View Full Version : Dave Weill Tries To Be RAO's Intellectual Hero, Fails Miserably!
This is the story of the fellow who tried to prove this group was full
of intelligent, independent thinkers, and not just a bunch of
slack-jawed ignorant mindless nitwits, who dismiss every audio claim
they're too stupid and scared to understand, preferring to remain
willfully ignorant their entire lives. His name is David Weill. He has
had quite the death grip on my ankles for some time now, trolling me
like my back ain't got no bone. He claimed to have superior
intelligence and education to everyone here. His proof? Well... if for
example, you use the words "Monty Python" in your message, Davey will
then claim that you could not possibly have an advanced education or
come from a fine school, so you must be a low-brow dunderhead. Yes,
simply for having referred to "Monty Python" in order to convey a point
to Mr. Weill in a vernacular he might have a chance of understanding.
He then claimed I didn't have the "courage" to explain what my tweaks
were based on, when he simply didn't have the intelligence to realize
that I already had attempted to do so on numerous occasions. After
offering up some ridiculously stupid fake tweaks of his own, his
"response" to not being able to understand mine, he then goaded me to
explain what my tweaks were based on, telling me I didn't have the
courage to say. So I decided to answer his trolling, and explain the
basis for one of my tweaks. I then stated that as hostile as he was
toward me, and as superior to me in intelligence and knowledge as he
claimed to be, if he was able to defeat the theory I presented him with
_valid and credible scientific evidence that disproves the theories_,
he would win the hearts of RAOers, and that I would leave the group
immediately and forevermore. I told him he had the opportunity to be a
"hero" in effect. To do what NO OTHER RAO member has EVER been able to
do since I've been here: which is to prove that my tweaks are
baseless, using credible and valid scientific evidence, and not the
usual vigorous assertions that aren't worth jelly squat.
Guess what happened? Weill CHOKED. He chocked hard, and he choked GOOD.
You can see him choking in the message below. He emitted a couple of
faint sounds that resembled some form of incoherent squawking (like a
dying chicken would make), some sort of idiotic gibberish that falls
squarely in the category of "sweeping dismissal". The thing that I
asked him not to do if he was to prove his superior intelligence to me,
particuarly since he was the one who insisted that my tweaks were
"insane", with no basis whatsoever.
> On 23 Mar 2006 12:11:21 -0800, wrote:
>
> >The 5-pinhole paper tweak, the one you so love to
> >ignorantly deride, is based upon principles of morphic resonance.
> >Now's your chance to show off some of that "superior education" you
> >think you have.LOL!
OKAY FOLKS! That was the setup. Now here's where "Garbage Bag Boy"
chokes. Note the complete absence of "valid, scientific evidence" in
this "sweeping dismissal":
Dave Weill replies:
> All of your posts are an attempt at "morphic resonance". So what?
>
> Get back to me when you've tried a resonance tweak that has sound
> principles behind it - like my 4 acoustic guitar tweak. Until then,
> you'll just show yourself to be the very sort of ostrich-in-the-sand
> type of RAOer that you claim others are.
This response is a snapshot picture of Dave Weill, the idiot I've
always proven him to be. It has absolutely 0 credible scientific
evidence or evidence of ANY kind. It's simply yet another
Middius-style dumbass quip, which I predicted he would make, and which
I asked him not to, if he was hoping to back up his big talk with some
intelligence for a change. It shows that Weill, master of quantum
mechanics as he claims to be, is trying to cover for the fact that he
hasn't CLUE ONE as to what "morphic resonance" is. He thinks it has
something to do with sonic vibrations, because he sees the word
"resonance"! He dismisses the principle without once trying to offer
any evidence that disproves the principle. And then out of sheer
desperation, he tries an old "smoke and mirrors" debating trick (which
Krueger knows all too well). Which is to wriggle out of a proper
response by changing the subject..... in this case, to that of his
bogus tweak.
For this superb display of sure-footed ignorance Weill, you get the
"Big-Mouthed Ignorant Troll Of The Year" award. On a group like RAO,
trust me, that's an honour.
ORIGINAL POST: Here's how this started in further detail:
Garbage Boy writes:
> > Now, since you don't have the guts to explain how YOUR tweaks have any
> > basis in reality, stop demanding others to do the same.
SHP replies:
> (snip) Want me to prove you WRONG, once again?
> Is that what you want, garbage bag boy? Fine, I'm feeling a little
> generous today. The 5-pinhole paper tweak, the one you so love to
> ignorantly deride, is based upon principles of morphic resonance.
> Now's your chance to show off some of that "superior education" you
> think you have.LOL!
>
> Now I know you're just dying to attack that theory, and bash it good
> with a bat, until it can speak no more. If you can't, then post an
> apology for being the ignorant **** that I say you are. If you decide
> to cram all night and learn all about quantum mechanics and such in the
> next 24 h, then let's see what an "intelligent response" from Garbage
> Boy looks like. You will surprise both me, my colleagues, and everyone
> else here if you are able to intelligently defeat the morphic resonance
> theories with credible scientific evidence that proves them invalid. In
> doing so, you will not only be the hero of RAO (having "soundly"
> defeated the great tweako freak on his own ground), but you'll have
> proved yourself smarter than a league of scientists who've been
> developing the theories for 30 years. I'd say that puts you eligible
> for a Nobel prize, in consideration of what you're up against.
>
> Now don't let me see you come back with the usual dumbass
> Middius-style quip and blind ignorant ridicule. You're better than
> that, remember? You're the one who pretends you're something more
> than a cretinous diaper-stain, so stop flapping your big mouth and
> blabbing BS already, and prove it with _credible evidence_ that can
> defeat the theories, not idiotic sweeping dismissals of them.
dave weil
March 24th 06, 06:59 AM
On 23 Mar 2006 21:40:38 -0800, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:
>
>This is the story of the fellow who tried to prove this group was full
>of intelligent, independent thinkers, and not just a bunch of
>slack-jawed ignorant mindless nitwits, who dismiss every audio claim
>they're too stupid and scared to understand, preferring to remain
>willfully ignorant their entire lives. His name is David Weill. He has
>had quite the death grip on my ankles for some time now, trolling me
>like my back ain't got no bone. He claimed to have superior
>intelligence and education to everyone here. His proof? Well... if for
>example, you use the words "Monty Python" in your message, Davey will
>then claim that you could not possibly have an advanced education or
>come from a fine school, so you must be a low-brow dunderhead. Yes,
>simply for having referred to "Monty Python" in order to convey a point
>to Mr. Weill in a vernacular he might have a chance of understanding.
>
>He then claimed I didn't have the "courage" to explain what my tweaks
>were based on, when he simply didn't have the intelligence to realize
>that I already had attempted to do so on numerous occasions. After
>offering up some ridiculously stupid fake tweaks of his own, his
>"response" to not being able to understand mine, he then goaded me to
>explain what my tweaks were based on, telling me I didn't have the
>courage to say. So I decided to answer his trolling, and explain the
>basis for one of my tweaks. I then stated that as hostile as he was
>toward me, and as superior to me in intelligence and knowledge as he
>claimed to be, if he was able to defeat the theory I presented him with
>_valid and credible scientific evidence that disproves the theories_,
>he would win the hearts of RAOers, and that I would leave the group
>immediately and forevermore. I told him he had the opportunity to be a
>"hero" in effect. To do what NO OTHER RAO member has EVER been able to
>do since I've been here: which is to prove that my tweaks are
>baseless, using credible and valid scientific evidence, and not the
>usual vigorous assertions that aren't worth jelly squat.
>
>Guess what happened? Weill CHOKED. He chocked hard, and he choked GOOD.
>You can see him choking in the message below. He emitted a couple of
>faint sounds that resembled some form of incoherent squawking (like a
>dying chicken would make), some sort of idiotic gibberish that falls
>squarely in the category of "sweeping dismissal". The thing that I
>asked him not to do if he was to prove his superior intelligence to me,
>particuarly since he was the one who insisted that my tweaks were
>"insane", with no basis whatsoever.
>
>
>> On 23 Mar 2006 12:11:21 -0800, wrote:
>>
>> >The 5-pinhole paper tweak, the one you so love to
>> >ignorantly deride, is based upon principles of morphic resonance.
>> >Now's your chance to show off some of that "superior education" you
>> >think you have.LOL!
>
>
>OKAY FOLKS! That was the setup. Now here's where "Garbage Bag Boy"
>chokes. Note the complete absence of "valid, scientific evidence" in
>this "sweeping dismissal":
>
>Dave Weill replies:
>
>> All of your posts are an attempt at "morphic resonance". So what?
>>
>> Get back to me when you've tried a resonance tweak that has sound
>> principles behind it - like my 4 acoustic guitar tweak. Until then,
>> you'll just show yourself to be the very sort of ostrich-in-the-sand
>> type of RAOer that you claim others are.
>
>
>This response is a snapshot picture of Dave Weill, the idiot I've
>always proven him to be. It has absolutely 0 credible scientific
>evidence or evidence of ANY kind. It's simply yet another
>Middius-style dumbass quip, which I predicted he would make, and which
>I asked him not to, if he was hoping to back up his big talk with some
>intelligence for a change. It shows that Weill, master of quantum
>mechanics as he claims to be, is trying to cover for the fact that he
>hasn't CLUE ONE as to what "morphic resonance" is. He thinks it has
>something to do with sonic vibrations, because he sees the word
>"resonance"! He dismisses the principle without once trying to offer
>any evidence that disproves the principle. And then out of sheer
>desperation, he tries an old "smoke and mirrors" debating trick (which
>Krueger knows all too well). Which is to wriggle out of a proper
>response by changing the subject..... in this case, to that of his
>bogus tweak.
>
>For this superb display of sure-footed ignorance Weill, you get the
>"Big-Mouthed Ignorant Troll Of The Year" award. On a group like RAO,
>trust me, that's an honour.
>
>
>ORIGINAL POST: Here's how this started in further detail:
>
>Garbage Boy writes:
>
>> > Now, since you don't have the guts to explain how YOUR tweaks have any
>> > basis in reality, stop demanding others to do the same.
>
>SHP replies:
>
>
>> (snip) Want me to prove you WRONG, once again?
>> Is that what you want, garbage bag boy? Fine, I'm feeling a little
>> generous today. The 5-pinhole paper tweak, the one you so love to
>> ignorantly deride, is based upon principles of morphic resonance.
>> Now's your chance to show off some of that "superior education" you
>> think you have.LOL!
