1) Marc Phillips' original statement: "Then I would have problems with
child pornography."

2) As rewritten by Arny Krueger: "I have problems getting as much child
pornography as I need."

Unless the Krueger posting is a forgery, to those like Mike McKelvy, who
feel that Arny Krueger is not to blame for the high level of flames on
r.a.o., how is this childish behavior on AK's part excusable?

Just curious.

It's not excusable.
Given, however, the widespread use of forgery in this forum, Arny should
have an opportunity to deny authorship. In that case, the actual headers
must be available to confirm the news server provider.

This kind of post accrues to the author the same moral damnation as those
who refer to Arny's personal tragedy.
Perhaps Arny feels that Marc is the author of some of that material, in
which case I would be slightly more understanding.

In article ,
John Atkinson wrote:

Again:

1) Marc Phillips' original statement: "Then I would have problems with
child pornography."

2) As rewritten by Arny Krueger: "I have problems getting as much child
pornography as I need."

Unless the Krueger posting is a forgery, to those like Mike McKelvy, who
feel that Arny Krueger is not to blame for the high level of flames on
r.a.o., how is this childish behavior on AK's part excusable?


This is quite the sentence.
Where is that syntax midjet when he
is needed?
Time to parse:
"...those...who feel that Arny Krueger is not to blame
for the high level of flames on r.a.o,"
The illogical corollary you insinuate, is that
Arny Krueger IS (solely, implied) to blame for the
high level of flames on r.a.o.
Of course Arny is jointly to blame, with the
rest of the festering rodents, for the high level
of flames on r.a.o.
Of course, this childish behavior of AK is not
excusable.
Are you trying to clear something up here?
It is remarkable to watch someone get into a
****ing contest with a skunk, and in a cesspool
to boot. It begs the question...


Just curious.


As well.



Joe

Joe Duffy wrote in message :

In article ,
John Atkinson wrote:

Again:

1) Marc Phillips' original statement: "Then I would have problems with
child pornography."

2) As rewritten by Arny Krueger: "I have problems getting as much child
pornography as I need."

Unless the Krueger posting is a forgery, to those like Mike McKelvy, who
feel that Arny Krueger is not to blame for the high level of flames on
r.a.o., how is this childish behavior on AK's part excusable?


This is quite the sentence.
Where is that syntax midjet when he
is needed?
Time to parse:
"...those...who feel that Arny Krueger is not to blame
for the high level of flames on r.a.o,"
The illogical corollary you insinuate, is that
Arny Krueger IS (solely, implied) to blame for the
high level of flames on r.a.o.
Of course Arny is jointly to blame, with the
rest of the festering rodents, for the high level
of flames on r.a.o.
Of course, this childish behavior of AK is not
excusable.


YOU BETTER SHUT UP, DUFFY! Arny is perfect and you are a rotten apple.



Arny is My Kroo-Daddy

(Joe Duffy) wrote in message
...
John Atkinson wrote:
1) Marc Phillips' original statement: "Then I would have problems with
child pornography."

2) As rewritten by Arny Krueger: "I have problems getting as much child
pornography as I need."

Unless the Krueger posting is a forgery, to those like Mike McKelvy,
who feel that Arny Krueger is not to blame for the high level of flames
on r.a.o., how is this childish behavior on AK's part excusable?

This is quite the sentence...Time to parse: "...those...who feel
that Arny Krueger is not to blame for the high level of flames on
r.a.o," The illogical corollary you insinuate, is that Arny Krueger
IS (solely, implied) to blame for the high level of flames on r.a.o.

I don't think so, Mr. Duffy. If you took that meaning from my
admittedly clumsy sentence, then that is not what I meant. Yes, I _am_
implying that Arny Krueger is to blame for the flames, but that doesn't
mean he is _solely_ to blame. As you say...

Of course Arny is jointly to blame, with the rest of the festering
rodents, for the high level of flames on r.a.o.

However, I _do_ think that Mr. Krueger is primarily to blame, as you can
see from the flame-filled threads he starts on other newsgroups.

Of course, this childish behavior of AK is not excusable.

Thank you.

Are you trying to clear something up here?

