> and the way cool plexiglass pickguard:
>
> http://www.tdpri.com//viewtopic.php?t=32237&highlight=&sid=507d6920bf18ee1dce2
> a6ddbe3ad498c

Total coincidence: A young person walked into my office today to have
me sign something, and he had with him a new Gretsch exactly like this;
same color and all. It played OK, but not like the old ones :-) You
have a very nice instrument there!

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> > Jeen plays here own sick little game of pretentious superiority based on a
> > deep dark secret that she can talk about but can't reveal.

> Maybe she home recorded some pathetic church choir last Sunday.

Or maybe she served up a trolley of slop at a fundraiser and called it
"good eats".

[ScottW]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On 24 Jan 2006 16:19:50 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>>
>>dave weil wrote:
>>> On 24 Jan 2006 12:09:36 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>>>
>>> > Don't BS Dave. JJ had plenty of exchanges with Arny and despised
>>> >Arny's constant diminishment of others in a futile attempt to prop up
>>> >his own ego... but in the long run... the constant harrassment of
>>> >George was just as tiresome for him to deal with and as much or more of
>>> >a reason for his departure.
>>>
>>> Did YOU have any private correspondence with him that touched on these
>>> subjects? I did.
>>
>> Yes I did. But I have no intention of revealing nor implying any
>>content of those mails.
>
> Well then, I guess we can just pretty much dismiss them out of hand.

Sure Dave, I see the recent subject of your integrity with private mail
remains in question.

>
>>> Now, turn around the first part of your last sentence. the converse is
>>> that Arnold was *just* as tiresome as George was to him.
>>
>> Sure... although Arny wasn't near as vociferous as George was.
>
> Then, I wasn't BS'ing, was I?

Certainly you were through selective omission.

>
>>> And that's
>>> pretty much true, if his posts to me are to be believed. Howard was
>>> ALSO getting on his last nerve.
>>>
>>> I remember that he once called Arnold "half of the problem" here on
>>> RAO. The other "half of the problem", according to him, was George and
>>> Trotsky. Of course, that doesn't quite compute <chuckle>
>>
>> They were in a mutual admiration society at one time occupying a very
>>similar space.
>
> So? I also remember that they fought like cats and dogs too.

That was at a later time Dave.

> But it
> doesn't really have anything to do with my original contention - that
> jj found Arnold to be a problem, one that definitely contributed to
> his leaving RAO.

I believe it was minor, the Middius vendetta was relentless and abusive.

>
>>> Arnold's
>>> saving grace, according to jj was the fact that he "could be quite
>>> civil behind the scenes". Of course, as some of us have heard, "Roy
>>> Briggs" found out otherwise, when he called to try to have a
>>> rapproachment with our boy.
>>
>> Funny, you're trying to equate JJ with a sockpuppet. Really... who
>>is "Roy Briggs"?
>
> It's the name that a certain poster used to protect his anonymimity.
> Even *I* don't know his full "real name", even though I've talked to
> him on numerous occasions on the phone, mostly about photography. As
> we have seen just today, there's a real concern that some people have
> about protecting themselves. I completely understand someone wanted to
> preserve some of their privacy. If someone chooses not to, that's fine
> too. You have chosen to use your real name (I presume). I have as well
> and Arnold has chosen to publish his home address. All that's fine,
> but it's a choice that we have made on our own.
>
>>Anyway, I recall you going bonkers when I accidentally e-mailed you one
>>time instead of posting. Buttons are side by side... but clearly based
>>upon your response to an e-mail you wouldn't feel the need for civility
>>in an undesired phone call.
>
> However, if you called to try to try to reach some common ground,
> *and* attempt an apology for things that you had written, as "Roy"
> did, II'd give you some lattitude.

Would you record the conversation and then, through your own indiscretion,
have it made public? Even "Roy" expressed regrets for that IIRC.
In light of that little ploy, I'd say Arny was justified in any hostile
attitude he showed. Insincerity is hard to conceal.

> I seem to remember when you
> accidentally emailed me, I publically accepted your explanation of
> accident. I've done the same thing myself.
>
>> I've read the transcript and find it rather mild compared to Middius
>>in full assault mode.... recall him turning on Singh with the
>>mommyF'er tirade. There are matters of degree to all things...
>>George took his schtick to a level Arny couldn't even aspire too.
>
> Well, in terms of scatological content, perhaps.

Elevating anything on RAO to a literary reference is absurd.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> 4 of 12 said:
>
>> If I was a subjectivist, I would be deeply ashamed to have someone like
>> George on my side. George, perhaps more than any other person on
>> this forum, discredits the subjectivists. If one cannot supply any
>> evidence to support one's position, one must resort to insults or
>> abusive posts.
>
> <sneer>
> <guffaw>
> <other assorted sounds of derision>
>
> Did you ever consider that it's just plain fun making fun of the
> feeble-minded?

Making your mommy proud of you again George?

>
> BTW, the "subjectivists" don't give a crap about your pathetic quest for
> "debating trade" points. No Normal cares about having credibility in
> your eyes. We know how ****ed-up your fear and hatred of consumer audio
> are, so why would we seek to obtain your approval?
>
> Oh, one other thing: You obviously have no ****ing clue about my own
> personal approach to audio for my own personal use. But that's par for
> the 'borg course, isn't it.

Does anybody have a clue about your "approach"? Let's see.. what do I
know... no vinyl in your life.... that's a pity.... you had a used Lexicon
that Singh hooked you up with a good deal on (outside his authorized area no
less) and your method of expressing appreciation was a bit bizarre.... but
beyond that...I don't know. Can't say I've been hanging on your every word
so I may have missed one of your droppings along the way.... anyone know
what speakers George listens to or his preferred genre?
>
>
> What did you say your name is, little coward? ;-)

What do you look like macho man? Anyone here seen you?

ScottW

[George M. Middius]

duh-Scottie yammered:

> > Oh, one other thing: You obviously have no ****ing clue about my own
> > personal approach to audio for my own personal use. But that's par for
> > the 'borg course, isn't it.
>
> Does anybody have a clue about your "approach"? Let's see.. what do I
> know... no vinyl in your life.... that's a pity.... you had a used Lexicon
> that Singh hooked you up with a good deal on (outside his authorized area no
> less) and your method of expressing appreciation was a bit bizarre.... but
> beyond that...I don't know. Can't say I've been hanging on your every word
> so I may have missed one of your droppings along the way.... anyone know
> what speakers George listens to or his preferred genre?

Mmmmm.... Nice try, Scooter, but Mikey is still dumber. Keep plugging
away though -- a few more splatters of stupidity like this and maybe
we'll make you an Honorary Bug Eater.

[paul packer]

George M. Middius wrote:
> paul packer said:
>
> > I actually agree
> > with those posters who suggest that George's jibes are more cutting;
> > George just has a more natural talent in that area, as well as a more
> > profound vindictiveness.
>
> Wrong word. Perhaps you meant viciousness? rancorous? venomous? malevolent?
> I could go on, but I'm sure you used the wrong word.

Well, according to my dictionary vindictive means revengeful, and
that's pretty much what I had in mind. I was thinking of your response
to attack, but I agree I should have been more general. As a master of
words, perhaps you should be left to describe yourself, as I'm sure you
have a truckload of self-awareness. :-)

> > Sorry, George, but I have to give "credit"
> > where credit's due. We all have our special talents, and we all hone
> > those talents as best we can.
>
> Krooger is markedly deficient in all continua where talent can be observed.
> No shame in calling a 'borg a 'borg.

That's a little mean. Arnie has talents; he just has no imagination, no
self-awareness and almost no sense of humour.

> Besides, all one has to do in order to calibrate the scale is observe the
> quality of thought characteristic of those who rally 'round Mr. ****.

Well, there's truth in that. However, my opinion of Mike and one or two
others is not as severe as yours. Come to think of it, my opinion of
everything is not as severe as yours.

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> > Wrong word. Perhaps you meant viciousness? rancorous? venomous? malevolent?
> > I could go on, but I'm sure you used the wrong word.

> Well, according to my dictionary vindictive means revengeful, and
> that's pretty much what I had in mind.

I don't feel vindictive toward Mr. ****. Appalled, disgusted, revulsed,
sickened ... but not vindictive.

> I was thinking of your response
> to attack, but I agree I should have been more general. As a master of
> words, perhaps you should be left to describe yourself, as I'm sure you
> have a truckload of self-awareness. :-)

Since you asked, I would characterize my posts about Kroo**** as
meritorious denunciations of filthfulness.

> > Krooger is markedly deficient in all continua where talent can be observed.
> > No shame in calling a 'borg a 'borg.

> That's a little mean. Arnie has talents; he just has no imagination, no
> self-awareness and almost no sense of humour.

I'll agree with the latter two, but as to Krooger's alleged talents, I
haven't seen any. Certainly not in the area of social interaction,
ability to express himself, or artistic design (have you seen his
horrible web sites?). He can't reason abstractly, he's a compulsive
liar, and then there's the whole paranoia thing that drives him to
*argue with himself* on many occasions. From what I've seen, he's
terrible at imparting the fragments of knowledge he's gleaned: Aside
from the incessant snottiness, every time the discussion turns even
slightly technical, he gets tripped up, and then the "debating trade"
dance begins. Mr. **** has never designed a single audio component,
notwithstanding his incessant bleating about the flaws of other people's
designs. His understanding of "tests" is a joke, according to some
genuine experts in the field. And I'm sure you've seen the admixture of
random nonsense and lies the Krooborg tries to sell as "science".

So tell me, paulie, what are Krooger's "talents"?

> > Besides, all one has to do in order to calibrate the scale is observe the
> > quality of thought characteristic of those who rally 'round Mr. ****.
>
> Well, there's truth in that. However, my opinion of Mike and one or two
> others is not as severe as yours. Come to think of it, my opinion of
> everything is not as severe as yours.

Usenet is a good way to blow off steam.

[124]

Powell wrote:

> Trade-debating opponents fear exposing
> themselves. They have anger, frustration, and
> feelings of inadequacy-baggage issues.

This is an excellent point. Ties in rather nicely with the point
I made earlier in another thread about protecting the ego.

--124

[Powell]

"Arny Krueger" wrote

> >> Had RAO been overwhelmingly objectivist when he
> >> first started posting here, he'd probably be vigorously
> >> attacking subjectivists to this day.
> >>
> > And yet you keep fighting *what is.* Why is that?
>
> Which *what is* might that be? ;-)
>
The "what is" is acceptance of other opinions
without the emotional need/desire/egotism to
discredit the massager.

You’ve mellowed some over the years but there
are glaciers that are melting faster. :)

[Powell]

"Arny Krueger" wrote

> >> If one cannot supply any evidence to support one's
> >> position, one must resort to insults or abusive posts.
> >>
> > True enough. And others like you withdraw when
> > your belief system is challenged. What's worse?
> > Both are failures to communicate.
>
> Reminds me of a guy around here who interpreted
> just about every question about his peculiar brand
> of radical subjectivism in terms of class warfare.
> Relevant phrase was, as I recall: "Broke-ass". ;-)
>
While I was the first user you gave me the idea for
the nomenclature Broke-A$$® back in the 1990's.