>>
>> Now I know you're just dying to attack that theory, and bash it good
>> with a bat, until it can speak no more. If you can't, then post an
>> apology for being the ignorant **** that I say you are. If you decide
>> to cram all night and learn all about quantum mechanics and such in the
>> next 24 h, then let's see what an "intelligent response" from Garbage
>> Boy looks like. You will surprise both me, my colleagues, and everyone
>> else here if you are able to intelligently defeat the morphic resonance
>> theories with credible scientific evidence that proves them invalid. In
>> doing so, you will not only be the hero of RAO (having "soundly"
>> defeated the great tweako freak on his own ground), but you'll have
>> proved yourself smarter than a league of scientists who've been
>> developing the theories for 30 years. I'd say that puts you eligible
>> for a Nobel prize, in consideration of what you're up against.
>>
>> Now don't let me see you come back with the usual dumbass
>> Middius-style quip and blind ignorant ridicule. You're better than
>> that, remember? You're the one who pretends you're something more
>> than a cretinous diaper-stain, so stop flapping your big mouth and
>> blabbing BS already, and prove it with _credible evidence_ that can
>> defeat the theories, not idiotic sweeping dismissals of them.
Wow. I've really got this asshole upside down now.
I just couldn't bear to snip a single precious letter of this
cornpone.
Garbage Boy writes another intelligent response:
> On 23 Mar 2006 21:40:38 -0800, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:
>
> Wow. I've really got this asshole upside down now.
Oh yeah, you "really" showed us all how smart you are, Davey! One dumb
troll post after another, replete with ad hominem attacks like the
above, while you pretend to be a "superior intellect" to everyone, with
a first class education that includes a grounding in quantum mechanics.
You pestered me to debate you on the basis of my tweaks, after I
dismissed your stupid bogus tweaks. So where's your conclusive,
credible scientific evidence that my tweaks don't work? Somewhere
upside where the sun don't shine. Same place you left your brains and
your courage. LOL! Thanks for proving that you and Middius are nothing
more than lying, know-nothing trolls.
You are dismissed now.
wrote:
> Garbage Boy writes another intelligent response:
>
> > On 23 Mar 2006 21:40:38 -0800, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:
> >
>
> > Wow. I've really got this asshole upside down now.
>
> Oh yeah, you "really" showed us all how smart you are, Davey! One dumb
> troll post after another, replete with ad hominem attacks like the
> above, while you pretend to be a "superior intellect" to everyone, with
> a first class education that includes a grounding in quantum mechanics.
> You pestered me to debate you on the basis of my tweaks, after I
> dismissed your stupid bogus tweaks. So where's your conclusive,
> credible scientific evidence that my tweaks don't work? Somewhere
> upside where the sun don't shine. Same place you left your brains and
> your courage. LOL! Thanks for proving that you and Middius are nothing
> more than lying, know-nothing trolls.
> You are dismissed now.
You really are in love with the phase "ad hominem",
you use it in more post that I care to count back on at the moment.
I wasn't force to take Latin as a language, but every dictionary I've
found so far indicates your usage of it it not correct, and that if
there is any
ad hominem occuring it's in your posts, ad nausiuem.
dave weil
March 24th 06, 02:09 PM
On 23 Mar 2006 23:52:33 -0800, wrote:
>
>Garbage Boy writes another intelligent response:
>
>> On 23 Mar 2006 21:40:38 -0800, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:
>>
>
>> Wow. I've really got this asshole upside down now.
>
>Oh yeah, you "really" showed us all how smart you are, Davey!
Thank you. It wasn't my attempt to show you how smart I am. I guess
that despite the chip on your shoulder, you can't help but admit that
I'm pretty smart. That must have been really hard for you to swallow.
>One dumb troll post after another, replete with ad hominem attacks like the
>above, while you pretend to be a "superior intellect" to everyone, with
>a first class education that includes a grounding in quantum mechanics.
>You pestered me to debate you on the basis of my tweaks, after I
>dismissed your stupid bogus tweaks. So where's your conclusive,
>credible scientific evidence that my tweaks don't work? Somewhere
>upside where the sun don't shine. Same place you left your brains and
>your courage. LOL! Thanks for proving that you and Middius are nothing
>more than lying, know-nothing trolls.
And where's YOUR evidence that my tweak doesn't work?
>You are dismissed now.
Plagiarist.
And for you to talk about ad hominum attacks is priceless.
You remind me of the Black Knight that Monty Python made famous.
At this point, you're just a crying little troll who's been dismissed
by virtually anyone...reduced to talking about smearing pig grease on
glasses. Of course, you won't be around in 6 months, so we simply have
to wait you out, mocking you all of the way.
Garbage Boy aka David Weill, shows everyone how smart he isn't:
> On 23 Mar 2006 23:52:33 -0800, wrote:
>
> >
> >Garbage Boy writes another intelligent response:
> >
> >> On 23 Mar 2006 21:40:38 -0800, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> Wow. I've really got this asshole upside down now.
> >
> >Oh yeah, you "really" showed us all how smart you are, Davey!
> Thank you. It wasn't my attempt to show you how smart I am.
.....and trust me, you succeeded brilliantly. But then, one could say
the same of all your posts, couldn't one? None of them are an attempt
to show how smart you are.
> I guess
> that despite the chip on your shoulder, you can't help but admit that
> I'm pretty smart. That must have been really hard for you to swallow.
If I have a chip on my shoulder against an ankle biter such as
yourself, then being the netstalking kook troll that you are, you must
have the rest of the edifice on yours. Rather, it looks like despite
the fact that I just proved you are the ignorant git your mother said
you are, you wish to remain in denial and believe "you're pretty
smart". Unfortunately Weill, in the real world, it takes more than just
words from an imbecile shouting out "I'm pretty smart, folks!" to be
"pretty smart". You had the opportunity to show us how "pretty smart"
you are, by disproving the theories that you arrogantly demanded that I
share with you. And what did you do, garbage boy? Well.... you CHOKED.
You stammered, you yammered, you flailed your dumb arms about, you
whined, you gasped, you tossed vulgar profanities at me because I made
you look like the stupid fool you are... but in the end, you came up
with diddly squat, when asked to provide evidence of your claims that
my tweaks are invalid. In fact, "quantum mechanics scholar" that you
are, you even showed that you had no clue as to the meaning of my term,
let alone any of the theories behind it. And then you changed the
subject to your stupid joke tweaks, hoping no one would notice how you
choked! (I'll give you a hint Dave: "Quantum Mechanics" doesn't
require a ball and socket set. LOL!)
In doing so, you just admitted that you're not able to discount
anything I've said, and that every so-called "insane" tweak I posted
is quite valid, and still totally incontestible. Which proves that you
and everyone else who continues to ridicule them is an ignorant fool.
So thanks for that! It's all going on the official record, you see.
SHP Audio Guru: 1
Ignorant Mindless Flatlanders of RAO: 0
> >One dumb troll post after another, replete with ad hominem attacks like the
> >above, while you pretend to be a "superior intellect" to everyone, with
> >a first class education that includes a grounding in quantum mechanics.
> >You pestered me to debate you on the basis of my tweaks, after I
> >dismissed your stupid bogus tweaks. So where's your conclusive,
> >credible scientific evidence that my tweaks don't work? Somewhere
> >upside where the sun don't shine. Same place you left your brains and
> >your courage. LOL! Thanks for proving that you and Middius are nothing
> >more than lying, know-nothing trolls.
>
> And where's YOUR evidence that my tweak doesn't work?
Exactly where YOUR evidence that my tweak doesn't work resides. LOL!
> And for you to talk about ad hominum attacks is priceless.
What's an "ad hominum" attack? Now that's "priceless"! LOL!
> You remind me of the Black Knight that Monty Python made famous.
Ha! How's _this_ for "plagiarism", hypocrite:
davey weill wrote:
Shame you don't have a classical education. Looks like you get your
literary allusions from Monty Python. Not too swift of you.
So far, nothing you've ever said wasn't a hypocritical lie. Good
job!
> At this point, you're just a crying little troll who's been dismissed
> by virtually anyone...reduced to talking about smearing pig grease on
> glasses.
"Reduced"? Really? Gee, I thought that was my finest moment, actually.
I'm curious about something, though. If I'm such an insignificant
"little troll", then what exactly does that make you for grabbing hold
of my ankles, and net stalking me everywhere I post? LOL! In troll
terms, you're not even up to the level of Middius the Mosquito, since
you're only his spokesperson!
> Of course, you won't be around in 6 months, so we simply have
> to wait you out, mocking you all of the way.
PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you for making me spill my milk, you f$%$"!ing jerk!
But that was the best laugh I've had in ages garbage bag boy, so I
forgive you. Here's my response:
"Oh no! Mockery from ignorant fools who aren't smart enough to tie
their own shoelaces, let alone prove any of the ridiculous BS that they
spew! Oh please don't do that, garbage boy! My reputation will be
ruined! RUINED I tell you! "
.....and so on, and so forth.
Oh, I have no doubt that you'll still be around in 6 months. Google
says you never left your fat ass from your computer chair in 6 *years*
of trolling this newsgroup. So you'll still be here in 6 years,
trolling this trailer trash newsgroup, every single day until you're
up for retirement. Of course, then you're gonna need something to do
whilst retired. The only thing you'll be able to do is sit on your
fat aged ass and troll this newsgroup every day. Yup. You really showed
me what a smart and important man you are, garbage boy! Now go fetch
the carrot.
dave weil
March 24th 06, 05:22 PM
On 24 Mar 2006 08:10:54 -0800, wrote:
>In fact, "quantum mechanics scholar" that you
>are, you even showed that you had no clue as to the meaning of my term
That fact that I said that your posts are the very embodiment of the
principle that you were promoting, should show that I know full well
exactly what the principle in play is. If I have to explain your own
principle to you, then, I'm afraid that you're bleating up the wrong
tree when you dismiss my "smarts", the very smarts that you loudly
proclaimed to the world (I didn't, you know).
My tweak (the only one that I mentioned) was as valid, in fact MORE
valid, than any that you've posted with the exception of your beer and
popcorn tweak, a tweak that is as old as the hills and has been
employed by millions.
The fact that you can't bring yourself to try my tweak shows that you
are as close-minded as those that you pretend to try to advise.
Instead of looking at the world through rose-colored glasses, it's now
come out that you view the world through pig fat-smeared glasses.
>In doing so, you just admitted that you're not able to discount
>anything I've said, and that every so-called "insane" tweak I posted
>is quite valid, and still totally incontestible.
As is mine. So you lose.
Again.
>Thank you for making me spill my milk, you f$%$"!ing jerk!
