"dave weil" wrote in message
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:02:39 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Lionel Chapuis" wrote in message
Yesterday I have answered a little bit hardly to Dave Weil after he
opens an other thread about Arny Krueger. In my answer in French I
suggested him to create a new NG with Mr Krueger for central topic
in order to stop pollution of R.A.O.
It seemed me that from a purely technical point of view Mr Krueger
has a knowledge and experience. When he limits his answers to
technical statements some of his opinion are interesting, some of
his ideas find naturally place on this forum.
But after a deeper search in the group history I must acknowledge
that Mr Krueger is an insane sadist and I don't want to deal with
any of his technical tips even if they are exact and helpful.
Gosh, it didn't take Middius and his group of creeps long to get to
you, did it?
Here it comes...
For those who can be surprised by my today position I let you find
just one excerpt of what I have found :
Here's the more complete listing of the context with proper references:
Jennifer wrote on RAO about Arny to Mike McKelvy. This means that the
statement at that point was completely gratuitous on her part:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pi....14198-100000%
40jed.deltaforce.net
"It's time to embrace that love for objectivity and read Arnold's posts
with an open mind. Arny's blatancies are not only intentional, they are
often premeditated and designed to slur."
"I don't often agree with you regarding audio or politics, but I consider
you to be an honest and very direct man. How you can ignore or even
condone Arny's lying, twisted behavior on RAO is beyond my comprehension,
Mike."
Arny Krüger wrote to Jennifer:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=jc...s.rdc2.m i.ho
me.com
on Feb 23, 2000
"It's really amazing how you can be so dominated by hate. You have some
physical condition that puts you in pain a lot of the time?"
Jennifer replies:
"Yes, a severe allergy to your filth!!!"
So the following is not a direct response to my comment as was deceptively
claimed by Lionel. In fact it was posted two days later:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pi....30133-100000%
40jed.deltaforce.net
on Feb 25, 2000
"Arnold, you are one basty nastard. Not for referring to my
handicap", but for lying about having no knowledge of it...and
insinuating I had attempted to take some kind of devious advantage
of you."
Thus we have some obvious questions about Lionel's intent, because he has
deleted several days worth of comments between Jennifer and I, in an obvious
attempt to make the situation look far worse for me than it actually ways.
Jennifer and I had been going around for two days at that point.
Nice job of deleting massive relevant context and presuming that I
was lying. The fact of the matter is that Jennifer has a long
history of very nasty gratuitous personal attacks against me, and
this was just one more of them.
Neither you nor she had any way of knowing for sure whether or not I
knew that she was blind at the time, and for the record I didn't.
I was simply asking her why she had such a personal grudge against
me when I'd never personally responded to her in any negative way.
Bottom line, you should look before you leap into this quagmire.
Still very good advice as the rest of this post will underscore.
You, like most of the regulars on RAO, know I also happen to be
blind. What no one else knows about this little gig of yours is
that you and I exchanged email several months ago concerning your
wife's terrible trials with arthritis, We discussed my similar
situation and specific medication protocols."
This is a complete and total distortion of the relevant facts.
Furthermore it's completely irrelevant.
How is the fact that you had PRIOR knowledge of Jennifer's terrible
trials '
I've specifically denied that. I denied it at the time. Note that this
related specifically to her blindness.
with arthritis and your claim that you were "simply asking her
why she had such a personal grudge against me when I'd never
personally responded to her in any negative way" irrelevant
For one thing it's simply not true.
when it's
CLEAR that you knew that she had a physical condition that puts her in
pain a lot of the time?
It's not clear at all. For the record had I known of her blindness, I would
have never asked the question. In fact the phrasing of the question strongly
indicates that I knew nothing about her personal problems. All I knew was
that she had a history of making gratuitous attacks on me.
I have zero recollection of ever exchanging private email with
*anybody* about my wife's medication. If anybody has proof of such a
discussion with Jennifer, I'd like to see them post it.
It's nice to have selective memory, isn't it?
It's not a matter of selective memory, its a matter of having imperfect
memory. I regret that I'm not perfect like you are Weil, except of course we
know that you're far from perfect.