Unfortunately I had to drop your handle (mr. No-Show®)
last year. :)

[Powell]

"Clyde Slick" wrote

> >> It's rare for 'George' to post anything about audio at all.
> >>
> > It's "rare" to read anything about new empirical
> > experiences or new technology by anyone on this
> > board. Trade debating opponents fear exposing
> > themselves. They have anger, frustration and
> > feelings of inadequacy baggage issues.
> >
> We are not much interested in
> "empirical experiences". So, we don't
> write about them.
>
Who's the "we" you're speaking of? Or do you
mean you are a ("Trade debating opponent")?


> BTW, what was the last empirical experience
> that busted your nuts?
>
"busted your nuts" is a metaphor for what?

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com

> George took his schtick to a
> level Arny couldn't even aspire too.

Delusions of omniscience noted.

Beleive it or not, the universe is full of places I choose not to go.

Not being a sockpuppet like George does limit one's options.

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
oups.com

> Actually Arnie has never bothered me, which news I'm sure
> will come as a severe blow to him.

Just goes to show how wrong you can be, Paul.

> He just doesn't have
> the intellectual penetration or, I suspect, the
> imagination to really hurt.

The fact that you sat back and thought this up says a lot about you, Paul.

> No, I actually agree with
> those posters who suggest that George's jibes are more
> cutting; George just has a more natural talent in that
> area, as well as a more profound vindictiveness. Sorry,
> George, but I have to give "credit" where credit's due.
> We all have our special talents, and we all hone those
> talents as best we can.

Being a sockpuppet gives George more options than those of us who are known
persons in the real world.

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
oups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> Of course, not all
>>> subjectivists resort to insults or abusive posts--e.g.,
>>> Jenn. If only all subjectivists were like Jenn, then
>>> this forum could be a place for civilized debate.
>>
>> Jeen plays here own sick little game of pretentious
>> superiority based on a deep dark secret that she can
>> talk about but can't reveal. She's obviously a
>> sockpuppet, but whose?
>
> Arnie, how come you can spell "pretentious superiority"
> correctly, yet can't spell "Jenn" or 'her"? Just asking.

> And please don't correct the spelling in your reply.

Hmm, someone is well known (or at least readily knowable) to be using
Outlook Express on a machine that like zillions of other computers, also has
MS Office installed. Does that suggest something to you, Paul?

Paul, this just goes to show that you can't see the answer to your question,
even when it stares you right in the face.

[Arny Krueger]

"Powell" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" wrote
>
>>>> If one cannot supply any evidence to support one's
>>>> position, one must resort to insults or abusive posts.
>>>>
>>> True enough. And others like you withdraw when
>>> your belief system is challenged. What's worse?
>>> Both are failures to communicate.
>>
>> Reminds me of a guy around here who interpreted
>> just about every question about his peculiar brand
>> of radical subjectivism in terms of class warfare.
>> Relevant phrase was, as I recall: "Broke-ass". ;-)
>>
> While I was the first user you gave me the idea for
> the nomenclature Broke-A$$® back in the 1990's.

The irony comes when we consider the real world, exemplified by our
respective approaches to recording.

> Unfortunately I had to drop your handle (mr. No-Show®)
> last year. :)

Just goes to show that you were wrong on both points all along.

[Arny Krueger]

"Powell" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" wrote
>
>>>> Had RAO been overwhelmingly objectivist when he
>>>> first started posting here, he'd probably be vigorously
>>>> attacking subjectivists to this day.
>>>>
>>> And yet you keep fighting *what is.* Why is that?
>>
>> Which *what is* might that be? ;-)

> The "what is" is acceptance of other opinions
> without the emotional need/desire/egotism to
> discredit the massager.

Need and ability are two different things.

> You’ve mellowed some over the years but there
> are glaciers that are melting faster. :)

Lots of people are here are getting worn down, but not me. I'm just
adjusting my suspension to the smoother road.

"paul packer" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> dave weil wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:39:56 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>> You can ask people like the mild-mannered Paul Packer what happens if
>> you disagree with Mr. Krueger.
>
> Hmmm...after a description like that I might try leaping tall buildings
> in a single bound. :-)
>
> Actually Arnie has never bothered me, which news I'm sure will come as
> a severe blow to him. He just doesn't have the intellectual penetration
> or, I suspect, the imagination to really hurt. No, I actually agree
> with those posters who suggest that George's jibes are more cutting;
> George just has a more natural talent in that area, as well as a more
> profound vindictiveness.

I'm not sure I would call it talent so much as lack of morality and decency.
He is simply put, a swine.

Sorry, George, but I have to give "credit"
> where credit's due. We all have our special talents, and we all hone
> those talents as best we can.
>
> Looking forward to your next post. :-)
>
Looking forward to the day whoever he is vanishes forever.

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> duh-Scottie yammered:
>
>> > Oh, one other thing: You obviously have no ****ing clue about my own
>> > personal approach to audio for my own personal use. But that's par for
>> > the 'borg course, isn't it.
>>
>> Does anybody have a clue about your "approach"? Let's see.. what do I
>> know... no vinyl in your life.... that's a pity.... you had a used
>> Lexicon
>> that Singh hooked you up with a good deal on (outside his authorized area
>> no
>> less) and your method of expressing appreciation was a bit bizarre....
>> but
>> beyond that...I don't know. Can't say I've been hanging on your every
>> word
>> so I may have missed one of your droppings along the way.... anyone know
>> what speakers George listens to or his preferred genre?
>
> Mmmmm.... Nice try, Scooter, but Mikey is still dumber. Keep plugging
> away though -- a few more splatters of stupidity like this and maybe
> we'll make you an Honorary Bug Eater.
>
>
You seem to be compltely unaware of the fact that being called some sort of
rude name by you is actually a badge of honor, it means that that person is
probably saying something correct that goes against the audiophool world
view.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
ink.net

> You seem to be compltely unaware of the fact that being
> called some sort of rude name by you is actually a badge
> of honor, it means that that person is probably saying
> something correct that goes against the audiophool world
> view.

Wasn't George's first such target "Phoebe"? ;-)

[George M. Middius]

duh-Mikey babbles on.

> > Mmmmm.... Nice try, Scooter, but Mikey is still dumber. Keep plugging
> > away though -- a few more splatters of stupidity like this and maybe
> > we'll make you an Honorary Bug Eater.

> You seem to be compltely unaware of the fact that being called some sort of
> rude name by you is actually a badge of honor, it means that that person is
> probably saying something correct that goes against the audiophool world
> view.

Mickey, are you some kind of interspecies experiment like the ones
depicted in "O Lucky Man"? We don't really know how far Dr. Kroomacher
took his iuhuman experiments, you know. Do you have the brain of a
goose, or a pig, or some other nonhuman animal?

[Steven Sullivan]

124 > wrote:
> [George M. Middius's abusive post deleted.]
> George should have left this forum years
> ago. Almost all of his posts here are abusive.


He certainly seems the malignant little fellow.
I wonder if anyone here will miss him when he casts
off this mortal coil. And how many will be glad.



--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

[Steven Sullivan]

Powell > wrote:

> "Arny Krueger" wrote

> > >> Had RAO been overwhelmingly objectivist when he
> > >> first started posting here, he'd probably be vigorously
> > >> attacking subjectivists to this day.
> > >>
> > > And yet you keep fighting *what is.* Why is that?
> >
> > Which *what is* might that be? ;-)
> >
> The "what is" is acceptance of other opinions
> without the emotional need/desire/egotism to
> discredit the massager.

There are opinions, and there are facts.
There doesn't seem to be much distinction between the
two here. Indeed, there's a vocal camp who seems
to think we can't really know much of *anything*
about audio at the level of *fact*. "Science?
Engineering? Bah. What can *they* tell us
about the beautiful sound of an expensive cable."


How conveeenient. And pathetic.








--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

[Arny Krueger]

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


George tries a little more debating trade magic:

>> You seem to be compltely unaware of the fact that being
>> called some sort of rude name by you is actually a badge
>> of honor, it means that that person is probably saying
>> something correct that goes against the audiophool world
> view.

> Mickey, are you some kind of interspecies experiment like
> the ones depicted in "O Lucky Man"?

Hmm, lets breed a jackass with a laughing hyena. Will that result in a
Middiot?

> We don't really know
> how far Dr. Kroomacher took his iuhuman experiments, you
> know.

Whatever that cross of a jackass with a laughing hyena produced, it can't
spell.

> Do you have the brain of a goose, or a pig, or some
> other nonhuman animal?

Yes Mike has the brains of a goose, a pig, and some othen nonhuman animal
namely a Middiot, each in its own little jar. Then of course he has the
brains in his head.

[Arny Krueger]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message

> Powell > wrote:
>
>> "Arny Krueger" wrote
>
>>>>> Had RAO been overwhelmingly objectivist when he
>>>>> first started posting here, he'd probably be
>>>>> vigorously attacking subjectivists to this day.
>>>>>
>>>> And yet you keep fighting *what is.* Why is that?
>>>
>>> Which *what is* might that be? ;-)
>>>
>> The "what is" is acceptance of other opinions
>> without the emotional need/desire/egotism to
>> discredit the massager.
>
> There are opinions, and there are facts.

Not to radical subjectivists, it seems.

To them, everything is an opinion and a preference.

Does I=E/R? Does F = MA? Only if it makes you feel good. ;-)

> There doesn't seem to be much distinction between the
> two here. Indeed, there's a vocal camp who seems
> to think we can't really know much of *anything*
> about audio at the level of *fact*. "Science?
> Engineering? Bah.

See George's rants against audio tests.

> What can *they* tell us
> about the beautiful sound of an expensive cable."

If there are no such things as facts, then nobody can be proven wrong with
facts.

> How conveeenient. And pathetic.

It's the "me" generation.

[George M. Middius]

Sillybot whines again.

> He certainly seems the malignant little fellow.
> I wonder if anyone here will miss him when he casts
> off this mortal coil. And how many will be glad.

Just for that, Silly, I'm cutting you out of my will.

[ScottW]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> oups.com
>
> > George took his schtick to a
> > level Arny couldn't even aspire too.
>
> Delusions of omniscience noted.
>
> Beleive it or not, the universe is full of places I choose not to go.

Really good Arny.... now you want to engage in darkside diving
bravado.

Did it ever occur to you that there are some things it isn't good to
be better at or more capable of?

ScottW

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> oups.com
>>
>>> George took his schtick to a
>>> level Arny couldn't even aspire too.
>>
>> Delusions of omniscience noted.

Scott mustn't get it.

>> Beleive it or not, the universe is full of places I
>> choose not to go.

> Really good Arny.... now you want to engage in
> darkside diving bravado.

?????

> Did it ever occur to you that there are some things it
> isn't good to be better at or more capable of?

More than just occur to me - I live it.

[Ruud Broens]

"Arny Krueger" > wreute in message
...
:: Yes Mike has the brains of a goose, a pig, and some othen nonhuman animal
: namely a Middiot, each in its own little jar. Then of course he has the
: brains in his head.

GrandKruomniscienceT claim noted.
:)

[Lionel]

George Minus Middius

> BTW, dave, why did you call 4 "Mr. 7"

For the same reason I use to name you George "Minus" Middius. :-D

[dave weil]

On 25 Jan 2006 12:08:11 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:

>> Since you apparently have no knowledge about his thoughts about this,
>
> Spin spin... none conveyed to me privately that I will share with you.