Sorry, didn't mean to disrupt your mom's breast-feeding session.
dave weil
March 24th 06, 05:57 PM
On 24 Mar 2006 08:10:54 -0800, wrote:
>> You remind me of the Black Knight that Monty Python made famous.
>
>Ha! How's _this_ for "plagiarism", hypocrite:
>
>davey weill wrote:
>
>Shame you don't have a classical education. Looks like you get your
>literary allusions from Monty Python. Not too swift of you.
>
>
>So far, nothing you've ever said wasn't a hypocritical lie. Good
>job!
NOthing there either "plagiarism" nor hypocritical. I just wanted to
give you a reference that you could surely understand, since
references to Jonathan Swift went right over your head.
Now, back to your tit-suckling. I wouldn't want to interrupt your
feeding yet again.
dave weill, trailer park trash king, postured and pretended he could
defeat me:
> On 24 Mar 2006 08:10:54 -0800, wrote:
>
> >In fact, "quantum mechanics scholar" that you
> >are, you even showed that you had no clue as to the meaning of my term
>
> That fact that I said that your posts are the very embodiment of the
> principle that you were promoting, should show that I know full well
> exactly what the principle in play is.
Except it doesn't. Which means you still haven't a clue. The fact
that you can't intelligently explain how it does, shows that you are
still trying to check the back of your fat arse for that clue you never
found. If you did have a clue as to how the theories are put together,
well instead of making derogatory ad hominem attacks on my posts and
yelling profanities at me like the trailer trash fool you are, you'd
have used your advanced scientific knowledge to dismantle the theories.
Put together, I might add, by scientists so much smarter than you, you
would shrivel up and die just to be in their presence. This is why I
was waiting with baited breath, and beer and popcorn, for you to posit
intelligent, scientificially valid arguments that completely disproves
their years of work.
Had you had the wherewhital to disprove the foundation of my tweaks,
you would have been a proven hero to your RAO trailer park comrades,
having defeated the big, bad, "tweak freak", and I would have left, and
never returned. Too bad they elected an idiot such as yourself to be
the only person on the newsgroup to even pretend to ATTEMPT to disprove
the principles of my tweaks. So now, every time someone dismisses my
tweaks out of hand, without a single ounce of evidence to prove their
justification for doing so, I can thank Dave Weill, aka "Garbage Bag
Boy", for proving that they are being ignorant, arrogant, closed-minded
fools.
> If I have to explain your own
> principle to you, then, I'm afraid that you're bleating up the wrong
> tree when you dismiss my "smarts", the very smarts that you loudly
> proclaimed to the world (I didn't, you know).
More incoherent gibberish from Garbage Boy. Good. That means I'm
making you nervous. As well you should be.
Recap:
1) You claimed to be a superior in intelligence and education to me and
just about everyone else here.
2) You asked, no you DEMANDED that I have the "guts" as you put it, to
explain the theories behind my tweaks.
3) When I did so, and requested that you either apologize for being the
ignorant fool I said you were, or defeat the arguments,
you scrambled for cover. And then you went into "super troll" mode, and
came up with the kind of joke posturing we're witnessing now, where
you say to me "Well then, if I have to prove YOUR principles to you,
well then I must not have as many smarts as you think I do".
That much is true. I thought you were a complete imbecile before that
you started posturing about how bogus my tweaks were, without having
any understanding or experience with them. I think even less of your
claimed intelligence now. In fact, I see no signs of any intelligent or
independent thought from you _whatsoever_.
> Instead of looking at the world through rose-colored glasses, it's now
> come out that you view the world through pig fat-smeared glasses.
No, the pig fat is what your brain matter consists of. Must be from
eating so many Jimmy Dean pork sausages, trailer boy. It colours
everything you see and think.
> >In doing so, you just admitted that you're not able to discount
> >anything I've said, and that every so-called "insane" tweak I posted
> >is quite valid, and still totally incontestible.
>
> As is mine.
Thank you for admitting once again that you are not smart enough or
educated enough to disprove any of my tweaks, so you've been proven
wrong once again, and have again lost the argument.
As for your dumb joke tweaks, tweaks intended to mock mine which you
and your lowbrow style of humour seem to think are hilarious, I have no
problem disproving them. I'll be more than glad to do so, once you
show that you are able to unravel 30 years of study into the principles
that my tweak is based on.
Can't do it, can you? Sorry garbage boy, you're still the loser I
proved you to be. In more ways than one, because I know that your fat
loser ass will still be here 6 years from now, attacking everyone and
everything you're too dumb to understand.
But don't be sad, you get a carrot for a consolation prize. LOL!
Garbage Boy continues his obsession with me and proving his idiocy to
the world:
> On 24 Mar 2006 08:10:54 -0800, wrote:
>
> >> You remind me of the Black Knight that Monty Python made famous.
> >
> >Ha! How's _this_ for "plagiarism", hypocrite:
> >
> >davey weill wrote:
> >
> >Shame you don't have a classical education. Looks like you get your
> >literary allusions from Monty Python. Not too swift of you.
> >
> >
> >So far, nothing you've ever said wasn't a hypocritical lie. Good
> >job!
As if your nestalking obsession with me wasn't evident enough,
you're now reduced to responding several times over to the same post.
And I didn't even have to offer you a fresh carrot!
> NOthing there either "plagiarism" nor hypocritical. I just wanted to
> give you a reference that you could surely understand, since
> references to Jonathan Swift went right over your head.
Well there you go, you've just proved me right again, to call you a
"lying hypocrite". Because my mention of Python was exactly that, to
give YOU a reference that you might have a hope of understanding, since
references to Dr. James Parrington went right over your head. Prove me
wrong, Weill. You claimed, in this conversation, to have an advanced
"classical education", highly superior to mine. So are you ever going
to prove what you claim? The question is, do you even know who
Parrington is, and the significance of his work, as it pertains to the
context of our arguments?
> Now, back to your tit-suckling. I wouldn't want to interrupt your
> feeding yet again.
Yes, I think we can certainly see the evidence of your highly educated
mind at work once again. LOL!
BTW, I've got some more carrots for you to munch on when you're
finished with this one.
dave weil
March 25th 06, 01:07 AM
On 24 Mar 2006 10:09:21 -0800, wrote:
>1) You claimed to be a superior in intelligence and education to me and
>just about everyone else here.
Well, now you're reduced to lying.
Cool.
You lose.
Again.
dave weil
March 25th 06, 01:09 AM
On 24 Mar 2006 10:22:27 -0800, wrote:
>Because my mention of Python was exactly that, to
>give YOU a reference that you might have a hope of understanding, since
>references to Dr. James Parrington went right over your head. Prove me
>wrong, Weill. You claimed, in this conversation, to have an advanced
>"classical education", highly superior to mine. So are you ever going
>to prove what you claim? The question is, do you even know who
>Parrington is, and the significance of his work, as it pertains to the
>context of our arguments?
What does Parrington have to do with barbequing children?
Well, looks like I've got you hooked at this point.
BTW, mispelling my name only makes you look more stupid, especially
when your newsreader actually gets it correct.
dave weill wrote:
> On 24 Mar 2006 10:22:27 -0800, wrote:
>
> >Because my mention of Python was exactly that, to
> >give YOU a reference that you might have a hope of understanding, since
> >references to Dr. James Parrington went right over your head. Prove me
> >wrong, Weill. You claimed, in this conversation, to have an advanced
> >"classical education", highly superior to mine. So are you ever going
> >to prove what you claim? The question is, do you even know who
> >Parrington is, and the significance of his work, as it pertains to the
> >context of our arguments?
>
> What does Parrington have to do with barbequing children?
You tell me, since you claim to be smarter than I. Why do you keep
ducking my question, Dave? Are you trying to tell us that I was right
about throwing Monty Python references to you, because your so-called
"classical education" is about as much of a bogus joke as your
so-called tweaks? You mean I'm right AGAIN about you, and I've
proven you WRONG once again?
Let me see if I can confirm that: I ask you again, Who is James
Parrington, what is the significance of his work? You, with the
superior education should know this. Where did you say you studied
again?
>
> Well, looks like I've got you hooked at this point.
So let me get this straight: Accordingn to you, you have a "classical
education", which must have cost your parents a small fortune, the good
breeding that comes with it no doubt, and your most proudest
acheivement in life is.... Spending 10 years on a loser's newsgroup
on usenet, glowing about your mistaken trolling victories? I'm sure
your parents would have tried to sue you by now for a refund on their
scholastic fees, were it not for the fact that you spent your last dime
on a packet of Stay-Puft marshmallows. Not to eat, but because your
friend George bet you that you couldn't shove an entire pack in your
nose.
>
> BTW, mispelling my name only makes you look more stupid, especially
> when your newsreader actually gets it correct.
I'm sorry Steven. But thanks for continuing to let me know that it
bugs you that much. Do you realize that every single post you write to
me, only makes you look more stupid? Take a good look at this thread
for a moment. It is all about how you beat your chest proclaiming you
would defeat me, if only I had the courage to reveal what my tweaks
were based on. Then when I did, rather than attempt to disprove them,
you ran and hid behind your mother's skirt. And pretended the entire
thing never happened.
Well unfotunately for you, it did, and you revealed to the entire
world, just what a stupid lout you actually are. That's assuming
there was anyone here that didn't already know that.
Don't feel bad, there's a carrot in the fridge for you.
paul packer
March 25th 06, 11:24 AM
On 23 Mar 2006 21:40:38 -0800, wrote:
>
>This is the story of the fellow who tried to prove this group was full
>of intelligent, independent thinkers, and not just a bunch of
>slack-jawed ignorant mindless nitwits, who dismiss every audio claim
>they're too stupid and scared to understand, preferring to remain
>willfully ignorant their entire lives. His name is David Weill. He has
>had quite the death grip on my ankles for some time now,
Here's another one obsessed with ankles. Have you met Andre Jute yet?
dave weil
March 25th 06, 12:10 PM
On 24 Mar 2006 21:43:41 -0800, wrote:
>Accordingn to you, you have a "classical
>education",
Where did I say I had a "classical education"?
Short answer is - I didn't.
So the rest of your post can safely be ignored.
Unless I decide to comment on it, of course.
Sander deWaal
March 25th 06, 12:57 PM
dave weil > said:
>> Weill.
>BTW, mispelling my name only makes you look more stupid, especially
>when your newsreader actually gets it correct.
Wasn't Weill the guy from the 3-penny tweaks? ;-)
--
- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -
dave weil
March 25th 06, 02:01 PM
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 13:57:43 +0100, Sander deWaal >
wrote:
>dave weil > said:
>
>
>>> Weill.
