George M. Middius wrote:


trotsky said:


Any theory on why Arny "Onward Christian Soldier" Krueger was unable to
respond to my post wherein I referred to him using his faith as a get
out of Hell free card?


Prove he was "unable to respond". The only acceptable proof is some
kind of Kroo-emission.



Of course. I claim that you really don't want to rid the group of the
stench that is Krueger. What would you do with your Roddenberry
tributes?


Random subject change.



That's a complete lie. The subject is always the Krueger problem with
you. I'm right on topic.


That means you've conceded the previous point,
which, as it happens, is one you raised. Specifically, you just
conceded there is no way to know whether Krooger was "unable to
respond" unless he tells us. This also undercuts all your past (and
future) claims of mindreading on the same subject.

God, you're easy.


George, I've never seen you behave like such a coward before. I think
it's painfully obvious that my tack of attacking Krueger on his lack of
Christian morals is a quadrillion times more effective than anything
you've tried. Krueger can't last five seconds in a theological
discussion about his online behavior. Because I've shown you the best
course of action and you refuse to accept it I'm accusing you of being
part of the problem.



I dislike repeating myself, but I'll do so here out of pity: The total
number of individuals who have said in email that they believe you to
be off your rocker is now ten. That's 10, X, or ten to you.



And yet, they only exist privately in your e-mails. Any explanation for
this?


You keep asking the same stupid question, and I keep giving the same
simple answer. Are you retarded?



George, nothing is simple with you. Any post from you is an invitation
to get lost in the catacombs of your mind. Do you deny having a problem
with being straightforward with your language? Like all cowards, you
refuse to show an ounce of self-awareness.


BTW, while we're on the subject of nutcases, has your opinion of poor
Harold Ferstler changed? Bear in mind that he admitted to plagiarizing
a Web site for a book about audio luminaries.



I have no opinion of Howie one way or another. Why even ask--he next on
the list for the Roddenberry tributes?


In the past, you did have an opinion, and it was favorable. That makes
two memory issues in a row. Have you been to a shrink of some sort? I
mean that constructively.



Howie strikes me as pretty harmless. Krueger doesn't. Which trip in
the catacombs are we on now?

Also, have you reconciled your mania for winning with the two times
I've caught you manufacturing "quotes" you claimed I uttered?



Can you produce those, or do they only exist in your e-mails too?


Oooh! Three memory lapses in a row.

No, Gregipus, they exist in the Google archive. They occurred within
the past week, and already you've forgotten. How pathetic.

Here's a hint: They involved quote marks, and each time I called you
on your lying.



I've had this discussion before. (Not with you--somebody else.)
Quotation marks, technically speaking, are only supposed to be for
direct quotes, but I feel they are suitable for paraphrasing despite
what my grammar books tell me. It's kind of like the time I related
Bush's gaffe of referring to Pakistanis as "Paki's", and explained that
I put the apostrophe there to make sure the pronounciation was correct.
The English language is somewhat malleable and sometimes one has to
introduce his own interpretations.