[George M. Middius]

Yapper gurgled:

Did "mommy" spank you extra hard this weekend or something?

No that was last weekend while I was visiting her cuz she can't
travel anymore due to emphysema. Happy now?

Is your mental handicap a direct result of her smoking during pregnancy?
How irresponsible of her.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[ScottW]

"George M. Middius" cmndr _ george @ comcast . net wrote in message
...


Yapper gurgled:

Did "mommy" spank you extra hard this weekend or something?

No that was last weekend while I was visiting her cuz she can't
travel anymore due to emphysema. Happy now?

Is your mental handicap a direct result of her smoking during pregnancy?
How irresponsible of her.

and what of your sociophobia George? You can't name one person who
has ever encountered you face to face.

I think the closest who ever came was Trots and the archives
show your reaction to that close encounter.
You are one sick puppy, and you know it.
Maybe that is why you hide, for the sake of society.

ScottW

[George M. Middius]

Witless needs a new bone to chew.

Is your mental handicap a direct result of her smoking during pregnancy?
How irresponsible of her.

and what of your sociophobia George?

Inability to admit facts noted.

You can't name one person who
has ever encountered you face to face.

http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/...h?WORD=can%27t
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/...h?WORD=won%27t

I think the closest who[sic] ever came[sic] was Trots and the archives
show your reaction to that close[sic] encounter.

No, we only ever talked on the phone.

You are one sick puppy, and you know it.

According to you, I'm afraid of women, I envy Krooger, and now I'm a
"sick puppy". And I "know it". Why is reality such a bitch for you?

Maybe that is why you hide, for the sake of society.

After all these years, you still haven't come to terms with the obvious
fact that you were shortchanged in the IQ department. Previously, I've
offered to excuse your obnoxious and persistent stupidity if you would
simply confess that you've been diagnosed as LD or autistic or even as
having Asperger's. Now we find out your mother damaged your brain by her
pigheaded refusal to quit smoking while she was carrying you in her
nicotine- and tar-infused womb. I'm sure you got a raw deal, either by
nature or by nurture.

P.S. Some of my friends' names are Davey, Gregor, Phil R., Phil G.,
Jill, Jared, and Jared's friend Marnie. Now that you know their names,
are you going to implode from rage and frustration?




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

...
In article om,
ScottW wrote:

On Jun 24, 10:26 pm, Jenn wrote:
In article ,





"ScottW" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message

gy.
net
...
In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast . net wrote:

Jenn said:

Using isn't necessarily abusing,

Understood. I'll correct say that I've used illegal drugs once
in
my
life.

That's extraordinary. I went through a drinking phase and a pot
phase.
Now I drink a little, but I developed a strong adversion to liquor.

I tried pot once when I was 16. I didn't do it anymore because A. I
didn't like it

How many people got high the first time they smoked?

I have no idea.

All you liars can put your hand down.
Your as FOS as Clinton.

Who is it "your" talking about?

All you BS'ers claiming to have smoked once,
got high...and didn't like it.

Who said I got high?
At any rate, you can believe me or not; I don't care.

I believe you tried to smoke pot, couldn't choke it down
and get past your life ruination paranoia and decided
you didn't like it but have never been high on pot.

Pretty close, except for the paranoia.





You forgot to blame Clinton for world wide drug abuse.

Let's blame Carter for that. Peanuts can be so
intoxicating.




B. I was a "good kid"

since gone astray...

Yep, I've sunk so low as to try to have conversation with you.

Sunk low enought to spew gratuitous insults

Yes, I know that you believe that I'm "sinning" when I defend myself.

You call that defense? I call it abdication of your integrity
which isn't all that.

Whatever. I insult a bit here when I'm first insulted. I can live with
that. It's the coin of this realm.



and
spam test posts.

lol Obsess much?

Lots

There it is.


Again, the post, easily ignored had you chosen to,
was the perfectly logical thing to do given the problem.

Logical to your self centered arrogant view of the world
but hardly appropriate. If I have a bad FM receiver
should I set up a transmitter to test it in open air?

How would you have tested to see if the problem was solved, Scott? This
is obviously so important to you; show me the way.







and it didn't fit with the rest
of my life, and C. An arrest for pot at that time ruined people's
lives.

What state and when?

CA, '71/'72.

Care to explain how Ca. pot laws "ruined" lives in '72?
If you said Texas or Ok. I might understand but Ca.
wasn't known for severe punishment AFAIK.

The only two pot busts that I recall from my high school from that era
resulted in jail time of something like 6 months.

What did you do, narc on your dealer?
Anyway in '72 Ca. passed the "drug diversion program"
allowing first offenders to have all charges dismissed
in exchange for a drug treatment/education program
which was about as tough as traffic school.