>
>
>>BTW, mispelling my name only makes you look more stupid, especially
>>when your newsreader actually gets it correct.
>
>
>Wasn't Weill the guy from the 3-penny tweaks? ;-)
That's a pretty curt reply from you, Sander.
Sander deWaal
March 25th 06, 02:37 PM
dave weil > said:
>>Wasn't Weill the guy from the 3-penny tweaks? ;-)
>That's a pretty curt reply from you, Sander.
Curt? You mean Kurt, surely?
Gotta know your classiscs, Dave.
Kurt Weill - Dreigroschen Oper = three penny opera.
--
- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -
dave weil
March 25th 06, 03:29 PM
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 15:37:53 +0100, Sander deWaal >
wrote:
>dave weil > said:
>
>
>>>Wasn't Weill the guy from the 3-penny tweaks? ;-)
>
>
>>That's a pretty curt reply from you, Sander.
>
>
>Curt? You mean Kurt, surely?
Surely. It was a play on words.
>Gotta know your classiscs, Dave.
Yep.
>Kurt Weill - Dreigroschen Oper = three penny opera.
Hence my curt reply.
Doggie Dave wrote:
> On 24 Mar 2006 21:43:41 -0800, wrote:
>
> >Accordingn to you, you have a "classical
> >education",
>
> Where did I say I had a "classical education"?
>
> Short answer is - I didn't.
>
I'm glad you asked that, troll. Well as you know, it all started when
you claimed that I didn't have a "classical education" because I used
a reference to Monty Python, knowing that you wouldn't know who James
Parrington was (and you proved me right again, by admitting that you
didn't). I didn't say that I didn't have a classical education,
but that didn't stop you from claiming so anyway. But you're right,
maybe I mistook your claim of having a "classical education". Maybe
what you meant was that for you, in the neighborhood you come from, a
"classical education" simply means spending your days trolling the
streets stealing hubcaps from tires and setting fires to old factories.
Apparently, the results of your "classical education" shows in the
posturing you do in each and every one of your troll posts. The fact
that you have no job and troll this newsgroup every single day of your
sorry RAO-addicted life, is also a dead giveaway to your "classical
education".
Who's James Parrington again, Garbage Boy?
Oh sorry, I didn't mean to put you on the spot.
What does "morphic resonance" have to do with my posts exactly?
Oh sorry, I didn't mean to put you on the spot.
So tell me again, why did you arrogantly demand that I reveal the basis
for my tweaks if you were too stupid to debate it?
Oh sorry, I didn't mean to put you on the spot.
Let it be known forthwith that "classical education" according to Dave
"Garbage Boy" Weill, means dropping out of 5th grade, stealing
people's government pension cheques and smoking dog feces in the back
of the local McD's.
> So the rest of your post can safely be ignored.
As can everything about audio and life that you're also too stupid to
understand.
LOL!
Got a nice fat dog**** joint for you, Garbage Boy. How bad do you want
it? Enough to sit up and beg? Come on, little doggie.... beg for it...
beg little doggie Dave.... I'm not hearin' you whimper loudly
enough.... Okay, now roll over and play dead.
dave weill lied:
> On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 15:37:53 +0100, Sander deWaal >
> wrote:
>
> >dave weil > said:
> >
> >
> >>>Wasn't Weill the guy from the 3-penny tweaks? ;-)
> >
> >
> >>That's a pretty curt reply from you, Sander.
> >
> >
> >Curt? You mean Kurt, surely?
>
> Surely. It was a play on words.
Surely NOT, liar. You're just trying to save face, here! You had no
clue what Sander was referring to. If you did, you'd have spelled the
name properly, and at least capitalized it.
Don't try your usual excuses Dave, you lack the "classical education"
that you falsely claimed to have, to get away with it.
>
> >Gotta know your classiscs, Dave.
>
> Yep.
Nope!
>
> >Kurt Weill - Dreigroschen Oper = three penny opera.
>
> Hence my curt reply.
Hence this BS reply.
LOL!
Busted again, Doggie Dave. Surely you must get sick of having people do
that.
dave weil
March 26th 06, 09:22 AM
On 25 Mar 2006 21:43:43 -0800, wrote:
>
>Doggie Dave wrote:
>
>> On 24 Mar 2006 21:43:41 -0800, wrote:
>>
>> >Accordingn to you, you have a "classical
>> >education",
>>
>> Where did I say I had a "classical education"?
>>
>> Short answer is - I didn't.
>>
>
>I'm glad you asked that, troll. Well as you know, it all started when
>you claimed that I didn't have a "classical education" because I used
>a reference to Monty Python, knowing that you wouldn't know who James
>Parrington was (and you proved me right again, by admitting that you
>didn't). I didn't say that I didn't have a classical education,
>but that didn't stop you from claiming so anyway. But you're right,
>maybe I mistook your claim of having a "classical education". Maybe
>what you meant was that for you, in the neighborhood you come from, a
>"classical education" simply means spending your days trolling the
>streets stealing hubcaps from tires and setting fires to old factories.
>Apparently, the results of your "classical education" shows in the
>posturing you do in each and every one of your troll posts. The fact
>that you have no job and troll this newsgroup every single day of your
>sorry RAO-addicted life, is also a dead giveaway to your "classical
>education".
>
>Who's James Parrington again, Garbage Boy?
>
>Oh sorry, I didn't mean to put you on the spot.
>
>What does "morphic resonance" have to do with my posts exactly?
>
>Oh sorry, I didn't mean to put you on the spot.
>
>So tell me again, why did you arrogantly demand that I reveal the basis
>for my tweaks if you were too stupid to debate it?
>
>Oh sorry, I didn't mean to put you on the spot.
>
>Let it be known forthwith that "classical education" according to Dave
>"Garbage Boy" Weill, means dropping out of 5th grade, stealing
>people's government pension cheques and smoking dog feces in the back
>of the local McD's.
>
>
>> So the rest of your post can safely be ignored.
>
>As can everything about audio and life that you're also too stupid to
>understand.
>
>LOL!
>
>
>Got a nice fat dog**** joint for you, Garbage Boy. How bad do you want
>it? Enough to sit up and beg? Come on, little doggie.... beg for it...
>beg little doggie Dave.... I'm not hearin' you whimper loudly
>enough.... Okay, now roll over and play dead.
Yep, the 50 to 1 word ratio holds true once again.
You're just a milquetoast trying to be a pitbull...
dave weil
March 26th 06, 09:31 AM
On 25 Mar 2006 21:48:58 -0800, wrote:
>
>dave weill lied:
>
>> On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 15:37:53 +0100, Sander deWaal >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >dave weil > said:
>> >
>> >
>> >>>Wasn't Weill the guy from the 3-penny tweaks? ;-)
>> >
>> >
>> >>That's a pretty curt reply from you, Sander.
>> >
>> >
>> >Curt? You mean Kurt, surely?
>>
>> Surely. It was a play on words.
>
>Surely NOT, liar. You're just trying to save face, here! You had no
>clue what Sander was referring to. If you did, you'd have spelled the
>name properly, and at least capitalized it.
No, you're wrong. I used exactly the word I wanted to use in the
sentence that I wanted to use as. If you're too dense to understand
the comic use of a homophone, that's YOUR problem, not mine.
>Don't try your usual excuses Dave, you lack the "classical education"
>that you falsely claimed to have, to get away with it.
>> >Gotta know your classiscs, Dave.
>>
>> Yep.
>
>Nope!
>
>>
>> >Kurt Weill - Dreigroschen Oper = three penny opera.
>>
>> Hence my curt reply.
>
>Hence this BS reply.
>
>LOL!
>
>Busted again, Doggie Dave. Surely you must get sick of having people do
>that.
You're wrong...simple as that.
Now about those grounding straps...
Garbage Boy exhibits his "classical education" again:
> On 25 Mar 2006 21:43:43 -0800, wrote:
>
> >
> >Doggie Dave wrote:
> >
> >> On 24 Mar 2006 21:43:41 -0800, wrote:
> >>
> >> >Accordingn to you, you have a "classical
> >> >education",
> >>
> >> Where did I say I had a "classical education"?
> >>
> >> Short answer is - I didn't.
> >>
> >
> >I'm glad you asked that, troll. Well as you know, it all started when
> >you claimed that I didn't have a "classical education" because I used
> >a reference to Monty Python, knowing that you wouldn't know who James
> >Parrington was (and you proved me right again, by admitting that you
> >didn't). I didn't say that I didn't have a classical education,
> >but that didn't stop you from claiming so anyway. But you're right,
> >maybe I mistook your claim of having a "classical education". Maybe
> >what you meant was that for you, in the neighborhood you come from, a
> >"classical education" simply means spending your days trolling the
> >streets stealing hubcaps from tires and setting fires to old factories.
> >Apparently, the results of your "classical education" shows in the
> >posturing you do in each and every one of your troll posts. The fact
> >that you have no job and troll this newsgroup every single day of your
> >sorry RAO-addicted life, is also a dead giveaway to your "classical
> >education".
> >
> >Who's James Parrington again, Garbage Boy?
> >
> >Oh sorry, I didn't mean to put you on the spot.
> >
> >What does "morphic resonance" have to do with my posts exactly?
> >
> >Oh sorry, I didn't mean to put you on the spot.
> >
> >So tell me again, why did you arrogantly demand that I reveal the basis
> >for my tweaks if you were too stupid to debate it?
> >
> >Oh sorry, I didn't mean to put you on the spot.
> >
> >Let it be known forthwith that "classical education" according to Dave
> >"Garbage Boy" Weill, means dropping out of 5th grade, stealing
> >people's government pension cheques and smoking dog feces in the back
> >of the local McD's.
> >
> >
> >> So the rest of your post can safely be ignored.
> >
> >As can everything about audio and life that you're also too stupid to
> >understand.
> >
> >LOL!
> >
> >
> >Got a nice fat dog**** joint for you, Garbage Boy. How bad do you want
> >it? Enough to sit up and beg? Come on, little doggie.... beg for it...
> >beg little doggie Dave.... I'm not hearin' you whimper loudly
> >enough.... Okay, now roll over and play dead.
>
> Yep, the 50 to 1 word ratio holds true once again.
Which means I beat you 50 to 1. Thanks for keeping score. Looks like
you still don't know who James Parrington is. Still haven't a clue
as to how to apply the term "morphic resonance", after showing the
world what a fool you are by misapplying it. You still prove that you
can't debunk or even debate a single one of my tweaks, for lack of a
"classical education" that you tried to convince us you had. In other
words, you're still a lying troll, Garbage Boy. Still addicted to my
posts, too! But it's fun to watch you try to take two baby steps and
fall flat on your face. Then get back up again, then fall again, then
get back up again, then fall again.....