Yes. Arny Krueger has thrown out accusations against virtually everyone
with whom he has been arguing that they alter and edit the text of his
messages. You will note, for example, that he has started a new thread
today specifically to accuse _me_ of doing so. Yet while I have never
altered the text of any of Arny Krueger's posting in any way that
misrepresents what he has written, Mr. Krieger does so repeatedly. I
thought it useful in effect to bookmark this example of him having done
so, given it was so blatant and so defamatory.

I have shared a beer with Marc Phillips at a CES, as I have with Jim
Sanders and other r.a.o. regulars. I am becoming tired of Mr. Krueger's
incessant throwing out of insults on Usenet against people like these,
whose original "crime" in his eyes was merely to offer opinions on
audio that were contrary to his own.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, John Atkinson wrote:

(Joe Duffy) wrote in message
...
John Atkinson wrote:
1) Marc Phillips' original statement: "Then I would have problems with
child pornography."

2) As rewritten by Arny Krueger: "I have problems getting as much child
pornography as I need."

Unless the Krueger posting is a forgery, to those like Mike McKelvy,
who feel that Arny Krueger is not to blame for the high level of flames
on r.a.o., how is this childish behavior on AK's part excusable?

This is quite the sentence...Time to parse: "...those...who feel
that Arny Krueger is not to blame for the high level of flames on
r.a.o," The illogical corollary you insinuate, is that Arny Krueger
IS (solely, implied) to blame for the high level of flames on r.a.o.

I don't think so, Mr. Duffy. If you took that meaning from my
admittedly clumsy sentence, then that is not what I meant. Yes, I _am_
implying that Arny Krueger is to blame for the flames, but that doesn't
mean he is _solely_ to blame. As you say...

Of course Arny is jointly to blame, with the rest of the festering
rodents, for the high level of flames on r.a.o.

However, I _do_ think that Mr. Krueger is primarily to blame, as you can
see from the flame-filled threads he starts on other newsgroups.

Of course, this childish behavior of AK is not excusable.

Thank you.

Are you trying to clear something up here?

Yes. Arny Krueger has thrown out accusations against virtually everyone
with whom he has been arguing that they alter and edit the text of his
messages. You will note, for example, that he has started a new thread
today specifically to accuse _me_ of doing so. Yet while I have never
altered the text of any of Arny Krueger's posting in any way that
misrepresents what he has written, [...]

Mange un char de marde, ostie de menteur.
--
Anon E. Mouse

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om...

I have shared a beer with Marc Phillips at a CES, as I have with Jim
Sanders and other r.a.o. regulars. I am becoming tired of Mr. Krueger's
incessant throwing out of insults on Usenet against people like these,
whose original "crime" in his eyes was merely to offer opinions on
audio that were contrary to his own.

Wow Atkinson, on the one hand you support legal action against libel of a
sockpuppet, and on the other hand you support the actions of Phillips, who
routinely libels a real person (me).

Could you be less consistent in your ethical choices?

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 8/21/2003 1:36 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:


"John Atkinson" wrote in message
. com...

I have shared a beer with Marc Phillips at a CES, as I have with Jim
Sanders and other r.a.o. regulars. I am becoming tired of Mr. Krueger's
incessant throwing out of insults on Usenet against people like these,
whose original "crime" in his eyes was merely to offer opinions on
audio that were contrary to his own.

Wow Atkinson, on the one hand you support legal action against libel of a
sockpuppet, and on the other hand you support the actions of Phillips, who
routinely libels a real person (me).

Could you be less consistent in your ethical choices?

Or less ethical in his consistent choices?




tor b

"tor b" wrote in message
...
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 8/21/2003 1:36 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:


"John Atkinson" wrote in message
. com...

I have shared a beer with Marc Phillips at a CES, as I have with Jim
Sanders and other r.a.o. regulars. I am becoming tired of Mr. Krueger's
incessant throwing out of insults on Usenet against people like these,
whose original "crime" in his eyes was merely to offer opinions on
audio that were contrary to his own.

Wow Atkinson, on the one hand you support legal action against libel of a
sockpuppet, and on the other hand you support the actions of Phillips,
who
routinely libels a real person (me).

Could you be less consistent in your ethical choices?

Or less ethical in his consistent choices?

Good one!

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om...
I have shared a beer with Marc Phillips at a CES, as I have with Jim
Sanders and other r.a.o. regulars. I am becoming tired of Mr. Krueger's
incessant throwing out of insults on Usenet against people like these,
whose original "crime" in his eyes was merely to offer opinions on
audio that were contrary to his own.