Well then, I guess we can throw out any of your comments or references
about private correspondences with Mr. Johnston. It's as if you never
had any...

[dave weil]

On 25 Jan 2006 12:08:11 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:

> However the google record paints a picture for anyone who cares to
>see.

You mean like this (jj is the non-careted speaker)?

In article >,

Arny Krüger > wrote:
>You rather grossly underspecified what you wanted.

I had no trouble carrying it out in matlab.

>You often are very vague in these things.

That's because the details, to a great extent, don't matter.

>It looks like you don't try this stuff before you recommend it, you
>just toss something out.

Be careful, Arny, you're starting to get me irritated. George
will have to come and defend you some more.

>Then you accuse people of making gross errors.

I didn't accuse you of that. I said "something is wrong".
I'm not running your experiment, you are. I have no idea what
could be going on. I've done this more than a few times, there
is some (or was) some single-tone stuff out there on
somebody's web site already. Think, arny, when that
50Hz tone is right on a decision level, how much of the .5 peak sine
wave
do you see? When it's directly between decision levels, how
much do you see. Hmm, you know, it could be a roundoff thing. Try .45
peak,
just to be sure of that.

>Intellectual dishonesty, anybody?

Arny, that's quite enough.
-------------------

Now, that's one of the first references that I came up with when
typing the word "Arny" into google groups search with
rec.audio.opinion and thesimple letters "jj".

....and this was a full year before Mr. Johnston left RAO

Or even this:

In article <3b7204c7.4087372@news>, ScottW >
wrote:
>On Wed, 08 Aug 2001 02:27:47 GMT, "Arny Krueger" >
>wrote:
>>Mr. Bamborough I laugh in your face and JJ's face as you choke on a
>>well-verified power amplifier while carelessly accepting degraded and
>>substandard musical samples.

Now wait a (*( minute, where am I accepting "degraded and
substandard musical samples". What AM I working on right now,
Arny?

> Arny, This is exactly the kind of craziness that just makes many
>think you're nuts.

I am starting to think he's a freakin' psychopath at the minute.
--
Copyright 2001, all rights reserved, except
transmission by USENET and like facilities granted. This notice must
be included. Any use by a provider charging in any way for the IP
represented in and by this article and any inclusion in print or other
media are specifically prohibited.
___________________

Now, this was only days before he finally left. Now, considering that
he had taken a few years of George's "abuse" without leaving, it's
pretty clear that he was pretty fed up with Arnold's BS, which is all
that I was saying. And I'll be happy to back it up with private
comments from jj if you demand. Of couse, you would *never* do that,
would you, Mr. W?



--

[Clyde Slick]

"Powell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" wrote
>
>> >> Had RAO been overwhelmingly objectivist when he
>> >> first started posting here, he'd probably be vigorously
>> >> attacking subjectivists to this day.
>> >>
>> > And yet you keep fighting *what is.* Why is that?
>>
>> Which *what is* might that be? ;-)
>>
> The "what is" is acceptance of other opinions
> without the emotional need/desire/egotism to
> discredit the massager.
>
> You've mellowed some over the years but there
> are glaciers that are melting faster. :)
>

Arnie is impervious to global warming.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"ScottW" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> dave weil wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:39:56 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> Of course, not all
>> >> subjectivists resort to insults or abusive posts--e.g.,
>> >> Jenn. If only all subjectivists were like Jenn, then
>> >> this forum could be a place for civilized debate.
>> >
>> >Jeen plays here own sick little game of pretentious superiority based on
>> >a
>> >deep dark secret that she can talk about but can't reveal. She's
>> >obviously a
>> >sockpuppet, but whose?
>>
>> See, THIS is exactly why you're ignoring the REAL problem around here,
>> Mr. 7.
>>
>> If you could get past your enabling of the above poster, you'd come a
>> little closer to understand why some feel compelled to be as
>> outrageous as possible.
>
> You mean people who can only endure their own pathetic insecure lives
> by fixating on and magnifying someone else's own disturbing issues?
>
>>
>> You can ask people like the mild-mannered Paul Packer what happens if
>> you disagree with Mr. Krueger. Even James Johnston, whom you might or
>> might not remember (former member of Bell Labs and a leading
>> "objectivist" most of the time and one of the leading researchers in
>> perceptual coding), was eventually sickened by Mr. Krueger's behavior
>> by the end of his tenure here on RAO.
>
> Don't BS Dave. JJ had plenty of exchanges with Arny and despised
> Arny's constant diminishment of others in a futile attempt to prop up
> his own ego... but in the long run... the constant harrassment of
> George was just as tiresome for him to deal with and as much or more of
> a reason for his departure.
>
> For those who weren't around at the time... just do a google search
> of this group and Phoebe. You'll find George vendetta along with
> posts like this
> where JJ expresses his opinion of Georges civility.
>
> ScottW
>
There was nothing more obvious than JJ's disgust at George's antics.
Of course JJ is a smart guy so why wouldn't he ever thnk anything else othe
than George is a disgusting troll.

You gotta wonder how empty a life he must have if his antics here are any
clue of his character.

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote in message
> ink.net
>
>> You seem to be compltely unaware of the fact that being
>> called some sort of rude name by you is actually a badge
>> of honor, it means that that person is probably saying
>> something correct that goes against the audiophool world
>> view.
>
> Wasn't George's first such target "Phoebe"? ;-)
>
I don't recall who was first, only that anybody that has a rational view of
audio and who relies on what can be demonstrated in any kind of bias
controlled listening, is automatically on George's **** list and is forever
after given a derisive name and snotty treatment along with attack posts.

It's simple, George hates that anybody has higher standards of proof for
audio decisions.
If you disagree consistently with George, you might as well have a target
painted on your back.
It is impossible to think of the sewer that is RAO without mentioning
George's nom de usenet.
Zip was bad, but occasionally helpful even if disingenuous most of the time,
but George has taken being pig like to a new low.

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> duh-Mikey babbles on.
>
>> > Mmmmm.... Nice try, Scooter, but Mikey is still dumber. Keep plugging
>> > away though -- a few more splatters of stupidity like this and maybe
>> > we'll make you an Honorary Bug Eater.
>
>> You seem to be compltely unaware of the fact that being called some sort
>> of
>> rude name by you is actually a badge of honor, it means that that person
>> is
>> probably saying something correct that goes against the audiophool world
>> view.
>
> Mickey, are you some kind of interspecies experiment like the ones
> depicted in "O Lucky Man"? We don't really know how far Dr. Kroomacher
> took his iuhuman experiments, you know. Do you have the brain of a
> goose, or a pig, or some other nonhuman animal?
>
>
>
You're slipping George. You used to be better, perhaps whoever pulls your
strings is getting worn out with all the other puppets.

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
>
>> Powell > wrote:
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" wrote
>>
>>>>>> Had RAO been overwhelmingly objectivist when he
>>>>>> first started posting here, he'd probably be
>>>>>> vigorously attacking subjectivists to this day.
>>>>>>
>>>>> And yet you keep fighting *what is.* Why is that?
>>>>
>>>> Which *what is* might that be? ;-)
>>>>
>>> The "what is" is acceptance of other opinions
>>> without the emotional need/desire/egotism to
>>> discredit the massager.
>>
>> There are opinions, and there are facts.
>
> Not to radical subjectivists, it seems.
>
> To them, everything is an opinion and a preference.
>
> Does I=E/R? Does F = MA? Only if it makes you feel good. ;-)
>
>> There doesn't seem to be much distinction between the
>> two here. Indeed, there's a vocal camp who seems
>> to think we can't really know much of *anything*
>> about audio at the level of *fact*. "Science?
>> Engineering? Bah.
>
> See George's rants against audio tests.
>
>> What can *they* tell us
>> about the beautiful sound of an expensive cable."
>
> If there are no such things as facts, then nobody can be proven wrong with
> facts.
>
>> How conveeenient. And pathetic.
>
> It's the "me" generation.
>
If there are no such things as facts you couldn't know that.

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
> 124 > wrote:
>> [George M. Middius's abusive post deleted.]
>> George should have left this forum years
>> ago. Almost all of his posts here are abusive.
>
>
> He certainly seems the malignant little fellow.
> I wonder if anyone here will miss him when he casts
> off this mortal coil. And how many will be glad.
>
I don't think he'd like the results of such a poll.
>
> --
> -S
> "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison
> (1788)

[dave weil]

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 00:14:02 GMT, > wrote:

>Zip was bad, but occasionally helpful even if disingenuous most of the time,
>but George has taken being pig like to a new low.

He's no match for Arnold, who just today went after someone who has
actually worked with a woman who hopefully you actually have a CD
from, mostly because she actually has the gall to like vinyl.

[dave weil]

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:56:02 GMT, > wrote:

>There was nothing more obvious than JJ's disgust at George's antics.
>Of course JJ is a smart guy

Which is why he wrote such things about Arny like:

"I am starting to think he's a freakin' psychopath at the minute".

Google is your friend...

[George M. Middius]

dave weil said:

> >Zip was bad, but occasionally helpful even if disingenuous most of the time,
> >but George has taken being pig like to a new low.
>
> He's no match for Arnold, who just today went after someone who has
> actually worked with a woman who hopefully you actually have a CD
> from, mostly because she actually has the gall to like vinyl.

Didn't Mr. **** just say that he could out-clever me if he wanted to? Of
course Scottie Terrierborg was right there to rescue Krooger by
pretending to talk him out of trying.....

[George M. Middius]

duh-Mikey rallies to the western front.

> I don't think he'd like the results of such a poll.

Mickey, this kind of comment is what Arnii Kroofeces calls a "death
threat". If you don't believe me, look it up in Goggle™.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
>>
>>> Powell > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Arny Krueger" wrote
>>>
>>>>>>> Had RAO been overwhelmingly objectivist when he
>>>>>>> first started posting here, he'd probably be
>>>>>>> vigorously attacking subjectivists to this day.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> And yet you keep fighting *what is.* Why is that?
>>>>>
>>>>> Which *what is* might that be? ;-)
>>>>>
>>>> The "what is" is acceptance of other opinions
>>>> without the emotional need/desire/egotism to
>>>> discredit the massager.
>>>
>>> There are opinions, and there are facts.
>>
>> Not to radical subjectivists, it seems.
>>
>> To them, everything is an opinion and a preference.
>>
>> Does I=E/R? Does F = MA? Only if it makes you feel good. ;-)
>>
>>> There doesn't seem to be much distinction between the
>>> two here. Indeed, there's a vocal camp who seems
>>> to think we can't really know much of *anything*
>>> about audio at the level of *fact*. "Science?
>>> Engineering? Bah.
>>
>> See George's rants against audio tests.
>>
>>> What can *they* tell us
>>> about the beautiful sound of an expensive cable."
>>
>> If there are no such things as facts, then nobody can be proven wrong
>> with facts.
>>
>>> How conveeenient. And pathetic.
>>
>> It's the "me" generation.
>>
> If there are no such things as facts you couldn't know that.
>

"There are things you know, and there are things you know you don't
know, and there are things you don't know you don't know"