> You're just a milquetoast trying to be a pitbull...
You got it ass-backwards again, jr. Uh-oh, baby fall down!
dave weill lied again, but he's still trying to get the hang of it:
> On 25 Mar 2006 21:48:58 -0800, wrote:
>
> >
> >dave weill lied:
> >
> >> On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 15:37:53 +0100, Sander deWaal >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >dave weil > said:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>>Wasn't Weill the guy from the 3-penny tweaks? ;-)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>That's a pretty curt reply from you, Sander.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Curt? You mean Kurt, surely?
> >>
> >> Surely. It was a play on words.
> >
> >Surely NOT, liar. You're just trying to save face, here! You had no
> >clue what Sander was referring to. If you did, you'd have spelled the
> >name properly, and at least capitalized it.
>
> No, you're wrong. I used exactly the word I wanted to use in the
> sentence that I wanted to use as.
You're lying, again, Dave, as you've done many times to me. If you
knew you were telling the truth, you wouldn't even have bothered to
respond. Without the reference to the proper spelling of the name
"Kurt", your reply is senseless and has no comic element to it. The
fact that Sander and no one else on the group got your "alleged comic
reference" to Kurt Weill proves that you were just making an
observation about Sander's post, and then took credit for a
"classical education" you implied you had, but DON'T. Your ego, like
your can, is too fat to admit that Sander's reference went over your
pointy head, like everything else around here. You've lost again,
liar.
> >Busted again, Doggie Dave. Surely you must get sick of having people do
> >that.
>
> You're wrong...simple as that.
>
> Now about those grounding straps...
.....Oh, you wanto talk about that? Sure, let's do that. Liar.
Here's what you said to me recently about it:
================================================== ==================
>From : dave weil
Date : Sam 25 mar 2006 09:11
Tell us again how turntables don't have grounding straps
================================================== ==================
Here's what you said just 10 days earlier on the same subject, when
you were correcting other people for having purposefully misrepresented
my words, by dropping the qualifier:
================================================== ==================
>From : dave weil -
Date : Mer 15 mar 2006 16:11
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 15:45:38 -0500, Walt >
wrote:
Idiot Walt wrote:
>>>You said that all turntables come with a ground wire.
SHP wrote:
>> That's not what I said, that's false, you're wrong.
Idiot Walt wrote:
>Yes, that is exactly what you said: "I'd say YES all turntables come
>with a grounding wire"
Dave Weil replied:
As I pointed out to Trevor, no, that's not *exactly* what he said.
================================================== ==================
Give Dave 10 days, and now he's reduced to flat out lying and
backpeddling. This is because that after 10 days of sparring with me,
there is now has nothing left of his credibility, substance or
integrity, and he's shown to be nothing more than a "joke troll", who
need never be taken seriously.
Cool.
You lose Weill.
Again!
dave weil
March 27th 06, 11:02 PM
On 27 Mar 2006 05:53:42 -0800, wrote:
>Without the reference to the proper spelling of the name
>"Kurt", your reply is senseless and has no comic element to it.
Say the name Kurt out loud and then say the word "curt" out loud. Then
factor in the context of the post. Factor in the "three penny"
reference. Now, get back to me when you've figured all of this out,
Mack - publicly please. <chuckle>
paul packer
March 28th 06, 02:27 AM
dave weil wrote:
> On 27 Mar 2006 05:53:42 -0800, wrote:
>
> >Without the reference to the proper spelling of the name
> >"Kurt", your reply is senseless and has no comic element to it.
>
> Say the name Kurt out loud and then say the word "curt" out loud. Then
> factor in the context of the post. Factor in the "three penny"
> reference. Now, get back to me when you've figured all of this out,
> Mack - publicly please. <chuckle>
Actually, Dave, I thought you were faking it too at first, but I just
re-read the posts and see that you were maybe just a touch too subtle.
Better back off on this one, Mr. Sound. If you know how to do that, of
course.
paul packer wrote:
> dave weil wrote:
> > On 27 Mar 2006 05:53:42 -0800, wrote:
> >
> > >Without the reference to the proper spelling of the name
> > >"Kurt", your reply is senseless and has no comic element to it.
> >
> > Say the name Kurt out loud and then say the word "curt" out loud. Then
> > factor in the context of the post. Factor in the "three penny"
> > reference. Now, get back to me when you've figured all of this out,
> > Mack - publicly please. <chuckle>
>
> Actually, Dave, I thought you were faking it too at first, but I just
> re-read the posts and see that you were maybe just a touch too subtle.
>
> Better back off on this one, Mr. Sound. If you know how to do that, of
> course.
I'm going to just wait and read Mr. Sound going opera on Dave :-)
The interesting part is how he'll warp time to make Dave's subtlety
a Chrono-Synclasic Infundibulum conundrum.
Garbage Bag Boy strains to get it, misses again:
> On 27 Mar 2006 05:53:42 -0800, wrote:
>
> >Without the reference to the proper spelling of the name
> >"Kurt", your reply is senseless and has no comic element to it.
>
> Say the name Kurt out loud and then say the word "curt" out loud. Then
> factor in the context of the post. Factor in the "three penny"
> reference. Now, get back to me when you've figured all of this out,
> Mack - publicly please. <chuckle>
Anyone that has to try this hard to come up with cheap, tawdry excuses
for not having gotten Sander's reference, is **lying**. Ergo,
you've proven to be a liar. Again. You lose.
p.s. See if you can get the reference in my response, Jimbo. You might
get a "point" back. Refrain from "adhominum" attacks please. <chuckle>
paul packer wrote:
> dave weil wrote:
> > On 27 Mar 2006 05:53:42 -0800, wrote:
> >
> > >Without the reference to the proper spelling of the name
> > >"Kurt", your reply is senseless and has no comic element to it.
> >
> > Say the name Kurt out loud and then say the word "curt" out loud. Then
> > factor in the context of the post. Factor in the "three penny"
> > reference. Now, get back to me when you've figured all of this out,
> > Mack - publicly please. <chuckle>
>
> Actually, Dave, I thought you were faking it too at first, but I just
> re-read the posts and see that you were maybe just a touch too subtle.
>
> Better back off on this one, Mr. Sound. If you know how to do that, of
> course.
Is THAT so? Oh, okay I think I understand now. You're following the
"RAO Rule of Facts". Which states:
"If any piece of speculation or conjecture offered by one RAO regular
is confirmed by a second RAO regular... it's a SOLID FACT!".
Sorry, Mr. Weillapologist. Your fault for being too naive and gullible,
as to buy this proven pathological liar's story that he knew the
reference Sander was referring to, but he's so "clever", he didn't
need to spell the name properly... or even refer to the name. I've
given Garbage Boy many culutral references that went straight over his
fat head, without him having a clue of it ever happening. Even when I
shove his head in front of his computer monitor and tell him what I'm
referring to, the dimwit _still_ doesn't get the reference. He claims
to have a "classical education". Well, ask him who Dr. Parrington was,
and see how many times he'll duck the question (I counted TWELVE
times). It's not the first time Weill has tried slimy face-saving
excuses like we see above, and by George the Greek, it won't be the
last. You back off on this one, since you clearly don't know what
you're talking about.
wrote:
> paul packer wrote:
>
> > dave weil wrote:
> > > On 27 Mar 2006 05:53:42 -0800, wrote:
> > >
> > > >Without the reference to the proper spelling of the name
> > > >"Kurt", your reply is senseless and has no comic element to it.
> > >
> > > Say the name Kurt out loud and then say the word "curt" out loud. Then
> > > factor in the context of the post. Factor in the "three penny"
> > > reference. Now, get back to me when you've figured all of this out,
> > > Mack - publicly please. <chuckle>
> >
> > Actually, Dave, I thought you were faking it too at first, but I just
> > re-read the posts and see that you were maybe just a touch too subtle.
> >
> > Better back off on this one, Mr. Sound. If you know how to do that, of
> > course.
>
> Is THAT so? Oh, okay I think I understand now. You're following the
> "RAO Rule of Facts". Which states:
>
> "If any piece of speculation or conjecture offered by one RAO regular
> is confirmed by a second RAO regular... it's a SOLID FACT!".
>
> Sorry, Mr. Weillapologist. Your fault for being too naive and gullible,
> as to buy this proven pathological liar's story that he knew the
> reference Sander was referring to, but he's so "clever", he didn't
> need to spell the name properly... or even refer to the name. I've
> given Garbage Boy many culutral references that went straight over his
> fat head, without him having a clue of it ever happening. Even when I
> shove his head in front of his computer monitor and tell him what I'm
> referring to, the dimwit _still_ doesn't get the reference. He claims
> to have a "classical education". Well, ask him who Dr. Parrington was,
> and see how many times he'll duck the question (I counted TWELVE
> times). It's not the first time Weill has tried slimy face-saving
> excuses like we see above, and by George the Greek, it won't be the
> last. You back off on this one, since you clearly don't know what
> you're talking about.
I wondered why Dr. Parrington was so important to you:
http://www.ivfworld.com/pages.php?id=70
Sander deWaal
March 28th 06, 09:41 PM
said:
>You'll have to provide a better reference:
>Googled results were:
>Your search - "Dr.James Parrington" - did not match any documents.
Apparently, not everything's in Google.
Doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Start with search terms like "morphic resonance" or "Rupert Sheldrake"
if you're really interested in the subject.
--
- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -
Sander deWaal wrote:
> said:
>
>
> >You'll have to provide a better reference:
> >Googled results were:
> >Your search - "Dr.James Parrington" - did not match any documents.
>
>
> Apparently, not everything's in Google.
> Doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
>
> Start with search terms like "morphic resonance" or "Rupert Sheldrake"
> if you're really interested in the subject.
>
> --
>
> - Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -
Yes, I found those topics quite easily, generally on pages
with occult headers.
Dr, Parrington was not on any of the ones I looked at across
a cross section of 15 google pages in that search.
If SHP has something specific about Dr. Parrington,
let him get to the point, or it's just an obscure reference
that his beating the point about is somewhat moot.
Sander deWaal
March 28th 06, 10:22 PM
said:
>> Start with search terms like "morphic resonance" or "Rupert Sheldrake"
>> if you're really interested in the subject.
>Yes, I found those topics quite easily, generally on pages
>with occult headers.
>Dr, Parrington was not on any of the ones I looked at across
>a cross section of 15 google pages in that search.