You can always claim
that you didn't remember if it turns out that Jennifer kept the
correspondence.
If Jennifer has a problem with me, let her present her own evidence and
argue her own case.
Even the facts in this statement are wrong. My wife never had any
terrible trials with Arthritis. As bad as things got she still went
on a 12 day backwoods canoe trip with me in Quetico, hiked miles
and even helped portage our canoe a few times. She was able to get
effective medical assistance in a timely fashion and is now in
almost complete remission, and has been for years.
So, are you lying NOW, or were you lying when you wrote this:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...svr19.news. p
rodigy.com
"It's called receiving them as unsolicited email attachments,
forgetting that they existed, and simply not deleting them because
they were forgotten. Lots of bad things happened in the same general
period of time. For example, back in 1999 my wife was first showing
strong symptoms of Rheumatoid Arthritis, and it looked like she might
end up bedridden and in considerable pain for the rest of her life".
What's unclear about "it looked like she might..."
Obviously, a speculative statement on my part.
Or Weil do you need some basic education about the meaning of the word
*might*?
So, let's look carefully at this statement. You claim that it was
looking like she might end up bedridden and in considerable pain for
the rest of her life and this FIRST occurred less than 4 years ago.
That appears to be the case. What's wrong with that?
And
then you claim that she's been in almost complete remission FOR YEARS,
implying that it wasn't any big deal around the time that Jennifer was
on this group.
What a weird interpretation of the facts! As you show below, my wife had a
near-total remission of her worst symptoms not that long after this exchange
with Jennifer. Wiel, your own *facts* show that this happened years (more
than 2 years) ago.
And then there's this, from almost exactly 4 years ago:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:...&ie=UTF-8&safe
=off&selm=arhw3.4334%24Pv4.2429%40news.rdc1.mi.hom e.com
There are alleged to be a number of web sites that will sell you
pretty much any prescription drug with minimal checking. Offhand, I
don't know their names, but I presume a little searching about might
do the job. If I knew something specific, I'd tell you in heartbeat
because my wife is suffering with Rheumatoid Arthritis, and if there
was a drug that would help her that was unavailable, I'd do what I
could to get it. Period.
Which means what? It means that I don't want my wife to suffer
unnecessarily. Seems reasonable enough.
Now it's time to refresh your memory, with your own words (or maybe
you were lying then as well:
Nope, as I said at the time, I recalled very little about the letter and
now some 3 years later, I recall even less.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=ar....opinion&hl =
en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=Lazt4.200%24ye.18484%40news.rdc2.m i.home.com&r
num=10
"Probably, yet another Middius "Reality enhancement".
Some time (months?) ago I wrote something here about the
anti-arthritic medicines my wife was taking and Jennifer, in a
strange about-face from her months-long history of gratuitous public
attacks on me, wrote me about hers.
I recall very little about her letter, except that I learned from it
that Jennifer was being treated for arthritis. If she said something
about her sight, I don't remember it.
My wife's treatments are pretty successful as she works a full-time
job, etc. etc., including participating in our usual physically
demanding family camping/canoeing trips.
I (apparently erroneously) presumed that medications were working
for Jennifer, as well.
I recall other people saying they were taking arthritis medications
around here, including Mike McElvey, and Ed Shain who mentioned
Celebrex. People take Celebrex to help with wide range of
conditions.
My wife is also taking a chemotherapy drug to try to correct the
immune system disorder that is thought to be at the root of this
problem. Unlike the Celebrex, it does not seem to be doing much.
Next on the agenda is something that is new and quite costly. We
have good medical insurance, which is a real blessing".
Let me highlight the pertinent passage:
"Some time (months?) ago I wrote something here about the
anti-arthritic medicines my wife was taking and Jennifer, in a
strange about-face from her months-long history of gratuitous public
attacks on me, wrote me about hers.
I recall very little about her letter, except that I learned from it
that Jennifer was being treated for arthritis. If she said something
about her sight, I don't remember it".
So, here's your admission that Jennifer wrote you and discussed your
wife's condition.
Along with the fact that I had very little recollection of it years ago,
explaining why I have even less recollection of it now.