Don Rumsfeld.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[ScottW]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On 25 Jan 2006 12:08:11 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> However the google record paints a picture for anyone who cares to
>>see.
>
> You mean like this (jj is the non-careted speaker)?
>
> In article >,
>
> Arny Krüger > wrote:
>>You rather grossly underspecified what you wanted.
>
> I had no trouble carrying it out in matlab.
>
>>You often are very vague in these things.
>
> That's because the details, to a great extent, don't matter.
>
>>It looks like you don't try this stuff before you recommend it, you
>>just toss something out.
>
> Be careful, Arny, you're starting to get me irritated. George
> will have to come and defend you some more.
>
>>Then you accuse people of making gross errors.
>
> I didn't accuse you of that. I said "something is wrong".
> I'm not running your experiment, you are. I have no idea what
> could be going on. I've done this more than a few times, there
> is some (or was) some single-tone stuff out there on
> somebody's web site already. Think, arny, when that
> 50Hz tone is right on a decision level, how much of the .5 peak sine
> wave
> do you see? When it's directly between decision levels, how
> much do you see. Hmm, you know, it could be a roundoff thing. Try .45
> peak,
> just to be sure of that.
>
>>Intellectual dishonesty, anybody?
>
> Arny, that's quite enough.
> -------------------
>
> Now, that's one of the first references that I came up with when
> typing the word "Arny" into google groups search with
> rec.audio.opinion and thesimple letters "jj".
>
> ...and this was a full year before Mr. Johnston left RAO
>
> Or even this:
>
> In article <3b7204c7.4087372@news>, ScottW >
> wrote:
>>On Wed, 08 Aug 2001 02:27:47 GMT, "Arny Krueger" >
>>wrote:
>>>Mr. Bamborough I laugh in your face and JJ's face as you choke on a
>>>well-verified power amplifier while carelessly accepting degraded and
>>>substandard musical samples.
>
> Now wait a (*( minute, where am I accepting "degraded and
> substandard musical samples". What AM I working on right now,
> Arny?
>
>> Arny, This is exactly the kind of craziness that just makes many
>>think you're nuts.
>
> I am starting to think he's a freakin' psychopath at the minute.
> --
> Copyright 2001, all rights reserved, except
> transmission by USENET and like facilities granted. This notice must
> be included. Any use by a provider charging in any way for the IP
> represented in and by this article and any inclusion in print or other
> media are specifically prohibited.
> ___________________
>
> Now, this was only days before he finally left.

I see... so perhaps Arny was the straw that broke the camels back after
Middius dumped tons of crap on 'em for years.

>Now, considering that
> he had taken a few years of George's "abuse" without leaving, it's
> pretty clear that he was pretty fed up with Arnold's BS, which is all
> that I was saying. And I'll be happy to back it up with private
> comments from jj if you demand. Of couse, you would *never* do that,
> would you, Mr. W?

What a silly game you play Weil, you'd actually let me dictate your
decision in this matter. I'd prefer you follow your own moral compass,
hopefully you won't get too dizzy.

In the meantime we can play dueling quotes ad infinitum.

I find this reference to George very revealing in
Message-ID:

"Well, yes, I can certainly understand that method of reading (as it
were) his material. I did this for many years, until it was
clear that his poison was leaking far, far beyond the newsgroup,
and that he was at least passively encouraging it. "

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> oups.com
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>> oups.com
>>>
>>>> George took his schtick to a
>>>> level Arny couldn't even aspire too.
>>>
>>> Delusions of omniscience noted.
>
> Scott mustn't get it.
>
>>> Beleive it or not, the universe is full of places I
>>> choose not to go.
>
>> Really good Arny.... now you want to engage in
>> darkside diving bravado.
>
> ?????
>
>> Did it ever occur to you that there are some things it
>> isn't good to be better at or more capable of?
>
> More than just occur to me - I live it.

Good, now act it on usenet.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> dave weil said:
>
>> >Zip was bad, but occasionally helpful even if disingenuous most of the
>> >time,
>> >but George has taken being pig like to a new low.
>>
>> He's no match for Arnold, who just today went after someone who has
>> actually worked with a woman who hopefully you actually have a CD
>> from, mostly because she actually has the gall to like vinyl.
>
> Didn't Mr. **** just say that he could out-clever me if he wanted to?

Nothing clever about your dung dispensing AFAIAC. But silly Arny is never
one to pass up a challenge.

You two remind me of fear factor contestants who eat slugs for a chance at
50K except your reward is much much less.

ScottW

[George M. Middius]

"Woof!" said the Terrierborg. And the fleas danced in glee.

> You two remind me of fear factor contestants who eat slugs for a chance at
> 50K except your reward is much much less.

Thanks Mr. Witlessmongrel for admitting that conversing with you is
equivalent to eating slugs.

[ScottW]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> "Woof!" said the Terrierborg. And the fleas danced in glee.
>
>> You two remind me of fear factor contestants who eat slugs for a chance
>> at
>> 50K except your reward is much much less.
>
> Thanks Mr. Witlessmongrel for admitting that conversing with you is
> equivalent to eating slugs.

I thought you were spitting slugs.... either way... they're in your mouth.

ScottW

[paul packer]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "paul packer" > wrote in message
> oups.com
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>> Of course, not all
> >>> subjectivists resort to insults or abusive posts--e.g.,
> >>> Jenn. If only all subjectivists were like Jenn, then
> >>> this forum could be a place for civilized debate.
> >>
> >> Jeen plays here own sick little game of pretentious
> >> superiority based on a deep dark secret that she can
> >> talk about but can't reveal. She's obviously a
> >> sockpuppet, but whose?
> >
> > Arnie, how come you can spell "pretentious superiority"
> > correctly, yet can't spell "Jenn" or 'her"? Just asking.
>
> > And please don't correct the spelling in your reply.
>
> Hmm, someone is well known (or at least readily knowable) to be using
> Outlook Express on a machine that like zillions of other computers, also has
> MS Office installed. Does that suggest something to you, Paul?

Doesn't suggest a thing, Arnie. Perhaps you'd like to drop the aura of
superiority and explain.

[paul packer]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "paul packer" > wrote in message
> oups.com
>
> > Actually Arnie has never bothered me, which news I'm sure
> > will come as a severe blow to him.
>
> Just goes to show how wrong you can be, Paul.

Yet you have been a nasty little boy, Arnie. You must've hoped some of
the barbs would get through.

> > He just doesn't have
> > the intellectual penetration or, I suspect, the
> > imagination to really hurt.
>
> The fact that you sat back and thought this up says a lot about you, Paul.

Actually I just wrote it off the top of my head. It was all so salient
no thinking was involved.

But tell us what you think it says about me anyway. ;-)

[paul packer]

George M. Middius wrote:
> > That's a little mean. Arnie has talents; he just has no imagination, no
> > self-awareness and almost no sense of humour.
>
> I'll agree with the latter two, but as to Krooger's alleged talents, I
> haven't seen any. Certainly not in the area of social interaction,
> ability to express himself, or artistic design (have you seen his
> horrible web sites?). He can't reason abstractly, he's a compulsive
> liar, and then there's the whole paranoia thing that drives him to
> *argue with himself* on many occasions. From what I've seen, he's
> terrible at imparting the fragments of knowledge he's gleaned: Aside
> from the incessant snottiness, every time the discussion turns even
> slightly technical, he gets tripped up, and then the "debating trade"
> dance begins. Mr. **** has never designed a single audio component,
> notwithstanding his incessant bleating about the flaws of other people's
> designs. His understanding of "tests" is a joke, according to some
> genuine experts in the field. And I'm sure you've seen the admixture of
> random nonsense and lies the Krooborg tries to sell as "science".
>
> So tell me, paulie, what are Krooger's "talents"?

Don't be stubborn, George. We all know Arnie has acute personality
problems but it's silly to deny he's managed a reasonable grasp of
certain areas of electronics. OK, maybe his knowledge isn't as certain
or all-encompassing as he'd like to think, but it's not as
insignificant as you're suggesting. You know, if you totally deny your
enemy any talent or virtue whatsoever, the question arises why you're
wasting your time on such an unworthy person in the first place, not to
mention how he's managed to withstand your attacks for so long. I mean,
even Robert was happy to estimate Arnie's IQ at around 140, and that
was after Arnie had deliberately pressed several of Robert's clearly
marked red buttons. So...now's the moment to be generous, George. Let's
see you allow Arnie just one small virtue. After all, no-one's all bad.

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> > So tell me, paulie, what are Krooger's "talents"?
>
> Don't be stubborn, George. We all know Arnie has acute personality
> problems but it's silly to deny he's managed a reasonable grasp of
> certain areas of electronics.
[snip blah-blah-blah]


Any reason you keep referring to Krooger's alleged talents without
actually mentioning them?

[Pooh Bear]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> paul packer said:
>
> > > So tell me, paulie, what are Krooger's "talents"?
> >
> > Don't be stubborn, George. We all know Arnie has acute personality
> > problems but it's silly to deny he's managed a reasonable grasp of
> > certain areas of electronics.
> [snip blah-blah-blah]
>
> Any reason you keep referring to Krooger's alleged talents without
> actually mentioning them?

Not much point in your case since you wouldn't recognise talent if it
smacked you full in the face.

Graham

[George M. Middius]

Poopie is still in a rage.

> > Any reason you keep referring to Krooger's alleged talents without
> > actually mentioning them?

> Not much point in your case since you wouldn't recognise talent if it
> smacked you full in the face.

You sound more and more like duh-Mikey every day. Could this be the RAO
Effect, or perhaps a side-effect of a Kroopologism infection?

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:SQWBf.58247$0G.26458@dukeread10
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> oups.com
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>>> oups.com
>>>>
>>>>> George took his schtick to a
>>>>> level Arny couldn't even aspire too.
>>>>
>>>> Delusions of omniscience noted.
>>
>> Scott mustn't get it.
>>
>>>> Beleive it or not, the universe is full of places I
>>>> choose not to go.
>>
>>> Really good Arny.... now you want to engage in
>>> darkside diving bravado.
>>
>> ?????
>>
>>> Did it ever occur to you that there are some things it
>>> isn't good to be better at or more capable of?
>>
>> More than just occur to me - I live it.
>
> Good, now act it on usenet.

Show me how you do it, Scotty.

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
oups.com

> Don't be stubborn, George. We all know Arnie has acute
> personality problems

Troll, troll, troll.

It's obvious that Packer is completely oblivious to his own acute
personality problems.

>but it's silly to deny he's managed
> a reasonable grasp of certain areas of electronics. OK,
> maybe his knowledge isn't as certain or all-encompassing
> as he'd like to think, but it's not as insignificant as
> you're suggesting.

LOL - two audio ignoramouses discussing someone else's knowlege of
electronics when neither knows an ohm from a volt.

> You know, if you totally deny your
> enemy any talent or virtue whatsoever, the question
> arises why you're wasting your time on such an unworthy
> person in the first place, not to mention how he's
> managed to withstand your attacks for so long.

In the case of George as my target - that's easy to understand. If a target
is dumb enough and determined, it just keeps coming regardless.

> I mean,
> even Robert was happy to estimate Arnie's IQ at around
> 140, and that was after Arnie had deliberately pressed
> several of Robert's clearly marked red buttons.

The interestnig challenge is to find some part of Robert's psyche that isn't
a red button. ;-)

> So...now's the moment to be generous, George. Let's see
> you allow Arnie just one small virtue. After all,
> no-one's all bad.