>If SHP has something specific about Dr. Parrington,
>let him get to the point, or it's just an obscure reference
>that his beating the point about is somewhat moot.
Did you actually read anything by Sheldrake?
--
- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -
dave weil
March 28th 06, 10:46 PM
On 28 Mar 2006 11:56:07 -0800, wrote:
>>
>> Say the name Kurt out loud and then say the word "curt" out loud. Then
>> factor in the context of the post. Factor in the "three penny"
>> reference. Now, get back to me when you've figured all of this out,
>> Mack - publicly please. <chuckle>
>
>
>Anyone that has to try this hard to come up with cheap, tawdry excuses
>for not having gotten Sander's reference, is **lying**. Ergo,
>you've proven to be a liar. Again. You lose.
No, sometimes someone has to explain something to someone as if they
were 6 years old. Sorry i overestimated your emotional age though.
>p.s. See if you can get the reference in my response, Jimbo. You might
>get a "point" back. Refrain from adhominum attacks please. <chuckle>
Learn how to spell, dick.
dave weil
March 28th 06, 10:55 PM
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 23:22:52 +0200, Sander deWaal >
wrote:
said:
>
>
>>> Start with search terms like "morphic resonance" or "Rupert Sheldrake"
>>> if you're really interested in the subject.
>
>
>>Yes, I found those topics quite easily, generally on pages
>>with occult headers.
>>Dr, Parrington was not on any of the ones I looked at across
>>a cross section of 15 google pages in that search.
>>If SHP has something specific about Dr. Parrington,
>>let him get to the point, or it's just an obscure reference
>>that his beating the point about is somewhat moot.
>
>
>
>Did you actually read anything by Sheldrake?
And do you REALLY think that my use of the word curt was accidental?
I mean REALLY?
Or should I pander and start throwing a lotta smarmy-winkies all over
the place?
Oh wait, I guess I have to say "a Lotte" smarmy-winkies so that
everyone gets the joke...
Sander deWaal
March 28th 06, 11:14 PM
dave weil > said:
>And do you REALLY think that my use of the word curt was accidental?
Is "curt" an existing word, then?
If so, what does it mean?
>I mean REALLY?
Being a nice person, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt this time.
>Or should I pander and start throwing a lotta smarmy-winkies all over
>the place?
You mean like Arny does? Please. ;-)
>Oh wait, I guess I have to say "a Lotte" smarmy-winkies so that
>everyone gets the joke...
IIRC, Lotte Lehmann was a great Strauss performer, among other things,
but what has this got to do with all of the above?
Did she sing in Weill's and Brecht's opera, then? That's news to me!
Anyway, this is a very subtle, if not obscure joke, Dave! ;-)
--
- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -
Jenn
March 28th 06, 11:39 PM
In article >,
Sander deWaal > wrote:
> dave weil > said:
>
>
> >And do you REALLY think that my use of the word curt was accidental?
>
>
> Is "curt" an existing word, then?
> If so, what does it mean?
>
>
> >I mean REALLY?
>
>
> Being a nice person, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt this time.
>
>
> >Or should I pander and start throwing a lotta smarmy-winkies all over
> >the place?
>
>
> You mean like Arny does? Please. ;-)
>
>
> >Oh wait, I guess I have to say "a Lotte" smarmy-winkies so that
> >everyone gets the joke...
>
>
> IIRC, Lotte Lehmann was a great Strauss performer, among other things,
> but what has this got to do with all of the above?
>
> Did she sing in Weill's and Brecht's opera, then? That's news to me!
Nope, but of course Weill's wife Lotte LENYA was a star of the original
production, and also contributed to the composition process of TPO as
well as Mahagonny, Speak Low, etc. And she was named in the pop version
of "Mack the Knife". ;-)
George M. Middius
March 28th 06, 11:41 PM
Sander deWaal said:
> >And do you REALLY think that my use of the word curt was accidental?
> Is "curt" an existing word, then?
> If so, what does it mean?
Thank's Mr. Dwellal for admitting Mr. Dewwall that you are egregiously
prolix Mr. Dewlla. Its like a dickshunnary doesn't, ride if you saddle it
up for a snow trip. ;-) LOL Mr. Deedle, something about your caught lying
again?
> >I mean REALLY?
> Being a nice person, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt this time.
Doooooooooooooooooooh. Anybody with a brain. Been there done, that.
ROFFLEMTIT! Obviously you're, lying but that's hardly surprising since
you're a prooven liar errr maybe kinda a million kajillion times. ;-)
--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.
MINe 109
March 28th 06, 11:51 PM
In article >,
dave weil > wrote:
<snip>
> And do you REALLY think that my use of the word curt was accidental?
>
> I mean REALLY?
>
> Or should I pander and start throwing a lotta smarmy-winkies all over
> the place?
>
> Oh wait, I guess I have to say "a Lotte" smarmy-winkies so that
> everyone gets the joke...
It's lost in the stars to the layman.
Stephen
MINe 109
March 29th 06, 12:08 AM
In article >,
MINe 109 > wrote:
> In article >,
> dave weil > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > And do you REALLY think that my use of the word curt was accidental?
> >
> > I mean REALLY?
> >
> > Or should I pander and start throwing a lotta smarmy-winkies all over
> > the place?
> >
> > Oh wait, I guess I have to say "a Lotte" smarmy-winkies so that
> > everyone gets the joke...
>
> It's lost in the stars to the layman.
It saves time to think of Lotte Lenya and Lotte Lehmann as the same
person. Heck, throw in Ute Lemper while you're at it.
Stephen
dave weil
March 29th 06, 12:17 AM
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 00:14:04 +0200, Sander deWaal >
wrote:
>dave weil > said:
>
>
>>And do you REALLY think that my use of the word curt was accidental?
>
>
>Is "curt" an existing word, then?
>If so, what does it mean?
Yes, curt means short and to the point...almost brusque. That's why
the word worked especially well in this context, even if it went over
some peoples' heads (you I can understand since English IS your second
language, after all).
>>I mean REALLY?
>
>
>Being a nice person, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt this time.
Why, thank you.
>>Or should I pander and start throwing a lotta smarmy-winkies all over
>>the place?
>
>
>You mean like Arny does? Please. ;-)
>
>
>>Oh wait, I guess I have to say "a Lotte" smarmy-winkies so that
>>everyone gets the joke...
>
>
>IIRC, Lotte Lehmann was a great Strauss performer, among other things,
>but what has this got to do with all of the above?
>
>Did she sing in Weill's and Brecht's opera, then? That's news to me!
Well, she married Weill. Not Lehmann but Lotte Leyna was famously his
wife, and yes, she DID perform in his operas. In fact, I have the
Columbia Masterworks Boxed LPs of Die Dreigroschenoper, as supervised
by Lenya and with her performing the role of Jenny. And no, it's not a
3 Eye, but the brown label/orange-lettered 70s label, but the
recording is from 1958.
>Anyway, this is a very subtle, if not obscure joke, Dave! ;-)
Well, on rare occasion I can be somewhat suble. But don't hold your
breath for the next occasion.
dave weil
March 29th 06, 12:34 AM
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 23:08:18 GMT, MINe 109 >
wrote:
>In article >,
> MINe 109 > wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> dave weil > wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > And do you REALLY think that my use of the word curt was accidental?
>> >
>> > I mean REALLY?
>> >
>> > Or should I pander and start throwing a lotta smarmy-winkies all over
>> > the place?
>> >
>> > Oh wait, I guess I have to say "a Lotte" smarmy-winkies so that
>> > everyone gets the joke...
>>
>> It's lost in the stars to the layman.
>
>It saves time to think of Lotte Lenya and Lotte Lehmann as the same
>person. Heck, throw in Ute Lemper while you're at it.
You can throw in Ute anytime. Now thems some gams!
It's funny - that's who sprung to mind immediately with the Lost in
the Stars reference. Strange how that stuff works. That's almost like
saying Alabama Song and instantly thinking Marianne Faithfull, or Jim
Morrison even.
Speaking of Ute Lemper, have you heard her devastating version of Nick
Cave's "Little Water Song" off of said album? Chilling.
dave weil
March 29th 06, 12:37 AM
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 17:34:55 -0600, dave weil >
wrote:
>>It saves time to think of Lotte Lenya and Lotte Lehmann as the same
>>person. Heck, throw in Ute Lemper while you're at it.
>
>You can throw in Ute anytime. Now thems some gams!
>
>It's funny - that's who sprung to mind immediately with the Lost in
>the Stars reference. Strange how that stuff works. That's almost like
>saying Alabama Song and instantly thinking Marianne Faithfull, or Jim
>Morrison even.
>
>Speaking of Ute Lemper, have you heard her devastating version of Nick
>Cave's "Little Water Song" off of said album? Chilling.
<correction> I didn't mean "said album". I meant the Punishing Kiss
album...I don't know where "said album" came from...
paul packer
March 29th 06, 01:54 AM
wrote:
> paul packer wrote:
>
> > > Actually, Dave, I thought you were faking it too at first, but I just
> > re-read the posts and see that you were maybe just a touch too subtle.
> >
> > Better back off on this one, Mr. Sound. If you know how to do that, of
> > course.
>
> Is THAT so? Oh, okay I think I understand now. You're following the
> "RAO Rule of Facts". Which states:
>
> "If any piece of speculation or conjecture offered by one RAO regular
> is confirmed by a second RAO regular... it's a SOLID FACT!".
No, actually the Rule states: "If anyone with a grip on sanity agrees
with anyone else with a grip on sanity over someone who's lost their
grip on sanity, the two sane posters are most likely to be right."
> Sorry, Mr. Weillapologist. Your fault for being too naive and gullible,
> as to buy this proven pathological liar's story that he knew the
> reference Sander was referring to, but he's so "clever", he didn't
> need to spell the name properly... or even refer to the name. I've
> given Garbage Boy many culutral references that went straight over his
> fat head, without him having a clue of it ever happening. Even when I
> shove his head in front of his computer monitor and tell him what I'm
> referring to, the dimwit _still_ doesn't get the reference.
You're a very violent man, Mr. Sound. You're always writing about doing
something physical to someone. Wasn't it you who was speculating about
bashing Trevor Wilson
with a golf club? Hmmm....
He claims
> to have a "classical education". Well, ask him who Dr. Parrington was,
> and see how many times he'll duck the question (I counted TWELVE
> times). It's not the first time Weill has tried slimy face-saving
> excuses like we see above, and by George the Greek, it won't be the
> last. You back off on this one, since you clearly don't know what
> you're talking about.
