[Vinylanach]

On Jun 21, 11:01�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in






On Jun 21, 9:27 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

On 21 Iun, 06:19, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in
message
How does he feel about your false kp allegations
against a number of people?

There is no such thing, and you can't prove otherwise.

You sure did make false kp allegations against
Marc, George, JA, myself and others
Prove it!
You certainly conjectured on r.a.o. that it could have
been me who sent you the emails in question, Mr.
Krueger.

In certain paranoid minds, conjecture might constitute "allegations".

In fact it could have been you John that sent the email in question, or
didn't you have email service that week? �;-)

Frankly, a more likely conjecture might be that Art sent the email, applying
the theory that criminals return to the scene of the crime. �Obviously Art
wants to draw attention to the matter, even some 8 years after it happened.
Likely explanation, he did it and never received the adulation that he
expected to receive when he sent it. So he keeps bringing it up again and
again.

Second explanation - Since Art has repeated the idea that libelling my late
son in the reprehesible ways that Middius did back in the day was funny,
perhaps Art thought that the email was funny.

Yes right now, if one were to make idle speculation about who sent the email
in question, the likely party was Art.

What a completely meaningless yet hopelessly insinuating comment.
Let's analyze it:

"Yes right now, if one were to make idle speculation about who sent
the email
in question, the likely party was Art."

"Yes right now..." In other words, if one were to read your comments
today, one might place Art on the list of suspects. Back when it
happened, however, Art was not an active participant here. So "right
now," maybe. But "back when it happened," no.

"If one were..." Who's this one? You? No one believes Art sent the
email. You don't even believe it. Why? BECAUSE THERE WAS NO EMAIL.
So I can only surmise that this "one" really can't look at the facts
and come up with a logical answer.

"...make idle speculation..." In other words, make a wild guess. You
know for sure that Art didn't send the email. Why? BECAUSE THERE WAS
NO EMAIL. So you want people to think that Art may have sent the
email without actually saying it. That's pretty cowardly.

"...about who sent the email..." There was NO email. The headers
were forged by you. It was proven by professionals. You did not
DEBUNK it. You squirmed and wiggled and tried to get out of it.
That's not debunking.

"...in question..." Here's a good question, Arny? Why do you keep
bringing this up? Is it because you know that no one believes you,
and you'll keep bringing it until someone does? I know you think that
enough time will pass where people will forget what happened, or
they'll be too lazy to look in the archives.

"the likely party was Art." No, it was proven that it was you. It's
not "likely," it's certain.

If we said we believed you, Arny, would you drop it forever? Or would
you launch on a new vendetta based upon this supposed exoneration?
It's an honest question.

Personally, I think I'll go back to ignoring you, since this is all
you ever want to talk about.

Boon