On the scales of unreasoning self-righteousness and lack of personal
insight, its hard to figure out which of you is more troubled, Paul. Is it
you or George?

[Arny Krueger]

"Pooh Bear" > wrote
in message
> "George M. Middius" wrote:
>
>> paul packer said:
>>
>>>> So tell me, paulie, what are Krooger's "talents"?
>>>
>>> Don't be stubborn, George. We all know Arnie has acute
>>> personality problems but it's silly to deny he's
>>> managed a reasonable grasp of certain areas of
>>> electronics.
>> [snip blah-blah-blah]
>>
>> Any reason you keep referring to Krooger's alleged
>> talents without actually mentioning them?
>
> Not much point in your case since you wouldn't recognise
> talent if it smacked you full in the face.

Actually he recognizes it as well as a person with his near-total absence of
ability in the area could. He just makes a point of acting like it wasn't
there. It's part of his schtick.

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
oups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "paul packer" > wrote in message
>> oups.com
>>
>>> Actually Arnie has never bothered me, which news I'm
>>> sure will come as a severe blow to him.
>>
>> Just goes to show how wrong you can be, Paul.
>
> Yet you have been a nasty little boy, Arnie. You must've
> hoped some of the barbs would get through.

What barbs?

>>> He just doesn't have
>>> the intellectual penetration or, I suspect, the
>>> imagination to really hurt.

>> The fact that you sat back and thought this up says a
>> lot about you, Paul.

> Actually I just wrote it off the top of my head. It was
> all so salient no thinking was involved.

Thanks for admitting that you don't think about what you write, Paul. I
thought maybe you were like George, and acting that stupid on purpose.

> But tell us what you think it says about me anyway. ;-)

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
ink.net
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> > wrote in message
>> ink.net
>>
>>> You seem to be compltely unaware of the fact that being
>>> called some sort of rude name by you is actually a badge
>>> of honor, it means that that person is probably saying
>>> something correct that goes against the audiophool world
>>> view.
>>
>> Wasn't George's first such target "Phoebe"? ;-)
>>
> I don't recall who was first, only that anybody that has
> a rational view of audio and who relies on what can be
> demonstrated in any kind of bias controlled listening, is
> automatically on George's **** list and is forever after
> given a derisive name and snotty treatment along with
> attack posts.

You're being way too ideological. George isn't about hating science, George
is about being the life of the party.

> It's simple, George hates that anybody has higher
> standards of proof for audio decisions.

No, George hates anybody who is more popular or in some sense better, than
he is.


> If you disagree consistently with George, you might as
> well have a target painted on your back.

Agreed. And, as Scotty shows, you don't even have to be consistent.

> It is impossible to think of the sewer that is RAO
> without mentioning George's nom de usenet.

Yes, George and his predecessors made the place into the wasteland that it
is.

> Zip was bad, but occasionally helpful even if
> disingenuous most of the time, but George has taken being
> pig like to a new low.

There's no comparison between George and Zip. I didn't like Zip but he
showed signs of having a human personality with some streaks of normalicy.
George is simply a fabrication, made by a blithering idiot.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
ink.net

> You're slipping George. You used to be better, perhaps
> whoever pulls your strings is getting worn out with all
> the other puppets.

No, he's just getting old and bored with his creations.

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message


> "There are things you know, and there are things you know
> you don't know, and there are things you don't know you
> don't know"

> Don Rumsfeld.

Someone who shows signs of thinking, or at least listening to people who
think, from time to time.

[Pooh Bear]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> Poopie is still in a rage.
>
> > > Any reason you keep referring to Krooger's alleged talents without
> > > actually mentioning them?
>
> > Not much point in your case since you wouldn't recognise talent if it
> > smacked you full in the face.
>
> You sound more and more like duh-Mikey every day. Could this be the RAO
> Effect, or perhaps a side-effect of a Kroopologism infection?

Go boil your head in a vat of acid you blathering idiot.

Graham

[George M. Middius]

Poopie explodes in a titanic paroxysm of unrelieved constipation.

> > You sound more and more like duh-Mikey every day. Could this be the RAO
> > Effect, or perhaps a side-effect of a Kroopologism infection?

> Go boil your head in a vat of acid you blathering idiot.

You're so mad that you misspoke, Poophead. I think this is definitely a
Kroopologism problem. People who take on the burden of supporting the
monumentally fecal cacatron often get twisted up in frustration and rage.
Why should an otherwise somewhat rational individual be caught up in
defending the indefensible? You're doing it to yourself, Poopie. Do you
want to descend into incoherence like Mikey has? Do you want to be known
as one of the Usenet idiots who's so enslaved by a bankrupt ideology that
he'd choose alignment with Arnii Krooborg rather than just enjoying his
stereo? The writing is on the wall. Take heed if you still can.

[Pooh Bear]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> Poopie explodes in a titanic paroxysm of unrelieved constipation.
>
> > > You sound more and more like duh-Mikey every day. Could this be the RAO
> > > Effect, or perhaps a side-effect of a Kroopologism infection?
>
> > Go boil your head in a vat of acid you blathering idiot.
>
> You're so mad that you misspoke, Poophead. I think this is definitely a

Go boil your head in a vat of acid you blathering idiot.

Graham

[Steven Sullivan]

ScottW > wrote:


> >I think that YOU are being selective in your
> > interpretation of the facts.

> As I said... don't take my word for it.... check the google archives.

> If Phoebe doesn't provide enough hits to convince... try telco
> witch.

to wit, jj re: middius:

///

jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Jan 26 2000, 3:00 am show options
Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
From: (jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist) - Find messages by this author
Date: 2000/01/26
Subject: Re: Phoebe the Lying Telco Witch Dissembles Anew
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse

In article >, SurfShop > wrote:
>> ....It implies that my sole or primary
>> purpose is to inflame Witchy emotionally. And that is not true.
>While it may not be your "sole or primary purpose", it sure seems
>like a very high objective.

Well, actually, as far as I can see, other than pushing
Arny the K's buttons, it seems to be his only objective
presently in the newsgroup.

And this from someone who claimed to be honest a few months ago,
and who was caught in a half-dozen outright lies the other
night.

I dunno.

>In fact, you're probably not even an important person outside of
>your own mind and a small faction of this newsgroup.

Actually, I think his relentless nature comes about because he truly
does understand his insignificance.


///




So, taking a gander at the cohort that finds Middius amusing,
and the cohort who find him loathsome, personally,
I'd rather be among the one that includes jj.




--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

[Steven Sullivan]

dave weil > wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:56:02 GMT, > wrote:

> >There was nothing more obvious than JJ's disgust at George's antics.
> >Of course JJ is a smart guy

> Which is why he wrote such things about Arny like:

> "I am starting to think he's a freakin' psychopath at the minute".

whereas he seems to have concluded that about Middius long before.




--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

[dave weil]

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 15:39:33 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
> wrote:

>dave weil > wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:56:02 GMT, > wrote:
>
>> >There was nothing more obvious than JJ's disgust at George's antics.
>> >Of course JJ is a smart guy
>
>> Which is why he wrote such things about Arny like:
>
>> "I am starting to think he's a freakin' psychopath at the minute".
>
>whereas he seems to have concluded that about Middius long before.

And yet he didn't leave the newsgroup for that "long time", now did
he?

[Arny Krueger]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message



> So, taking a gander at the cohort that finds Middius
> amusing,
> and the cohort who find him loathsome, personally,
> I'd rather be among the one that includes jj.

JJ was sort of caught in a web of cognitive dissonance near the end. He was
obviously quite taken with Shain, and Shain was quite taken with Middius.

[Arny Krueger]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message


> dave weil > wrote:

>> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:56:02 GMT, >
>> wrote:

>>> There was nothing more obvious than JJ's disgust at
>>> George's antics. Of course JJ is a smart guy

>> Which is why he wrote such things about Arny like:

>> "I am starting to think he's a freakin' psychopath at
>> the minute".

JJ gets a mixed opinion in some circles on the grounds that he went to far
out of his way to find some kind of validity no matter how tiny and tainted,
in golden ear claims.

Playing a game called "What do you really think about that" with JJ could be
pretty frustrating.

He would also sieze on some pretty obscure examples to throw cold water on
conventional wisdom, such as the (in) audibility of phase shift.

> whereas he seems to have concluded that about Middius
> long before.

I think there was a pretty strong effort to get JJ to go over to the dark
side, which he did give into to some degree in the end.

[George M. Middius]

dave weil said:

> >> "I am starting to think he's a freakin' psychopath at the minute".

> >whereas he seems to have concluded that about Middius long before.

> And yet he didn't leave the newsgroup for that "long time", now did he?

If Sillybot thought I was a dangerous psychopath, why would he continue to
post on RAO, which would surely tempt me into venting my hypothetical
psychotic rage in his direction?

Phoebe was full of bogus accusations against me. At various times, she
accused me of harassing her at work (that actually happened, but the
perpetrator was Bwian), of "stalking" her on various Usenet groups and
other forums, and of trying to arrange for her home and/or vehicles to be
vandalized. Not a shred of evidence was ever offered in support of these
wild accusations.

[Steven Sullivan]

dave weil > wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 15:39:33 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
> > wrote:

> >dave weil > wrote:
> >> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:56:02 GMT, > wrote:
> >
> >> >There was nothing more obvious than JJ's disgust at George's antics.
> >> >Of course JJ is a smart guy
> >
> >> Which is why he wrote such things about Arny like:
> >
> >> "I am starting to think he's a freakin' psychopath at the minute".
> >
> >whereas he seems to have concluded that about Middius long before.

> And yet he didn't leave the newsgroup for that "long time", now did
> he?

So, assume it *is* as you say, if there's a straw that breaks the camel's back, the
rest of the straws didn't contribute to the load? Clearly JJ thought Middius
was a raging dick long before the post you cited about Arny. Clearly he agreed with
Arny FAR more than he ever agreed with the malignant one.

And as for leaving, JJ pretty much left the *internet*, period, and AFAIK that
wasn't down to Arny or Middius.


--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

[Powell]

"Arny Krueger" wrote

> > While I was the first user you gave me the idea for
> > the nomenclature Broke-A$$® back in the 1990's.
>
> The irony comes when we consider the real world,
> exemplified by our respective approaches to recording.
>
"irony"... as in an outcome of events contrary to
what was, or might have been expected?


> > Unfortunately I had to drop your handle
> > (mr. No-Show®) last year. :)
>
> Just goes to show that you were wrong on both
> points all along.
>
No, I don’t think so. Neither party (Atkinson/you)
got what they thought they were getting/achieving.
You both acted like a couple of hicks parleying
without a written agreement. I could only shake my
head at the fallout afterwards. It would never happen
in my world, sugar pants.

[Powell]

"George M. Middius" wrote

> Phoebe was full of bogus accusations against me.
>
Yea, he was a 1st order hack and ripped-off AT&T,
his employer. He was terminated from his position,
no?

[ScottW]

George M. Middius wrote:
> dave weil said:
>
> > >> "I am starting to think he's a freakin' psychopath at the minute".
>
> > >whereas he seems to have concluded that about Middius long before.
>
> > And yet he didn't leave the newsgroup for that "long time", now did he?
>
> If Sillybot thought I was a dangerous psychopath, why would he continue to
> post on RAO, which would surely tempt me into venting my hypothetical
> psychotic rage in his direction?