Wow Atkinson, on the one hand you support legal action against libel of
a sockpuppet...

I am not aware of saying anything pro or con this subject, Mr. Krueger.
Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else. ;-) (Note appropriate
use of emoticon.)

and on the other hand you support the actions of Phillips, who
routinely libels a real person (me).

I am not aware of any libel of you posted by Marc Phillips. He has argued
with you, as his right, he has asserted his opinions on this newsgroup, as
is his right, yes he has flamed you, but this appears to be in response to
initial flames from yourself, and recently he has been drawing posters'
attention to a offensive, self-pitying message that you yourself posted to
the newsgroup. As truth is an absolute defense against libel, his having
done the latter is not in libelous, even though it does cause you to lose
the respect of your peers.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om
]
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om...

I have shared a beer with Marc Phillips at a CES, as I have with Jim
Sanders and other r.a.o. regulars. I am becoming tired of Mr.
Krueger's incessant throwing out of insults on Usenet against
people like these, whose original "crime" in his eyes was merely to
offer opinions on audio that were contrary to his own.

Wow Atkinson, on the one hand you support legal action against libel
of a sockpuppet...

I am not aware of saying anything pro or con this subject, Mr.
Krueger.

Cough, gag! Good think I wasn't drinking anything when I read this *gem*

Atkinson, please place your preferred hand in front of your face. Extend a
finger towards your face and move it towards one eye. How far does your
finger enter the pupil of your eye before you feel anything? This would be a
reliable test for your obvious numbness, from the neck up!

Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else. ;-) (Note
appropriate use of emoticon.)

It's been a long time since I confused your online persona with that of a
rational, sentient being, Atkinson.

and on the other hand you support the actions of Phillips, who
routinely libels a real person (me).

I am not aware of any libel of you posted by Marc Phillips.

Of course not Atkinson. The same blindness to logic and reason that allows
you to blithely publish that well-known sack-o-lies called Stereophile is
also at work in your online persona.

He has
argued with you, as his right, he has asserted his opinions on this
newsgroup, as is his right, yes he has flamed you, but this appears
to be in response to initial flames from yourself, and recently he
has been drawing posters' attention to a offensive, self-pitying
message that you yourself posted to the newsgroup.

Yeah Atkinson, it's all my fault that people like you seem compelled to try
to exploit a personal tragedy in order to get *debating trade* points. You
know its coming up on 4 years and this childish game has been very old for a
very long time. But thanks for demonstrating your lack of character by
trying to pile on to Marc Phillips current perverse behavior.

As truth is an
absolute defense against libel, his having done the latter is not in
libelous, even though it does cause you to lose the respect of your
peers.

Speaking of respect of peers Atkinson, do you or do you not notice all the
laughter behind your back when you visit AES meetings? Or, are you as blind
to it as you are to Marc Phillips reprehensible behavior? Or, have people
dropped all pretense and just started laughing in your face?

In article ,
John Atkinson wrote:

I have shared a beer with Marc Phillips at a CES, as I have with Jim
Sanders and other r.a.o. regulars. I am becoming tired of Mr. Krueger's
incessant throwing out of insults on Usenet against people like these,
whose original "crime" in his eyes was merely to offer opinions on
audio that were contrary to his own.


Direct insults may be tiresome, but
at least they beat the Doofy threads that
the midjet and his simpletons follow
me around with, newsgroup after newsgroup,
only after I make an appearance on rao.

Ask JJ which is more tiresome, John,
anonymous psychos, or those with direct
insults that do not hide behind false names.

The battles you choose may seem small in
the actual history of usenet.


Joe

The Doofalizer doofed:

Direct insults may be tiresome, but
at least they beat the Doofy threads that
the midjet and his simpletons follow

Isn't "midjet" your pet name for me, Doof? How do you like your
life as a 200-lb dustball with a tobacco jones, anyway?


Ask JJ which is more tiresome, John,
anonymous psychos, or those with direct
insults that do not hide behind false names.

Why need he ask somebody else? Isn't John, or anybody else,
allowed to feel that you are a crackpot, that you are second in
tiresomeness only to your hero the Krooborg, and that since you
don't know who these people are that you label "anonymous
psychos", there is little point in being bothered by them?

