On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 08:47:44 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 07:02:48 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Things are getting very busy for me starting at
the end of this week. No one has asked me to show anything other
than the missing proof of service. So Arny, you want me to have the
lawsuit as it is reserved? Just be ****ty enough and I will do so.

What a stupid, transparent asshole you are, Wheeler.

Right, he's a sociopathic control freak who is trying to squeeze any
power or control out of this situation he can. The real question is
how far he's gone in terms of trying to take his bragging rights to
the bank., with say a well-known magazine publisher with a vendetta
against me.

No, that's not a real question. It's a "debating trade" tactic and
pretty deplorable and perilously close to libel. But I doubt that John
Atkinson would bother to take the bait.

Why, it's David Buttinsky Weil, trying to save the world from the mean old
nasty Arny Krueger, again.

No, frankly I don't think there's a chance in hell of that. I don't
think the world can be saved from you, although, I'll have to say that
I'm impressed with the level of self-awareness that you have attained.
You're making progress, old chap.

I'm just curious how someone can "butt in" on comments made on a
public unmoderated forum...

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 08:47:44 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 07:02:48 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Things are getting very busy for me starting at
the end of this week. No one has asked me to show anything other
than the missing proof of service. So Arny, you want me to have
the lawsuit as it is reserved? Just be ****ty enough and I will
do so.

What a stupid, transparent asshole you are, Wheeler.

Right, he's a sociopathic control freak who is trying to squeeze
any power or control out of this situation he can. The real
question is how far he's gone in terms of trying to take his
bragging rights to the bank., with say a well-known magazine
publisher with a vendetta against me.

No, that's not a real question. It's a "debating trade" tactic and
pretty deplorable and perilously close to libel. But I doubt that
John Atkinson would bother to take the bait.

Why, it's David Buttinsky Weil, trying to save the world from the
mean old nasty Arny Krueger, again.

No, frankly I don't think there's a chance in hell of that.

So Weil that puts you in the Don Quixote seat, eh?

I don't think the world can be saved from you, although, I'll have to say
that
I'm impressed with the level of self-awareness that you have attained.

Too bad you're so tremendously lacking in the same area Weil. But you get
points for recognizing what you lack, when its apparent in others. Not a lot
of points, though.

You're making progress, old chap.

Been there done that, even back when you were smoking dope in the Army.

I'm just curious how someone can "butt in" on comments made on a
public unmoderated forum...

There's that self-awareness thing tripping you up again Weil. See what I
mean?

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 09:07:12 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


Too bad you're so tremendously lacking in the same area Weil. But you get
points for recognizing what you lack, when its apparent in others. Not a lot
of points, though.

You're making progress, old chap.

Been there done that, even back when you were smoking dope in the Army.

Frankly, this sort of false claim shows more about your tactics than
any description that I could muster. It's easy enough to show a
preponderance of evidence that it is patently false (drug tests every
two months, etc.) but why bother?

I know that you're just waiting to pounce on me, so quick, hit the
send button immediately. At least I can hold claim to keeping you
occupied.

dave weil a écrit :

I'm just curious how someone can "butt in" on comments made on a
public unmoderated forum...

Depends on which side of the gun you are, Dave.
Considering the time you have spent in the army and on RAO, you should
know that since a long time.

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 15:23:16 +0200, Lionel
wrote:

dave weil a écrit :

I'm just curious how someone can "butt in" on comments made on a
public unmoderated forum...

Depends on which side of the gun you are, Dave.

Not to me. I don't think that any conversation on a public unmoderated
forum is private enough to consider someone "butting in" when they
comment on those comments. You throw them out and you should expect
8anyone* to comment.

Considering the time you have spent in the army and on RAO, you should
know that since a long time.

On the contrary. Those are some of the reasons why I made my comment.

So, how do you feel about Arnold lying about my alleged drug use just
to get such an association into the public record? Do you find it as
bad as those who have accused him of pedophilia?

And, again, for the record, I have never condoned those tactics by
ANYONE.

Hit that send button quickly Lionel. Time's awastin'.

"dave weil" wrote in message


Not to me. I don't think that any conversation on a public unmoderated
forum is private enough to consider someone "butting in" when they
comment on those comments. You throw them out and you should expect
anyone* to comment.

It wouldn't be butting in if you had something useful to say, Weil.

So, how do you feel about Arnold lying about my alleged drug use just
to get such an association into the public record?

Prove that I'm lying.

How about this Weil, just say right out that you never used any illegal
drugs while you were in the Army.

I've asked you about this before and you've been unwilling to come clean.
Have you had a change of heart?

Do you find it as
bad as those who have accused him of pedophilia?

Thing is you've been out of the Army long enough that you're protected by
the Statute of Limitations, etc. OTOH, the claims about me are current, and
therefore demand immediate legal action if they are true.

And, again, for the record, I have never condoned those tactics by
ANYONE.

Sure you have, Weil. You've repeatedly justified 100's of libelous attacks
on me. Your alleged search for truth is highly selective.

Bottom line Weil is that you're just another sore loser.

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 12:40:51 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message


Not to me. I don't think that any conversation on a public unmoderated
forum is private enough to consider someone "butting in" when they
comment on those comments. You throw them out and you should expect
anyone* to comment.

It wouldn't be butting in if you had something useful to say, Weil.

So, how do you feel about Arnold lying about my alleged drug use just
to get such an association into the public record?