Not a dangerous psychopath... an impotent psychopath.
You in the real world is like Singh in a locker room.

ScottW

[Arny Krueger]

"Powell" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" wrote
>
>>> While I was the first user you gave me the idea for
>>> the nomenclature Broke-A$$® back in the 1990's.
>>
>> The irony comes when we consider the real world,
>> exemplified by our respective approaches to recording.
>>
> "irony"... as in an outcome of events contrary to
> what was, or might have been expected?

No, economics.

>>> Unfortunately I had to drop your handle
>>> (mr. No-Show®) last year. :)

>> Just goes to show that you were wrong on both
>> points all along.

> No, I don’t think so. Neither party (Atkinson/you)
> got what they thought they were getting/achieving.


I thought I was achieving an expenses-paid trip to New York and HE2005 at
the cost of 1 hour's work.

Note that the former offer was Chicago, which I go to often by accident.

> You both acted like a couple of hicks parleying
> without a written agreement.

The absence of a writen agreement, I can confirm but so what?

> I could only shake my
> head at the fallout afterwards. It would never happen
> in my world, sugar pants.

Well sweet stuff, there's a reason why you never had the right to refuse.
Something about lack of a coherent position.

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 00:14:02 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>Zip was bad, but occasionally helpful even if disingenuous most of the
>>time,
>>but George has taken being pig like to a new low.
>
> He's no match for Arnold, who just today went after someone who has
> actually worked with a woman who hopefully you actually have a CD
> from, mostly because she actually has the gall to like vinyl.

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 00:14:02 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>Zip was bad, but occasionally helpful even if disingenuous most of the
>>time,
>>but George has taken being pig like to a new low.
>
> He's no match for Arnold, who just today went after someone who has
> actually worked with a woman who hopefully you actually have a CD
> from, mostly because she actually has the gall to like vinyl.

Trying to make some sort of moral equivilance between George's behavior and
Arny's only serves to make you look insane.

What help has George ever given anybody on RAO, ever?
His sole reason for being here is to riducle.
No matter what you think of Arny's antics, he has almost always been helpful
to anybody who asked. George is simply a pig.

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> duh-Mikey rallies to the western front.
>
>> I don't think he'd like the results of such a poll.
>
> Mickey, this kind of comment is what Arnii Kroofeces calls a "death
> threat". If you don't believe me, look it up in GoggleT.
>
>
I don't believe you. You are a swine.
In another time, you'd be hunted down and beaten to death.
I'm still not sure if that makes this a better time or not. :-)

[dave weil]

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 16:53:49 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
> wrote:

>So, assume it *is* as you say, if there's a straw that breaks the camel's back, the
>rest of the straws didn't contribute to the load?

I never said that they didn't.

Why are you making stuff up?

[Powell]

"Arny Krueger" wrote

> >>> While I was the first user you gave me the idea for
> >>> the nomenclature Broke-A$$® back in the 1990's.
> >>
> >> The irony comes when we consider the real world,
> >> exemplified by our respective approaches to recording.
> >>
> > "irony"... as in an outcome of events contrary to
> > what was, or might have been expected?
>
> No, economics.
>
Uh???... what-ever.


> >>> Unfortunately I had to drop your handle
> >>> (mr. No-Show®) last year. :)
>
> >> Just goes to show that you were wrong on both
> >> points all along.
>
> > No, I don’t think so. Neither party (Atkinson/you)
> > got what they thought they were getting/achieving.
>
> I thought I was achieving an expenses-paid trip to New
> York and HE2005 at the cost of 1 hour's work.
>
"cost of 1 hour's work"... and it showed (sound track).

Who are you kidding, RAO got pages and pages of
subsequent complains by you in a peevish, self-pitying
way.


> Note that the former offer was Chicago, which I go
> to often by accident.
>
Quack, quack, quack...


> > You both acted like a couple of hicks parleying
> > without a written agreement.
>
> The absence of a writen agreement, I can confirm
> but so what?
>
You are a habitual complainer, too.


> > I could only shake my
> > head at the fallout afterwards. It would never happen
> > in my world, sugar pants.
>
> Well sweet stuff, there's a reason why you never had
> the right to refuse. Something about lack of a
> coherent position.
>
"lack of a coherent position"... Hehehe, HAHAHA!

[Steven Sullivan]

ScottW > wrote:

> George M. Middius wrote:
> > dave weil said:
> >
> > > >> "I am starting to think he's a freakin' psychopath at the minute".
> >
> > > >whereas he seems to have concluded that about Middius long before.
> >
> > > And yet he didn't leave the newsgroup for that "long time", now did he?
> >
> > If Sillybot thought I was a dangerous psychopath, why would he continue to
> > post on RAO, which would surely tempt me into venting my hypothetical
> > psychotic rage in his direction?

> Not a dangerous psychopath... an impotent psychopath.
> You in the real world is like Singh in a locker room.


So true. I don't know if it's *psychopathology* that lead George to attribute
Arny's quote to *me* -- but in any case he's too cowardly to inspire *fear*.




--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

[Steven Sullivan]

dave weil > wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 16:53:49 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
> > wrote:

> >So, assume it *is* as you say, if there's a straw that breaks the camel's back, the
> >rest of the straws didn't contribute to the load?

> I never said that they didn't.

> Why are you making stuff up?

Why can't you read?



--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

[John Atkinson]

Steven Sullivan wrote:
> dave weil > wrote:
> > And yet he didn't leave the newsgroup for that "long time", now did
> > he?
>...
> And as for leaving, JJ pretty much left the *internet*, period, and AFAIK
> that wasn't down to Arny or Middius.

I assume you are talking about JJ's decision not to post to r.a.o. Far
from leaving "the *internet* period" at that time, JJ continued to post
to both the Audio Asylum and to r.a.h-e for quite a long time after he
stopped posting to r.a.o.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[George M. Middius]

Mikey has a Special Person Moment.

> His sole reason for being here is to riducle.

Did you mean to say I want to reduce you and Arnii to tears? Just a guess.
I don't speak Idiot.

[dave weil]

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 19:30:49 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
> wrote:

>dave weil > wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 16:53:49 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
>> > wrote:
>
>> >So, assume it *is* as you say, if there's a straw that breaks the camel's back, the
>> >rest of the straws didn't contribute to the load?
>
>> I never said that they didn't.
>
>> Why are you making stuff up?
>
>Why can't you read?

You should answer that one regarding your comprehension skills before
you demand it of others...

[dave weil]

On 26 Jan 2006 11:32:33 -0800, "John Atkinson"
> wrote:

>
>Steven Sullivan wrote:
>> dave weil > wrote:
>> > And yet he didn't leave the newsgroup for that "long time", now did
>> > he?
>>...
>> And as for leaving, JJ pretty much left the *internet*, period, and AFAIK
>> that wasn't down to Arny or Middius.
>
>I assume you are talking about JJ's decision not to post to r.a.o. Far
>from leaving "the *internet* period" at that time, JJ continued to post
>to both the Audio Asylum and to r.a.h-e for quite a long time after he
>stopped posting to r.a.o.

Oooops, facts suck.

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> dave weil said:
>
>> >> "I am starting to think he's a freakin' psychopath at the minute".
>
>> >whereas he seems to have concluded that about Middius long before.
>
>> And yet he didn't leave the newsgroup for that "long time", now did he?
>
> If Sillybot thought I was a dangerous psychopath, why would he continue to
> post on RAO, which would surely tempt me into venting my hypothetical
> psychotic rage in his direction?
>
Because you don't really exist. You'd have to reveal yourself to actaully
DO anything other than your usual oinking.


> Phoebe was full of bogus accusations against me. At various times, she
> accused me of harassing her at work (that actually happened, but the
> perpetrator was Bwian),

Jeez, why would anybody think you might be a big enough asshole to do such a
thing?


of "stalking" her on various Usenet groups and
> other forums, and of trying to arrange for her home and/or vehicles to be
> vandalized. Not a shred of evidence was ever offered in support of these
> wild accusations.
>
>
The fact that you act like a swine, would of course have nothing to do with
someone believing that you might do something like that.

How many times did you make some sort of swinish comment about JJ using his
work computer to post on RAO?

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Mikey has a Special Person Moment.
>
>> His sole reason for being here is to ridiucle.
>
> Did you mean to say I want to reduce you and Arnii to tears? Just a guess.
> I don't speak Idiot.
>
>
No. I'm sure the thought of being able to do that would make you cream your
jeans, but no George, we know you are impotent.

[ScottW]

dave weil wrote:
> On 26 Jan 2006 11:32:33 -0800, "John Atkinson"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >Steven Sullivan wrote:
> >> dave weil > wrote:
> >> > And yet he didn't leave the newsgroup for that "long time", now did
> >> > he?
> >>...
> >> And as for leaving, JJ pretty much left the *internet*, period, and AFAIK
> >> that wasn't down to Arny or Middius.
> >
> >I assume you are talking about JJ's decision not to post to r.a.o. Far
> >from leaving "the *internet* period" at that time, JJ continued to post
> >to both the Audio Asylum and to r.a.h-e for quite a long time after he
> >stopped posting to r.a.o.
>
> Oooops, facts suck.

Yup... like the fact that Arny was still posting on RAHE until Sept.
'03 while JJ seems to have stopped in Dec '02 a year after he left RAO
finally in Dec. '01.

So it would appear... JJ stopped all interaction with George on RAO
but continued in a forum where Arny participated for an additional
year.

ScottW

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com
> dave weil wrote:
>> On 26 Jan 2006 11:32:33 -0800, "John Atkinson"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>>>> dave weil > wrote:
>>>>> And yet he didn't leave the newsgroup for that "long
>>>>> time", now did he?
>>>> ...
>>>> And as for leaving, JJ pretty much left the
>>>> *internet*, period, and AFAIK that wasn't down to
>>>> Arny or Middius.

It was pretty well known that he continued to post occasionially on Audio
Asylum after he stopped posting on RAO.

>>> I assume you are talking about JJ's decision not to
>>> post to r.a.o. Far from leaving "the *internet* period"
>>> at that time, JJ continued to post to both the Audio
>>> Asylum and to r.a.h-e for quite a long time after he
>>> stopped posting to r.a.o.

>> Oooops, facts suck.

> Yup... like the fact that Arny was still posting on RAHE
> until Sept. '03 while JJ seems to have stopped in Dec
> '02 a year after he left RAO finally in Dec. '01.

> So it would appear... JJ stopped all interaction with
> George on RAO but continued in a forum where Arny
> participated for an additional year.

My recollection is that JJ posted on all forums less frequently, after he
stopped posting on RAO.

I suspect his changing situation at AT&T had something to do with this.

[Steven Sullivan]

John Atkinson > wrote:

> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > dave weil > wrote:
> > > And yet he didn't leave the newsgroup for that "long time", now did
> > > he?
> >...
> > And as for leaving, JJ pretty much left the *internet*, period, and AFAIK
> > that wasn't down to Arny or Middius.

> I assume you are talking about JJ's decision not to post to r.a.o.

More generally, actually. One can't blame it *all* on Arny or George.







--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

[George M. Middius]

Slobbering stupidly, Sillybot spreads his sordid stench.