Why is this comparison of minds so important to you? Why do you care
whether he knows who Dr. Parrington was? Can't he look it up? You seem
to miss the personality behind the post in this insatiable quest to
prove yourself a sharper tack than the next tack, to use your own
metaphor. I've been reading Dave's posts here for years and he's a
regular guy, to use the vernacular. That however won't mean much to you
as he doesn't know who Dr. Parrington was. You know, you remind me of a
nagging wife in this thread. You've found a nit to pick and you're
going to use it like you use everything else--to prove how damn smart
you are.
Sander deWaal wrote:
> said:
>
>
> >> Start with search terms like "morphic resonance" or "Rupert Sheldrake"
> >> if you're really interested in the subject.
>
>
> >Yes, I found those topics quite easily, generally on pages
> >with occult headers.
> >Dr, Parrington was not on any of the ones I looked at across
> >a cross section of 15 google pages in that search.
> >If SHP has something specific about Dr. Parrington,
> >let him get to the point, or it's just an obscure reference
> >that his beating the point about is somewhat moot.
>
>
>
> Did you actually read anything by Sheldrake?
>
> --
>
> - Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -
Yes, I did read some of the material on the Sheldrake online website,
but the main thing that I haven't found yet is anything about
Dr. James Parrington, which is the referenced individual that
SHP is so intent upon. I have tried other search engines, still no
Dr. James Parrington. If you have a link, pass it this way please.
I'm not a biologist, and really have no interest in whether my
next offspring will have a genetic memory of these internet
moments:-)
MINe 109
March 29th 06, 04:06 AM
In article >,
dave weil > wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 23:08:18 GMT, MINe 109 >
> wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > MINe 109 > wrote:
> >
> >> In article >,
> >> dave weil > wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> > And do you REALLY think that my use of the word curt was accidental?
> >> >
> >> > I mean REALLY?
> >> >
> >> > Or should I pander and start throwing a lotta smarmy-winkies all over
> >> > the place?
> >> >
> >> > Oh wait, I guess I have to say "a Lotte" smarmy-winkies so that
> >> > everyone gets the joke...
> >>
> >> It's lost in the stars to the layman.
> >
> >It saves time to think of Lotte Lenya and Lotte Lehmann as the same
> >person. Heck, throw in Ute Lemper while you're at it.
>
> You can throw in Ute anytime. Now thems some gams!
She has more video collections than Marianne Faithful for some reason.
> It's funny - that's who sprung to mind immediately with the Lost in
> the Stars reference. Strange how that stuff works. That's almost like
> saying Alabama Song and instantly thinking Marianne Faithfull, or Jim
> Morrison even.
>
> Speaking of Ute Lemper, have you heard her devastating version of Nick
> Cave's "Little Water Song" off of said album? Chilling.
No, but I'm not surprised she can manage it. I've seen bits of her "Live
at Les Bouffes du Nord" several times and I have cd compilation
somewhere.
A little off-subject, but I've enjoyed videos by the Dresden Dolls, who
describe themselves as "Brechtian."
Stephen
Garbage Boys misses objects flying past his head:
> On 28 Mar 2006 11:56:07 -0800, wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Say the name Kurt out loud and then say the word "curt" out loud. Then
> >> factor in the context of the post. Factor in the "three penny"
> >> reference. Now, get back to me when you've figured all of this out,
> >> Mack - publicly please. <chuckle>
> >
> >
> >Anyone that has to try this hard to come up with cheap, tawdry excuses
> >for not having gotten Sander's reference, is **lying**. Ergo,
> >you've proven to be a liar. Again. You lose.
>
> No, sometimes someone has to explain something to someone as if they
> were 6 years old. Sorry i overestimated your emotional age though.
> >p.s. See if you can get the reference in my response, Jimbo. You might
> >get a "point" back. Refrain from adhominum attacks please. <chuckle>
What's the matter Garbage Boy? Too stupid to have caught my cultural
reference in this post? What a shame! You mean you who pretended that
you understood Sander's reference to Kurt Weill, did not get MY
cultural reference here? As EASY as I made it for you?!
Tsk. Tsk. "Classical education" indeed!
Do you have any idea what a hypocritical moron this makes you, Davey
boy?
> Learn how to spell, dick.
Well, that's reference no. 2 that went right over your head. LOL! Am
I going too fast for you, Garbage Boy? Would you like me to write s l o
w e r......?
Sander deWaal wrote:
> dave weil > said:
>
>
> >And do you REALLY think that my use of the word curt was accidental?
>
>
> Is "curt" an existing word, then?
> If so, what does it mean?
>
>
> >I mean REALLY?
>
>
> Being a nice person, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt this time.
>
>
> >Or should I pander and start throwing a lotta smarmy-winkies all over
> >the place?
>
>
> You mean like Arny does? Please. ;-)
>
>
> >Oh wait, I guess I have to say "a Lotte" smarmy-winkies so that
> >everyone gets the joke...
>
>
> IIRC, Lotte Lehmann was a great Strauss performer, among other things,
> but what has this got to do with all of the above?
>
> Did she sing in Weill's and Brecht's opera, then? That's news to me!
>
> Anyway, this is a very subtle, if not obscure joke, Dave! ;-)
He's good at giving them, not at getting them. I gave Dave a much
less subtle reference, and even told him that I was doing so. He never
got it!! Despite his claimed classical education, the reference went
right over his pointy head.....
wrote:
> Yes, I did read some of the material on the Sheldrake online website,
> but the main thing that I haven't found yet is anything about
> Dr. James Parrington, which is the referenced individual that
> SHP is so intent upon. I have tried other search engines, still no
> Dr. James Parrington. If you have a link, pass it this way please.
> I'm not a biologist, and really have no interest in whether my
> next offspring will have a genetic memory of these internet
> moments:-)
Why don't you ask Garbage Boy who Dr. James Parrington is? Dave Weil
is the one who implied to me that he had a "classical education",
superior to mine. That being so, he "should" know who Parrington is.
But so far, with as big a mouth as Garbage Boy has on this group,
he's been unusually quiet on the subject of James Parrington.
Completely ignoring all questions about the reference, actually. I
wonder why that is?
paul packer wrote:
> wrote:
> > paul packer wrote:
> >
> > > > Actually, Dave, I thought you were faking it too at first, but I just
> > > re-read the posts and see that you were maybe just a touch too subtle.
> > >
> > > Better back off on this one, Mr. Sound. If you know how to do that, of
> > > course.
> >
> > Is THAT so? Oh, okay I think I understand now. You're following the
> > "RAO Rule of Facts". Which states:
> >
> > "If any piece of speculation or conjecture offered by one RAO regular
> > is confirmed by a second RAO regular... it's a SOLID FACT!".
>
> No, actually the Rule states: "If anyone with a grip on sanity agrees
> with anyone else with a grip on sanity over someone who's lost their
> grip on sanity, the two sane posters are most likely to be right."
You're still not getting it, so I'll dumb this down for you: How do
you decide whether I'm the one with a grip on sanity, or whether
everyone else here who would judge me has lost their grip on sanity?
THIS is how you decide on RAO:
"RAO Rule of Facts":
"If any piece of speculation or conjecture offered by one RAO regular
is confirmed by a second RAO regular... it's a SOLID FACT!".
Steven Sullivan, a self-proclaimed scientist, decided I was insane. You
can see it in every post of his. Was there any evidence offered, to
discover if the accusation was true? None whatsoever. Therefore,
conjecture here becomes truth in an instant. It merely has to be stated
as fact. No one here, including you, believes in facts or science. They
believe merely in conjecture, and religious-type beliefs. That's much
closer to "insanity" than where I'm standing.
> You're a very violent man, Mr. Sound. You're always writing about doing
> something physical to someone. Wasn't it you who was speculating about
> bashing Trevor Wilson
> with a golf club? Hmmm....
Please don't misunderstand me, Mr. Packer. I am not a violent man.
I'm evil. There is a difference. I am actually, the most evil-minded
person that ever walked the face of this group. Which is why I have to
laugh when I see people like Weil, Middius, Sullivan and others, who
mistook me for Mrs. Belt, attempt to be as nasty as they can towards
me. It's like being harassed by a biker gang.... of toddlers. They
have no idea what amateurs at evil they really are, and how extremely
easy I'm being on them. But I'm really a nice guy if you get to
know me.
> He claims
> > to have a "classical education". Well, ask him who Dr. Parrington was,
> > and see how many times he'll duck the question (I counted TWELVE
> > times). It's not the first time Weill has tried slimy face-saving
> > excuses like we see above, and by George the Greek, it won't be the
> > last. You back off on this one, since you clearly don't know what
> > you're talking about.
>
> Why is this comparison of minds so important to you? Why do you care
> whether he knows who Dr. Parrington was? Can't he look it up?
You really should NOT do this, Packer. You look like an idiot for
getting involved in a flame war right in the middle, without having a
clue as to the context of what you're reading. But just to show you
what an idiot you can be, I will tell you why I care whether Garbage
Bag Boy knows who James Parrington was. This is the synopsis anyway,
because its a LONG story, that involves over a DOZEN posts:
It all started when I made a reference to Monty Python to explain a
poitn to Weil, because I figured at least that's something the
imbecile would understand. Then he attacked me simply for referring to
Monty Python, claiming I had no cultural background whatsoever, or a
"classical education", because according to him, me referring to Python
meant I lacked culture and education. Weil was then corrected on this
attack of his by a man who went to Oxford, and was nevertheless a
Python fan. Weil later made references to Python himself, but excused
his "social faux-pas", with more hypocritical bluster. Weil had,
afterward, attacked me for not getting his references (even though
there was nothing to "get"). At some point, I explained to Weil that
the reason I chose to use Python as a reference during the "audio
portion" of our debates, was because I did not think he was educated
enough to get my references to James Parrington.
Then I asked him who James Parrington was, to see if I was right about
that. Curiously enough, although he continues to stalk me and post so
many messages, that I can safely ignore half of them and still have 3
dozen others to read, at any given time on any given day, he never
answered my question. So the more he ducks my question, the more I am
inclined to ask him. Particularly since he will make a point six dozen
times over, if he thinks it will score points in his little trolling
game with me.
As to the question of "can he look it up", well that's already been
answered by Westface. Which is: "Not on Google". Now as we all know,
Weill is so morbidly obese, he would have to have his doorway
restructured, in order to just leave the house. So no chance if him
getting to a library, or God forbid, the grounds of an institution of
higher learning, in order to find out who Parrington is, and how Weill
missed the reference I made of Parrington in my posts to him. You're
too slow to get this, but I already know the answer to the question of
whether Dave Weill knows who Dr. James Parrington is. The answer is:
"Not if a gun was pointed to my head".