Prove that I'm lying.

Prove that you're telling the truth. Prove that you have any sort of
concrete information that I've *ever* done illegal drugs. The fact
that you are parrotting Greg Singh should give you pause.

How about this Weil, just say right out that you never used any illegal
drugs while you were in the Army.

I did. I said that you were lying.

I've asked you about this before and you've been unwilling to come clean.
Have you had a change of heart?

You have never asked me about drug use in the Army AFAIK. Please
produce the Google record to prove otherwise.

Do you find it as
bad as those who have accused him of pedophilia?

Thing is you've been out of the Army long enough that you're protected by
the Statute of Limitations, etc. OTOH, the claims about me are current, and
therefore demand immediate legal action if they are true.

I agree. I don't think that they are true though, nor do I condone
such charges.

You know what they say about proving a negative though. As you know, I
would never be able to prove conclusively that I never used illegal
drugs in the Army (but you can never prove that I did, either). Anyone
who was in the Infantry in the period between '83 and '87 can tell you
that the Army agressively pursued a policy of frequent unannounced
drug tests. In the case of my unit, those tests occured approximately
every 2 months. If you did the proper research, you would find that I
was never accused of any kind of drug use whatsoever, and that my Good
Conduct discharge was completely unblemished.

You can't prove that you've never done methamphetemine either,
although your postings would tend to support such a supposition.

And, again, for the record, I have never condoned those tactics by
ANYONE.

Sure you have, Weil. You've repeatedly justified 100's of libelous attacks
on me. Your alleged search for truth is highly selective.

I have *never* condoned or supported any claims about your alleged
pedophilia and I defy you to produce any documentation from Google to
support your claim. The absence of any such evidence will be taken as
your overt admission that you have just made a false claim.

Bottom line Weil is that you're just another sore loser.

Projection again, Mr. Krueger.

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 12:40:51 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message


Not to me. I don't think that any conversation on a public
unmoderated forum is private enough to consider someone "butting
in" when they comment on those comments. You throw them out and you
should expect anyone* to comment.

It wouldn't be butting in if you had something useful to say, Weil.

So, how do you feel about Arnold lying about my alleged drug use
just to get such an association into the public record?

Prove that I'm lying.

Weil fails to offer any evidence on his behalf, again. He won't even make a
counter-claim. It would appear that he wants to have his toke and pretend to
be a law-abiding citizen, too

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 17:00:05 -0400, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 12:40:51 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message


Not to me. I don't think that any conversation on a public
unmoderated forum is private enough to consider someone "butting
in" when they comment on those comments. You throw them out and you
should expect anyone* to comment.

It wouldn't be butting in if you had something useful to say, Weil.

So, how do you feel about Arnold lying about my alleged drug use
just to get such an association into the public record?

Prove that I'm lying.

Weil fails to offer any evidence on his behalf, again. He won't even make a
counter-claim. It would appear that he wants to have his toke and pretend to
be a law-abiding citizen, too

Just out of curiousity, how do I prove that you're lying? How *does*
one prove a negative?

I note that you offer no proof of *your* assertion. Normally the
burden of proof is on the accuser.

You lose.

Again.

dave weil a écrit :

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 15:23:16 +0200, Lionel
wrote:


dave weil a écrit :


I'm just curious how someone can "butt in" on comments made on a
public unmoderated forum...

Depends on which side of the gun you are, Dave.


Not to me. I don't think that any conversation on a public unmoderated
forum is private enough to consider someone "butting in" when they
comment on those comments. You throw them out and you should expect
8anyone* to comment.


Considering the time you have spent in the army and on RAO, you should
know that since a long time.


On the contrary. Those are some of the reasons why I made my comment.

So, how do you feel about Arnold lying about my alleged drug use just
to get such an association into the public record? Do you find it as
bad as those who have accused him of pedophilia?

Yes.
I've always openly criticized Arnold Krueger for these behaviours.


And, again, for the record, I have never condoned those tactics by
ANYONE.

This honors you Dave.
But at the contrary of me you didn't write a word to me when S888Wheel
have made a fool of my father on a public forum.

Hit that send button quickly Lionel. Time's awastin'.

Hit that send button quickly dave. Time's awastin'.

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 19:46:32 +0200, Lionel
wrote:

And, again, for the record, I have never condoned those tactics by
ANYONE.

This honors you Dave.
But at the contrary of me you didn't write a word to me when S888Wheel
have made a fool of my father on a public forum.

Did you need me to?

Did I support *him* when you trashed his family? No I didn't.

If you can't stand up for yourself, just say so.

dave weil a écrit :
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 19:46:32 +0200, Lionel
wrote:


And, again, for the record, I have never condoned those tactics by
ANYONE.

This honors you Dave.
But at the contrary of me you didn't write a word to me when S888Wheel
have made a fool of my father on a public forum.


Did you need me to?

I will never asked for your help.

Did I support *him* when you trashed his family? No I didn't.

Yes you did.
If you really want some proofs make a search on what you have posted
around October, 18th to 21th.

If you can't stand up for yourself, just say so.

I will never asked for your help.

S888Wheel doesn't care about the insults. Just have a look to the
pervert game he uses to play. He is just an exhibitionist who
desperately needs for attention and power.

For me the story stops here. I'm the monkey who was sure that he will
lose his lawsuit and he lost it.
Note that this guy is really a pervert jerk. You can believe me.