> > I assume you are talking about JJ's decision not to post to r.a.o.

> More generally, actually. One can't blame it *all* on Arny or George.

I would like to be the one who gets credit for a fatal failure of your
battery pack, Silly. Would you please be a good robot and outline the
procedure for exhausting your power supply? TIA.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>
>> "There are things you know, and there are things you know
>> you don't know, and there are things you don't know you
>> don't know"
>
>> Don Rumsfeld.
>
> Someone who shows signs of thinking, or at least listening to people who
> think, from time to time.
>

I think its piercingly perceptive.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> dave weil wrote:
>> On 26 Jan 2006 11:32:33 -0800, "John Atkinson"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Steven Sullivan wrote:
>> >> dave weil > wrote:
>> >> > And yet he didn't leave the newsgroup for that "long time", now did
>> >> > he?
>> >>...
>> >> And as for leaving, JJ pretty much left the *internet*, period, and
>> >> AFAIK
>> >> that wasn't down to Arny or Middius.
>> >
>> >I assume you are talking about JJ's decision not to post to r.a.o. Far
>> >from leaving "the *internet* period" at that time, JJ continued to post
>> >to both the Audio Asylum and to r.a.h-e for quite a long time after he
>> >stopped posting to r.a.o.
>>
>> Oooops, facts suck.
>
> Yup... like the fact that Arny was still posting on RAHE until Sept.
> '03 while JJ seems to have stopped in Dec '02 a year after he left RAO
> finally in Dec. '01.
>
> So it would appear... JJ stopped all interaction with George on RAO
> but continued in a forum where Arny participated for an additional
> year.
>
The issue with JJ and Arny was about style, hardly ever about substance, but
then as Dave has pointed out, facts suck.

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> >> "There are things you know, and there are things you know
> >> you don't know, and there are things you don't know you
> >> don't know"

> I think its piercingly perceptive.

Yes, Rummy should get credit for stating the obvious reasonably concisely
without belaboring it.

[paul packer]

George M. Middius wrote:
> paul packer said:
>
> > > So tell me, paulie, what are Krooger's "talents"?
> >
> > Don't be stubborn, George. We all know Arnie has acute personality
> > problems but it's silly to deny he's managed a reasonable grasp of
> > certain areas of electronics.

> [snip blah-blah-blah]

The message is in the blah-blah-blah, George. Read it again.

[Arny Krueger]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message

> John Atkinson > wrote:
>
>> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>>> dave weil > wrote:
>>>> And yet he didn't leave the newsgroup for that "long
>>>> time", now did he?
>>> ...
>>> And as for leaving, JJ pretty much left the *internet*,
>>> period, and AFAIK that wasn't down to Arny or Middius.
>
>> I assume you are talking about JJ's decision not to post
>> to r.a.o.
>
> More generally, actually. One can't blame it *all* on
> Arny or George.

Agreed. JJ's separation from AT&T labs had to have non-trivial effects on
his attitudes and activities. He had a lot of himself tied up in AT&T labs,
which was completely reasonable. He'd been there for a long time - AFAIK
starting not that long after graduating.

[dave weil]

On 26 Jan 2006 13:27:20 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:

>
>dave weil wrote:
>> On 26 Jan 2006 11:32:33 -0800, "John Atkinson"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Steven Sullivan wrote:
>> >> dave weil > wrote:
>> >> > And yet he didn't leave the newsgroup for that "long time", now did
>> >> > he?
>> >>...
>> >> And as for leaving, JJ pretty much left the *internet*, period, and AFAIK
>> >> that wasn't down to Arny or Middius.
>> >
>> >I assume you are talking about JJ's decision not to post to r.a.o. Far
>> >from leaving "the *internet* period" at that time, JJ continued to post
>> >to both the Audio Asylum and to r.a.h-e for quite a long time after he
>> >stopped posting to r.a.o.
>>
>> Oooops, facts suck.
>
> Yup... like the fact that Arny was still posting on RAHE until Sept.
>'03 while JJ seems to have stopped in Dec '02 a year after he left RAO
>finally in Dec. '01.
>
> So it would appear... JJ stopped all interaction with George on RAO
>but continued in a forum where Arny participated for an additional
>year.

Yes, a MODERATED forum, where Arnold couldn't play his nasty games. A
forum that Arnold eventually shunned himself because he couldn't play
his nasty games.

[paul packer]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "paul packer" > wrote in message
> oups.com
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> "paul packer" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com
> >>
> >>> Actually Arnie has never bothered me, which news I'm
> >>> sure will come as a severe blow to him.
> >>
> >> Just goes to show how wrong you can be, Paul.
> >
> > Yet you have been a nasty little boy, Arnie. You must've
> > hoped some of the barbs would get through.
>
> What barbs?

Oh Arnie. Now you really are showing profound lack of self-awareness. I
wonder why your defence so often contains evidence for the other
person's case. It's like your subconscious wants to poke a stick in
your own spokes.

> >>> He just doesn't have
> >>> the intellectual penetration or, I suspect, the
> >>> imagination to really hurt.
>
> >> The fact that you sat back and thought this up says a
> >> lot about you, Paul.
>
> > Actually I just wrote it off the top of my head. It was
> > all so salient no thinking was involved.
>
> Thanks for admitting that you don't think about what you write, Paul. I
> thought maybe you were like George, and acting that stupid on purpose.

Debating trade nonsense, Arnie. An axiom doesn't require reflection.

> > But tell us what you think it says about me anyway. ;-)
>
> ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

Do try to stay awake, Arnie. It's like debating a drowsy child.

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> "There are things you know, and there are things you
>>> know you don't know, and there are things you don't
>>> know you don't know"


>>> Don Rumsfeld.

>> Someone who shows signs of thinking, or at least
>> listening to people who think, from time to time.

> I think its piercingly perceptive.

Only to people who lack personal insight, people who have not a clue about
how the world really works. It's really like scientific thought 101. I think
I had that all pretty well figured out by 7th grade.

[Arny Krueger]

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

> Clyde Slick said:
>
>>>> "There are things you know, and there are things you
>>>> know you don't know, and there are things you don't
>>>> know you don't know"
>
>> I think its piercingly perceptive.
>
> Yes, Rummy should get credit for stating the obvious
> reasonably concisely without belaboring it.

A form of credit that most on RAO can't take for themselves.

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> > [snip blah-blah-blah]

> The message is in the blah-blah-blah, George. Read it again.

If you can't make your point any better than saying you believe Krooger
has "talent", why even bother?

This isn't much fun. Have you been reading Sillybot's 'borgish nattering
about the "necessity" of taking "tests"? Such a hypocrite, that one. He's
like that guy who annoyed Macbeth.

[Steven Sullivan]

dave weil > wrote:
> On 26 Jan 2006 13:27:20 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:

> >
> >dave weil wrote:
> >> On 26 Jan 2006 11:32:33 -0800, "John Atkinson"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Steven Sullivan wrote:
> >> >> dave weil > wrote:
> >> >> > And yet he didn't leave the newsgroup for that "long time", now did
> >> >> > he?
> >> >>...
> >> >> And as for leaving, JJ pretty much left the *internet*, period, and AFAIK
> >> >> that wasn't down to Arny or Middius.
> >> >
> >> >I assume you are talking about JJ's decision not to post to r.a.o. Far
> >> >from leaving "the *internet* period" at that time, JJ continued to post
> >> >to both the Audio Asylum and to r.a.h-e for quite a long time after he
> >> >stopped posting to r.a.o.
> >>
> >> Oooops, facts suck.
> >
> > Yup... like the fact that Arny was still posting on RAHE until Sept.
> >'03 while JJ seems to have stopped in Dec '02 a year after he left RAO
> >finally in Dec. '01.
> >
> > So it would appear... JJ stopped all interaction with George on RAO
> >but continued in a forum where Arny participated for an additional
> >year.

> Yes, a MODERATED forum, where Arnold couldn't play his nasty games. A
> forum that Arnold eventually shunned himself because he couldn't play
> his nasty games.


More importantly, where Middius has *never* been allowed to post.


--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

[George M. Middius]

Silly, haven't you learned anything from the shredding the 'borgs have
received over the years?

> > Yes, a MODERATED forum, where Arnold couldn't play his nasty games. A
> > forum that Arnold eventually shunned himself because he couldn't play
> > his nasty games.

> More importantly, where Middius has *never* been allowed to post.

If you're talking about rah-e, I've never had a post to that group
rejected by a moderator. In fact, nobody has ever prevented me from
posting anything, anywhere, at any time, ever. Got that, Stupey? ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message

> dave weil > wrote:
>> On 26 Jan 2006 13:27:20 -0800, "ScottW"
>> > wrote:
>
>>>
>>> dave weil wrote:
>>>> On 26 Jan 2006 11:32:33 -0800, "John Atkinson"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>>>>>> dave weil > wrote:
>>>>>>> And yet he didn't leave the newsgroup for that
>>>>>>> "long time", now did he?
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> And as for leaving, JJ pretty much left the
>>>>>> *internet*, period, and AFAIK that wasn't down to
>>>>>> Arny or Middius.
>>>>>
>>>>> I assume you are talking about JJ's decision not to
>>>>> post to r.a.o. Far from leaving "the *internet*
>>>>> period" at that time, JJ continued to post to both
>>>>> the Audio Asylum and to r.a.h-e for quite a long time
>>>>> after he stopped posting to r.a.o.
>>>>
>>>> Oooops, facts suck.
>>>
>>> Yup... like the fact that Arny was still posting on
>>> RAHE until Sept. '03 while JJ seems to have stopped in
>>> Dec '02 a year after he left RAO finally in Dec. '01.
>>>
>>> So it would appear... JJ stopped all interaction with
>>> George on RAO but continued in a forum where Arny
>>> participated for an additional year.
>
>> Yes, a MODERATED forum, where Arnold couldn't play his
>> nasty games. A forum that Arnold eventually shunned
>> himself because he couldn't play his nasty games.

Listening Weil whine about playing nasty games is a real hoot.

> More importantly, where Middius has *never* been allowed
> to post.

I'm not sure that Middius ever tried.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:34:03 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
> wrote:

>> Yes, a MODERATED forum, where Arnold couldn't play his nasty games. A
>> forum that Arnold eventually shunned himself because he couldn't play
>> his nasty games.
>
>
>More importantly, where Middius has *never* been allowed to post.

How do you know? That would be like me saying that you weren't allowed
to post at any number of moderated forums that you had never submitted
anything to.

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Silly, haven't you learned anything from the shredding the 'borgs have
> received over the years?
>
>> > Yes, a MODERATED forum, where Arnold couldn't play his nasty games. A
>> > forum that Arnold eventually shunned himself because he couldn't play
>> > his nasty games.
>
>> More importantly, where Middius has *never* been allowed to post.
>
> If you're talking about rah-e, I've never had a post to that group
> rejected by a moderator. In fact, nobody has ever prevented me from
> posting anything, anywhere, at any time, ever. Got that, Stupey? ;-)
>
>
Obviously indicating that you have never tried to post there, since they
require you to be on topic and non-inflammatory.