Oh, that's right -- you're with the Usenet Righteousness Police,
and you've appointed yourself defender of the indefensible.
Morality is an unknown quality in your peculiar little world,
isn't it, Doofy? The fact that there are fifty people who
castigate Kroo**** for every anonymous psycho who defends him
means that he's the victim of a mob lynching, right? Doesn't
matter that Krooger brings it on himself with his nasty,
attention-whoring behavior; what matters to you is .... what is it
again? You've never explained your motivation for running
interference for that loathsome animated turd. Please do so now.


The battles you choose may seem small in
the actual history of usenet.

Your mind seems small in the history of the human race.

(Joe Duffy) wrote in message ...
In article ,
John Atkinson wrote:

Again:

1) Marc Phillips' original statement: "Then I would have problems with
child pornography."

2) As rewritten by Arny Krueger: "I have problems getting as much child
pornography as I need."

Unless the Krueger posting is a forgery, to those like Mike McKelvy, who
feel that Arny Krueger is not to blame for the high level of flames on
r.a.o., how is this childish behavior on AK's part excusable?


This is quite the sentence.
Where is that syntax midjet when he
is needed?
Time to parse:
"...those...who feel that Arny Krueger is not to blame
for the high level of flames on r.a.o,"
The illogical corollary you insinuate, is that
Arny Krueger IS (solely, implied) to blame for the
high level of flames on r.a.o.
Of course Arny is jointly to blame, with the
rest of the festering rodents, for the high level
of flames on r.a.o.
Of course, this childish behavior of AK is not
excusable.
Are you trying to clear something up here?
It is remarkable to watch someone get into a
****ing contest with a skunk, and in a cesspool
to boot. It begs the question...


Just curious.


As well.



Joe





Unbelievable.

You're defending Krueger, and you're also putting words in somone else's mouth.

What a headcase you must be.

Philip Franklin said:

(Joe Duffy) wrote in message
...
In article ,
John Atkinson wrote:

Again:

1) Marc Phillips' original statement: "Then I would have problems with
child pornography."

2) As rewritten by Arny Krueger: "I have problems getting as much child
pornography as I need."

Unless the Krueger posting is a forgery, to those like Mike McKelvy, who
feel that Arny Krueger is not to blame for the high level of flames on
r.a.o., how is this childish behavior on AK's part excusable?


This is quite the sentence.
Where is that syntax midjet when he
is needed?
Time to parse:
"...those...who feel that Arny Krueger is not to blame
for the high level of flames on r.a.o,"
The illogical corollary you insinuate, is that
Arny Krueger IS (solely, implied) to blame for the
high level of flames on r.a.o.
Of course Arny is jointly to blame, with the
rest of the festering rodents, for the high level
of flames on r.a.o.
Of course, this childish behavior of AK is not
excusable.
Are you trying to clear something up here?
It is remarkable to watch someone get into a
****ing contest with a skunk, and in a cesspool
to boot. It begs the question...


Just curious.


As well.



Joe





Unbelievable.

You're defending Krueger, and you're also putting words in somone else's
mouth.

What a headcase you must be.

And he is. Joe Duffy is a classic Usenet troll who posts on this NG only to
attack others. And yes, he supports Arny, a proven pedophile.

The disappointing thing about Joe is that once or twice he's revealed that he
has good taste in music, and he's pretty knowledgeable about it, too. Too bad
he chooses not to contribute to the group.

Boon

What's the truth? Did you fabricate the posts or not Arny? If so you
should apologize because it's forgery and plainly unethical.

--

Jacob Kramer

Jacob Kramer said:

What's the truth? Did you fabricate the posts or not Arny? If so you
should apologize because it's forgery and plainly unethical.

He's right, Arnii. Also, lying is wrong.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

1) Marc Phillips' original statement: "Then I would have problems
with child pornography."

2) As rewritten by Arny Krueger: "I have problems getting as much
child pornography as I need."

Unless the Krueger posting is a forgery,

This is of course a lie from RAO's king of lies.

here's the post in context:

"I have problems getting as much child pornography as I need."

;-)

Note emoticon indicating humorous intent.


It was obviously a joke. Here we see that John Atkinson is either a
hopeless humorless dweeb or a incurable liar.

So which is it, Atkinson? Do you plead guilty to being a humorless dweeb or
an incurable liar?