My point in all of this is to show that Weill was LYING when he implied
he had a "classical education", superior to mine. And point no. 2:
Weill is a HYPOCRITE, for attacking me for not getting an obscure,
hidden reference he allegedly made, in a post of his I'm sure I never
even read, when all of MY references go straight over his fat head.
> You seem
> to miss the personality behind the post in this insatiable quest to
> prove yourself a sharper tack than the next tack, to use your own
> metaphor.
Again, you're commenting on things you know nothing about Packer.
Weill is the one who started stalking and attacking me in post after
post, Google will show that on the record. He kept trying to prove he
was a sharper tack than me. When he began, he made a lot of dumb
assumptions but didn't, and still doesn't, have any clue as to just
who he's dealing with. After trying so hard to nibble on my ankles
everywhere I went, he got my attention. Ever since, he's been my
little titmouse. I give him whacks where I see fit, just to deflate
this loudmouthed idiot's ego. And because with him, it's so easy to
do.
> I've been reading Dave's posts here for years and he's a
> regular guy, to use the vernacular. That however won't mean much to you
> as he doesn't know who Dr. Parrington was. You know, you remind me of a
> nagging wife in this thread. You've found a nit to pick and you're
> going to use it like you use everything else--to prove how damn smart
> you are.
You have NO idea what you're talking about, Packer. You're just
spewing one ignorant statement after another. This is why I told you to
back off, in your intereference between me and Garbage Boy over there.
YOU are the one who missed the "personality behind the post" with Weil.
In recent days, he's continually and deliberately lied about me, and
misappropriated my words, in order to score "brownie points" in his
trolling attacks against me. Perhaps for RAO, that makes him a "regular
guy". But him and his mosquito friend Middius have proven to be even
more of a net-stalking troll than most others here. Everybody thought
OJ was a great guy too, you know. Until he stabbed two people to death.
Then they just thought he was a good football player.
dave weil
March 29th 06, 01:47 PM
On 28 Mar 2006 19:59:21 -0800, wrote:
>Despite his claimed classical education
No, that's YOUR claim, not mine, remember?
I'm guessing it's pre-Altheimers. Maybe you could get some brain
floss.
dave weil
March 29th 06, 01:48 PM
On 28 Mar 2006 20:04:28 -0800, wrote:
> Dave Weil
>is the one who implied to me that he had a "classical education
Nope.
You lose.
Again.
Sander deWaal
March 29th 06, 05:24 PM
Jenn > said:
>> >Oh wait, I guess I have to say "a Lotte" smarmy-winkies so that
>> >everyone gets the joke...
>> IIRC, Lotte Lehmann was a great Strauss performer, among other things,
>> but what has this got to do with all of the above?
>> Did she sing in Weill's and Brecht's opera, then? That's news to me!
>Nope, but of course Weill's wife Lotte LENYA was a star of the original
>production, and also contributed to the composition process of TPO as
>well as Mahagonny, Speak Low, etc. And she was named in the pop version
>of "Mack the Knife". ;-)
Thanks Jenn, apparently I didn't google deep enough ;-)
Oh well, back to the MOSFET projects with me.
--
- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -
Sander deWaal
March 29th 06, 05:26 PM
said:
>> Did you actually read anything by Sheldrake?
>Yes, I did read some of the material on the Sheldrake online website,
>but the main thing that I haven't found yet is anything about
>Dr. James Parrington, which is the referenced individual that
>SHP is so intent upon. I have tried other search engines, still no
>Dr. James Parrington. If you have a link, pass it this way please.
>I'm not a biologist, and really have no interest in whether my
>next offspring will have a genetic memory of these internet
>moments:-)
I think you're too focused on Parrington.
I just steered you towards some interesting (IMHO) material.
I have no clue about who or what James Parrington in this context is,
either.
--
- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -
Goofball_star_dot_etal
March 29th 06, 06:42 PM
On 28 Mar 2006 20:50:37 -0800, wrote:
>....... I am not a violent man.
>I'm evil. .............. But I'm really a nice guy if you get to
>know me.
"Naughty but nice"?
paul packer wrote:
> wrote:
> > paul packer wrote:
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > > paul packer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > Actually, Dave, I thought you were faking it too at first, but I just
> > > > > re-read the posts and see that you were maybe just a touch too subtle.
> > > > >
> > > > > Better back off on this one, Mr. Sound. If you know how to do that, of
> > > > > course.
> > > >
> > > > Is THAT so? Oh, okay I think I understand now. You're following the
> > > > "RAO Rule of Facts". Which states:
> > > >
> > > > "If any piece of speculation or conjecture offered by one RAO regular
> > > > is confirmed by a second RAO regular... it's a SOLID FACT!".
> > >
> > > No, actually the Rule states: "If anyone with a grip on sanity agrees
> > > with anyone else with a grip on sanity over someone who's lost their
> > > grip on sanity, the two sane posters are most likely to be right."
> >
> > You're still not getting it, so I'll dumb this down for you: How do
> > you decide whether I'm the one with a grip on sanity, or whether
> > everyone else here who would judge me has lost their grip on sanity?
>
> Well, that's pretty easy. You read a post like this, where a guy goes
> on and on about a molehill that in his mind has become a mountain,
> obsesses and obsesses until his would-be readers have dozed off, claims
> to be not insane but evil and seems proud of it, repeats for the
> umpteenth time his claim to be the only intelligent person on RAO (or
> perhaps in the known universe), raves on interminably about someone
> stalking and attacking him, makes meglomaniacal statements about people
> nibbling on his ankles (Andre Jute, where are you?)....
Yes, I see. So... where's your evidence that I'm insane?
> P.S. It's not proven that OJ was guilty. There's contrary evidence.
Just as there's contrary evidence that I'm not insane, and that the
tweaks are valid.
You just lost the debate by the hand of your own arguments. I love when
people do that.
Dave Vile writes:
> On 28 Mar 2006 19:59:21 -0800, wrote:
>
> >Despite his claimed classical education
>
> No, that's YOUR claim, not mine, remember?
>
Yes, I remember. It was definitely yours.
> I'm guessing it's pre-Altheimers.
Oh, "pre-Altheimers" is your guess, is it? Is your medical degree part
of your claimed "classical education", Davey boy?
> Maybe you could get some brain
> floss.
OTOH, wouldn't do you any good. You'd have to have brains to floss
them, wouldn't you.
Tell us again about how "turntables have groudning straps". LOL!
Dave Vile wrote:
> On 28 Mar 2006 20:04:28 -0800, wrote:
>
> > Dave Weil
> >is the one who implied to me that he had a "classical education
>
> Nope.
Yup.
Sorry. You lose.
Again.
p.s. Did you ever remember who Dr. James Parrington was, from your
alleged "classical education", Davey boy?
dave weil
March 29th 06, 09:33 PM
On 29 Mar 2006 12:22:50 -0800, wrote:
>Yes, I see. So... where's your evidence that I'm insane?
You're not insane...just mundane.
dave weil
March 29th 06, 09:43 PM
On 29 Mar 2006 12:26:46 -0800, wrote:
>
>Dave Vile writes:
>
>> On 28 Mar 2006 19:59:21 -0800, wrote:
>>
>> >Despite his claimed classical education
>>
>> No, that's YOUR claim, not mine, remember?
>>
>Yes, I remember. It was definitely yours.
Well then, you should be able to produce a quote.
I'm not holding my breath though.
>> I'm guessing it's pre-Altheimers.
>
>Oh, "pre-Altheimers" is your guess, is it? Is your medical degree part
>of your claimed "classical education", Davey boy?
>
>> Maybe you could get some brain
>> floss.
>
>OTOH, wouldn't do you any good. You'd have to have brains to floss
>them, wouldn't you.
>
>Tell us again about how "turntables have groudning straps". LOL!
I've never said that at all.
paul packer
March 30th 06, 05:20 AM
dave weil wrote:
> On 29 Mar 2006 12:22:50 -0800, wrote:
>
> >Yes, I see. So... where's your evidence that I'm insane?
>
> You're not insane...just mundane.
No, Dave, he's evil, self-confessed. And I for one am grateful to live
in this internet age where an uneducated dolt like me, the dullest tack
in the box, has the opportunity to whip Mr. Satan (formally known as
Sound) into a froth merely by calling a spade a spade---or rather,
calling a "tweak" a load of crap. In past ages intellectual elite like
him would never have deigned glance at the likes of me, so would never
discover how the other half thinks. Now it's whole new ball game.
Arny Krueger
March 30th 06, 02:04 PM
"paul packer" > wrote in message
ups.com
> dave weil wrote:
>> On 29 Mar 2006 12:22:50 -0800,
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, I see. So... where's your evidence that I'm insane?
>>
>> You're not insane...just mundane.
>
> No, Dave, he's evil, self-confessed. And I for one am
> grateful to live in this internet age where an uneducated
> dolt like me, the dullest tack in the box, has the
> opportunity to whip Mr. Satan (formally known as Sound)
> into a froth merely by calling a spade a spade---or
> rather, calling a "tweak" a load of crap. In past ages
> intellectual elite like him would never have deigned
> glance at the likes of me, so would never discover how
> the other half thinks. Now it's whole new ball game.
He fooled you Paul. He never was a member of the intellectual elite. He just
tells a lot of faciful stories about himself and others.
Arny Krueger woke up, ate some cornflakes, started a new day of
incessant lying.
The old man doesn't realize he hasn't any fire, steam or
credibility any longer :
> "paul packer" > wrote in message
> ups.com
> > dave weil wrote:
> >> On 29 Mar 2006 12:22:50 -0800,
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Yes, I see. So... where's your evidence that I'm insane?
> >>
> >> You're not insane...just mundane.
> >
> > No, Dave, he's evil, self-confessed. And I for one am
> > grateful to live in this internet age where an uneducated
> > dolt like me, the dullest tack in the box, has the
> > opportunity to whip Mr. Satan (formally known as Sound)
> > into a froth merely by calling a spade a spade---or
> > rather, calling a "tweak" a load of crap. In past ages
> > intellectual elite like him would never have deigned
> > glance at the likes of me, so would never discover how
> > the other half thinks. Now it's whole new ball game.
>
> He fooled you Paul. He never was a member of the intellectual elite.
Where did I say I was? PROVE IT, Mr. Strawman.
> He just
> tells a lot of faciful stories about himself and others.
PROVE IT.
And while you're at it, PROVE with valid evidence, your basis for
insisting that Jenn denounce my tweaks.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.