And here we have you claming back then that you
couldn't remember whether or not you had discussed her blindness just
months prior.
What's wrong with that?
Considering that you have tied the same dodge to avoid
responsibility for your words, I'm guessing that it was probably true
that he discussed her blindness with you.
Guess as you will. All the evidence you've shown indicates that we briefly
discussed arthritis, and that I had pretty well forgotten about it years
ago. Now you're making a big point out of the fact that I forgot it even
more thoroughly now.
Of course, this is
irrelevant, since you seem to be the only person who didn't know the
well-p[ublicized fact that she was blind, and now it turns out that
you knew that she was suffering from the same painful condition that
you wife suffered from.
It was obviously not well-publicized to me that she was blind. As I said, I
hoped that her treatment for arthritis was as effective as that for my wife.
That leaves her with zero serious problems according to my knowledge at the
time.
Really now Arnold, you should check the Google record before you make
these easily checked claims (of wait, youeither don'tknow how to do
it, or it will lie to you!)
Like the quotes show, I had pretty well forgotten about her arthritis then
and I had forgotten about the whole interchange now.
Of course, by 2002, her arthritis *was* in remission and you felt the
need to publish her WORK telephone number on this forum:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=ar....opinion&hl =
en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=9_ig9.12%246t2.3%40newssvr19.news. prodigy.com&
rnum=13
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Let's put aside the absence of value in everything you just said,
and talk for a moment about what -you- are. You are just a loser
on welfare,
This is a lie. My wife and I are completely self-supporting. We
receive no public assistance. We are both gainfully employed.
with a wife suffering from crippling arthritis,
"My wife's rheumatoid arthritis is in remission because of drug
therapy. She takes Enbrel, http://www.enbrel.com , Methothrexate, and
Celebrex. If you wish to talk to her at her place of business you can
call 313 881 3460".
What's wrong with that?
Apparently, her remission occurred between August of 1999 and August of
2000.
Well dooh. What's wrong with that?
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=ar....opinion&hl =
en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=6x375.15218%24fR2.177236%40news1.r dc1.mi.home.
com&rnum=14
"Mr. Bamborough may have thought that he was accomplishing something
by beating me up when my wife caused me grave concern due to her
illness. I'm happy to report that there is a drug named Enbrel that
works wonders, and with negligible side effects in her case. Please
see http://arthritis.about.com/health/ar...y/blenbrel.htm
for more information if you are interested".
What's wrong with that?
Of course, the exchanges with Jennifer occurred before this miracle.
So that all fits. What's wrong with that?
BTW, the effects of Enbrel were nearly miraculous.
And note that he had "grave concerns" about her condition, which is
NOT the impression that he gives when he says this:
"Even the facts in this statement are wrong. My wife never had any
terrible trials with Arthritis. As bad as things got she still went on
a 12 day backwoods canoe trip with me in Quetico, hiked miles and
even helped portage our canoe a few times. She was able to get
effective medical assistance in a timely fashion and is now in almost
complete remission, and has been for years".
You can interpret this any way you want Weil, but there's no contradiction
at all.
There's an contradiction here. Weil recently claimed that my wife is
supporting me, and then he points you at this quote saying that my
wife is or was having terrible trials with arthritis. If she was
having terrible trials with arthritis, how is it that she's been
supporting me? The answer is that both claims are false.
First of all, I didn't point him at the quote. This is a false claim.
I *did* tell him that if he wanted to know why you get so much grief
here, he should look you up in google.
It's very clear to me that his study of google was highly selective. He
needs to explain why he presented a quote as being a direct reply when in
fact it happened two days later.
Here is the sum total of the private correspondence that I had with
Lionel, who wrote me privately to wonder why I gave you such a hard
time:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 22:22:24 +0200, you wrote:
Sorry Dave, I know that you didn't write that but I forgot to cancel
the automatic header. The message has to be read like that :
A present for you :
http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm
Just a try to make you laugh and bring the object back to the forum
title.
Lionel
I know. I'm just trying to make you laugh as well.