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
>
>> dave weil > wrote:
>>> On 26 Jan 2006 13:27:20 -0800, "ScottW"
>>> > wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> dave weil wrote:
>>>>> On 26 Jan 2006 11:32:33 -0800, "John Atkinson"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>>>>>>> dave weil > wrote:
>>>>>>>> And yet he didn't leave the newsgroup for that
>>>>>>>> "long time", now did he?
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> And as for leaving, JJ pretty much left the
>>>>>>> *internet*, period, and AFAIK that wasn't down to
>>>>>>> Arny or Middius.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I assume you are talking about JJ's decision not to
>>>>>> post to r.a.o. Far from leaving "the *internet*
>>>>>> period" at that time, JJ continued to post to both
>>>>>> the Audio Asylum and to r.a.h-e for quite a long time
>>>>>> after he stopped posting to r.a.o.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oooops, facts suck.
>>>>
>>>> Yup... like the fact that Arny was still posting on
>>>> RAHE until Sept. '03 while JJ seems to have stopped in
>>>> Dec '02 a year after he left RAO finally in Dec. '01.
>>>>
>>>> So it would appear... JJ stopped all interaction with
>>>> George on RAO but continued in a forum where Arny
>>>> participated for an additional year.
>>
>>> Yes, a MODERATED forum, where Arnold couldn't play his
>>> nasty games. A forum that Arnold eventually shunned
>>> himself because he couldn't play his nasty games.
>
> Listening Weil whine about playing nasty games is a real hoot.
>
>> More importantly, where Middius has *never* been allowed
>> to post.
>
> I'm not sure that Middius ever tried.
>
>
Not as the Middius persona, that's for sure.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 11:38:59 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>>Yes, a MODERATED forum, where Arnold couldn't play his
>> nasty games. A forum that Arnold eventually shunned
>>himself because he couldn't play his nasty games.
>
>Listening Weil whine about playing nasty games is a real hoot.

Aren't you supposed to be ignoring me?

[dave weil]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 11:38:59 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>> More importantly, where Middius has *never* been allowed
>> to post.
>
>I'm not sure that Middius ever tried.

Well, that makes you a little smarter than Mr. Sullivan. Small
consolation, that.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 17:10:49 GMT, > wrote:

>
>"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
>>
>>> dave weil > wrote:
>>>> On 26 Jan 2006 13:27:20 -0800, "ScottW"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> dave weil wrote:
>>>>>> On 26 Jan 2006 11:32:33 -0800, "John Atkinson"
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>>>>>>>> dave weil > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> And yet he didn't leave the newsgroup for that
>>>>>>>>> "long time", now did he?
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> And as for leaving, JJ pretty much left the
>>>>>>>> *internet*, period, and AFAIK that wasn't down to
>>>>>>>> Arny or Middius.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I assume you are talking about JJ's decision not to
>>>>>>> post to r.a.o. Far from leaving "the *internet*
>>>>>>> period" at that time, JJ continued to post to both
>>>>>>> the Audio Asylum and to r.a.h-e for quite a long time
>>>>>>> after he stopped posting to r.a.o.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oooops, facts suck.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yup... like the fact that Arny was still posting on
>>>>> RAHE until Sept. '03 while JJ seems to have stopped in
>>>>> Dec '02 a year after he left RAO finally in Dec. '01.
>>>>>
>>>>> So it would appear... JJ stopped all interaction with
>>>>> George on RAO but continued in a forum where Arny
>>>>> participated for an additional year.
>>>
>>>> Yes, a MODERATED forum, where Arnold couldn't play his
>>>> nasty games. A forum that Arnold eventually shunned
>>>> himself because he couldn't play his nasty games.
>>
>> Listening Weil whine about playing nasty games is a real hoot.
>>
>>> More importantly, where Middius has *never* been allowed
>>> to post.
>>
>> I'm not sure that Middius ever tried.
>>
>>
>Not as the Middius persona, that's for sure.

I'll bet that he could post as Middius if he wanted to.

[George M. Middius]

dave weil said:

> I'll bet that he could post as Middius if he wanted to.

One of the moderators once posted a nasty, unprovoked attack on me to RAO.
I think his first name was David. If he's still moderating rahe, he'd
probably reject my posts without reading them.

[Steven Sullivan]

dave weil > wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 17:10:49 GMT, > wrote:
> >>> More importantly, where Middius has *never* been allowed
> >>> to post.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure that Middius ever tried.
> >>
> >>
> >Not as the Middius persona, that's for sure.

> I'll bet that he could post as Middius if he wanted to.

But then he'd have to impersonate a civil human being.
I doubt he'd last a week.


--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

[Steven Sullivan]

wrote:

> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
> in message ...
> >
> >
> > Silly, haven't you learned anything from the shredding the 'borgs have
> > received over the years?
> >
> >> > Yes, a MODERATED forum, where Arnold couldn't play his nasty games. A
> >> > forum that Arnold eventually shunned himself because he couldn't play
> >> > his nasty games.
> >
> >> More importantly, where Middius has *never* been allowed to post.
> >
> > If you're talking about rah-e, I've never had a post to that group
> > rejected by a moderator. In fact, nobody has ever prevented me from
> > posting anything, anywhere, at any time, ever. Got that, Stupey? ;-)
> >
> >
> Obviously indicating that you have never tried to post there, since they
> require you to be on topic and non-inflammatory.

Then again, he could be lying.


--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

[Arny Krueger]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message


> dave weil > wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 17:10:49 GMT, >

>> wrote:
>>>>> More importantly, where Middius has *never* been
>>>>> allowed to post.
>
>>>> I'm not sure that Middius ever tried.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Not as the Middius persona, that's for sure.
>
>> I'll bet that he could post as Middius if he wanted to.
>
> But then he'd have to impersonate a civil human being.

That would destroy the purpose of his persona.

> I doubt he'd last a week.

I think the history of this is that when the Middius persona was initally
fabricated, the perpetrator was on the outs with the RAHE moderators.

BTW note how often Weil whines about nasty posts from *anybody* but Middius?

[Arny Krueger]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message

> wrote:
>
>> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at]
>> comcast [dot] net> wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>> Silly, haven't you learned anything from the shredding
>>> the 'borgs have received over the years?
>>>
>>>>> Yes, a MODERATED forum, where Arnold couldn't play
>>>>> his nasty games. A forum that Arnold eventually
>>>>> shunned himself because he couldn't play his nasty
>>>>> games.
>>>
>>>> More importantly, where Middius has *never* been
>>>> allowed to post.
>>>
>>> If you're talking about rah-e, I've never had a post to
>>> that group rejected by a moderator. In fact, nobody has
>>> ever prevented me from posting anything, anywhere, at
>>> any time, ever. Got that, Stupey? ;-)
>>>
>>>
>> Obviously indicating that you have never tried to post
>> there, since they require you to be on topic and
>> non-inflammatory.

> Then again, he could be lying.

Not exactly lying, but not exactly telling the whole truth, either.

If you're talking about the claim that he's never had a post rejected, that
could be true.

What Middius is not saying is that he's never had a post accepted, either.

http://groups.google.com/groups?
&as_ugroup=rec.audio.high-end&as_uauthors=middius

[George M. Middius]

Poor Silly. He always wanted to be a man, and he's still ... not.

> > I'll bet that he could post as Middius if he wanted to.
>
> But then he'd have to impersonate a civil human being.
> I doubt he'd last a week.

One day, you'll be allowed to shave. Won't that be kewl?

[George M. Middius]

True Hiviness always outs.

> > > If you're talking about rah-e, I've never had a post to that group
> > > rejected by a moderator. In fact, nobody has ever prevented me from
> > > posting anything, anywhere, at any time, ever. Got that, Stupey? ;-)

> Then again, he could be lying.

Another reason you idolize the Krooborg -- rampant paranoia.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 18:25:46 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
> wrote:

wrote:
>
>> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
>> in message ...
>> >
>> >
>> > Silly, haven't you learned anything from the shredding the 'borgs have
>> > received over the years?
>> >
>> >> > Yes, a MODERATED forum, where Arnold couldn't play his nasty games. A
>> >> > forum that Arnold eventually shunned himself because he couldn't play
>> >> > his nasty games.
>> >
>> >> More importantly, where Middius has *never* been allowed to post.
>> >
>> > If you're talking about rah-e, I've never had a post to that group
>> > rejected by a moderator. In fact, nobody has ever prevented me from
>> > posting anything, anywhere, at any time, ever. Got that, Stupey? ;-)
>> >
>> >
>> Obviously indicating that you have never tried to post there, since they
>> require you to be on topic and non-inflammatory.
>
>Then again, he could be lying.

Or you could as well. It's likely that you don't have a log of every
post ever submitted to the group, nor do you have a list of every
rejected post, so, chances are far better that it's actually *you* who
doesn't have the facts.

[dizzy]

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

>> > I'll bet that he could post as Middius if he wanted to.
>>
>> But then he'd have to impersonate a civil human being.
>> I doubt he'd last a week.
>
>One day, you'll be allowed to shave. Won't that be kewl?

I won't ask where you shave, George.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>> "There are things you know, and there are things you
>>>> know you don't know, and there are things you don't
>>>> know you don't know"
>
>
>>>> Don Rumsfeld.
>
>>> Someone who shows signs of thinking, or at least
>>> listening to people who think, from time to time.
>
>> I think its piercingly perceptive.
>
> Only to people who lack personal insight, people who have not a clue about
> how the world really works. It's really like scientific thought 101. I
> think I had that all pretty well figured out by 7th grade.
>

Same here, but you would be surprised by the number
of people around here who think its gibberish.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> dave weil said:
>
>> I'll bet that he could post as Middius if he wanted to.
>
> One of the moderators once posted a nasty, unprovoked attack on me to RAO.
> I think his first name was David. If he's still moderating rahe, he'd
> probably reject my posts without reading them.
>
>

Mr. Bath
I think he is the same guy who rejected Arny. I must say, he is a pompous
ass.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[EddieM]

> nyob123 wrote
>
>
>
>> BTW, the "subjectivists" don't give a crap about your pathetic quest for
>> "debating trade" points.
>
> Nor do they give a crap about reality and the facts about audio either.


Facts and reality does not mix well inside your skull, you nutty fruitcake.
..

[Clyde Slick]

"EddieM" > wrote in message
om...
>
>> nyob123 wrote
>>
>>
>>
>>> BTW, the "subjectivists" don't give a crap about your pathetic quest for
>>> "debating trade" points.
>>
>> Nor do they give a crap about reality and the facts about audio either.
>
>
> Facts and reality does not mix well inside your skull, you nutty
> fruitcake.
> .
>

mikey is only referring to his opinion of what the truth is.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[EddieM]

> Clyde Slick wrote
>> EddieM wrote
>>> nyob123 wrote
>>
>>
>>
>>>> BTW, the "subjectivists" don't give a crap about your pathetic quest for
>>>> "debating trade" points.
>>>
>>> Nor do they give a crap about reality and the facts about audio either.
>>
>>
>> Facts and reality does not mix well inside your skull, you nutty fruitcake.
> .
>
>
> mikey is only referring to his opinion of what the truth is.



Yes! I must say that having read quite a few more of his muttering
in various threads just now, I say here and now this mikey person
truly has lost touch with himself. He has lost the facility to absorb
any meaningful sense into his faculties.

If he ever had that inherent power to reason, the capacity to learn,
and the ability to judge, it is looong, looong gone. Gone back into
that dark and murky, nonsensical world he calls mind.