The point is, Arnold Krueger is such a nasty presence on RAO, that he
needs to be drawn and quartered sometimes. It can muddy the waters on
RAO, but one can always ignore those "Arnold posts".
So what are you trying to prove Dave, that Lionel was primed to make
gratuitous attacks on me?
And then:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 00:36:41 +0200, you wrote:
The point is, Arnold Krueger is such a nasty presence on RAO, that
he needs to be drawn and quartered sometimes. It can muddy the
waters on RAO, but one can always ignore those "Arnold posts".
Thank you Dave for answering directly to my mail and to give me
opportunity to put you a question which cannot be put on RAO.
Please excuse my "on-the-limits" curiosity but I am new reader on RAO
and I don't understand all subtlety of the numerous exchanges
concerning Arny Krueger. The question is :
I am only interested in reading experiences concerning audio. From a
purely technical point of view Mr Krueger has a knowledge and
experience. When he limits his answers to technical statements some
of his opinion are interesting, some of his ideas find naturally
place on this forum.
Where is the bad, pervert point ?
From a newbie point of view, when you go deep for the first time in
RAO you are totally astonished by the mix of interesting threads and
the incredibly violent ones. I could accept/understand that when the
discussion goes to politic, religion or other very hot and difficult
subjects, but audio...?
Feel free to answer, no offense anyway.
One thing last, please accept my excuses for playing policeman in a
game I'm not sure to understand.
Sincerely,
Lionel
Lionel,
All you have to do is do a google search for Arnold Krueger and read
some of his postings.
If you think that Arnold is a benign force on RAO, you're sadly
mistaken. But, I'll tell you what I tell all other newbies on this
forum. Stick around long enough and Arnold will turn on you as well.
All you have to do is disagree with him.
Oh yeah, don't profess a love for vinyl LPs or analog, because he will
get nasty with you.
I could give you countless examples but I don't have time. Just look
at Schizoid Man's recent adventures with him.
Take care,
dave
So, I *did* point him in a certain direction but it was to the recent
fracas with Schizoid Man, not to Jennifer Burton. Frankly, it's a
crapshoot to try to figure out what disgusting posts someone searching
for your name on Google will come up with because there are so many.
I think in France this man could have some big troubles with justice
for such public attacks.
I think that in France you have such a thing as due process and even
a little freedom of speech.
Your so-called *facts* that you are presenting here are a highly
incomplete recitation of the true history. Do I see the hand of
Middius and/or Weil in this?
Well, if *my* hand were in this (other than advising him to search
Google, he would be quoting the recent misadventures with Schizoid
Man.
Well Dave, it's as if we could count on you to tell us the whole truth about
these exchanges.
This whole Jennifer Burton thing struck at me out of the blue. It
subsequently developed that she was a client of a certain audio
dealer who was a sworn enemy to me. He used his influence with some
of his customers to personally attack me on RAO. I guess that
Jennifer was one more example of this.
Subsequently Jennifer made a long series of posts where she claimed
that this same audio dealer cheated her. Despite her long series of
personal attacks against me I supported her cause because I thought
it was the right thing to do based on the facts that both of them
were able to present.
At he time I did a little searching on Jennifer's ID and found a more
complete story about her personal situation on other groups. It
included many very big personal problems that really tugged at my
heart strings. She seems to have had a lot of REALLY SEVERE personal
catastrophes. That might explain why she was so bitter.
What explains *your* bitterness?
Jennifer's history of gratuitous attacks on me, of course.
But in the other hand we can estimate we are
happy because I imagine what we can fear if we have to deal with
such sadist guy in a dictatorial state...
The closest I come to being a sadist to repeatedly engage in debates
with dumb guys who make factual error upon factual error, and don't
know how to argue clearly on top of that, like Dave Weil.
In English please.
Thanks for another example of what a dumb guy you are, Weil.
Many apologies to the group and particularly to Dave Weil.
Well, that explains that, doesn't it?
Well, it explains that Lionel seems to be a man who's willing to
apologize, although it wasn't necessary nor solicited.
It appears to me that Lionel was primed to make gratuitous attacks on me by
*somebody*. If I weren't so bored with the antics of the children around
here, I might be interested in knowing who it was.