You're ignoring the social, family, etc. implications. You're a bit
younger than I; you probably don't remember those times as well as I.

In '75 they decriminalized small time possession completely.

We were told that
such a thing would affect college acceptance, scholarships, etc.

Another Reefer Madness victim.

But true.

Do you know who made that movie btw?

Yes.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jun 24, 9:23 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
Wow, you noticed. Your party girl reputation was short-lived.
Hope you enjoyed it.

ScottW

Did "mommy" spank you extra hard this weekend or something?

No that was last weekend while I was visiting her cuz she can't
travel anymore due to emphysema. Happy now?

I'm sorry that she's ill.

[ScottW]

On Jun 25, 7:30 pm, George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast .
net wrote:
Witless needs a new bone to chew.

Is your mental handicap a direct result of her smoking during pregnancy?
How irresponsible of her.
and what of your sociophobia George?

Inability to admit facts noted.

You can't name one person who
has ever encountered you face to face.

http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/...h?WORD=won%27t

I think the closest who[sic] ever came[sic] was Trots and the archives
show your reaction to that close[sic] encounter.

No, we only ever talked on the phone.

You are one sick puppy, and you know it.

According to you, I'm afraid of women, I envy Krooger, and now I'm a
"sick puppy". And I "know it". Why is reality such a bitch for you?

Maybe that is why you hide, for the sake of society.

After all these years, you still haven't come to terms with the obvious
fact that you were shortchanged in the IQ department.

Take your lame pre-school insults and shove 'em.
You offer nothing here but noise and a list
of fantasy friends.

ScottW

[George M. Middius]

Witlessmongrel, smarting from his latest whuppin', growls in
trepidation.

You can't

While I was waiting for your scintillating reply, I browsed the web a
bit for the "can't vs. won't" problem. Most of the pages I found were in
the nature of teaching tips for helping ADD and FAS patients.

You're a disability case, Scooter. I have no doubts anymore. The
mountain of evidence is very high now.

After all these years, you still haven't come to terms with the obvious
fact that you were shortchanged in the IQ department.

Take your lame pre-school insults and shove 'em.

There, there. You'd better calm yourself down or else no dessert for
you. Now go to your room for a time-out.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[ScottW]

On Jun 26, 10:50 am, Jenn wrote:
In article ,





"ScottW" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message

...
In article om,
ScottW wrote:

On Jun 24, 10:26 pm, Jenn wrote:
In article ,

"ScottW" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message

gy.
net
...
In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast . net wrote:

Jenn said:

Using isn't necessarily abusing,

Understood. I'll correct say that I've used illegal drugs once
in
my
life.

That's extraordinary. I went through a drinking phase and a pot
phase.
Now I drink a little, but I developed a strong adversion to liquor.

I tried pot once when I was 16. I didn't do it anymore because A. I
didn't like it

How many people got high the first time they smoked?

I have no idea.

All you liars can put your hand down.
Your as FOS as Clinton.

Who is it "your" talking about?

All you BS'ers claiming to have smoked once,
got high...and didn't like it.

Who said I got high?
At any rate, you can believe me or not; I don't care.

I believe you tried to smoke pot, couldn't choke it down
and get past your life ruination paranoia and decided
you didn't like it but have never been high on pot.

Pretty close, except for the paranoia.







You forgot to blame Clinton for world wide drug abuse.

Let's blame Carter for that. Peanuts can be so
intoxicating.

B. I was a "good kid"

since gone astray...

Yep, I've sunk so low as to try to have conversation with you.

Sunk low enought to spew gratuitous insults

Yes, I know that you believe that I'm "sinning" when I defend myself.

You call that defense? I call it abdication of your integrity
which isn't all that.

Whatever. I insult a bit here when I'm first insulted. I can live with
that. It's the coin of this realm.



and
spam test posts.

lol Obsess much?

Lots

There it is.

Yup, and you're now obsessing about my
obsessions. Who's twisted?




Again, the post, easily ignored had you chosen to,
was the perfectly logical thing to do given the problem.

Logical to your self centered arrogant view of the world
but hardly appropriate. If I have a bad FM receiver
should I set up a transmitter to test it in open air?

How would you have tested to see if the problem was solved, Scott?

I'd have duplicated the filters on alt.test and performed a test
post
there. If the result worked but still failed on RAO, the RAO filter
is
obviously corrupted and needed to be reset.

This
is obviously so important to you; show me the way.

It's really not the topic under discussion, its your
attitude.


and it didn't fit with the rest
of my life, and C. An arrest for pot at that time ruined people's
lives.

What state and when?

CA, '71/'72.

Care to explain how Ca. pot laws "ruined" lives in '72?
If you said Texas or Ok. I might understand but Ca.
wasn't known for severe punishment AFAIK.

The only two pot busts that I recall from my high school from that era
resulted in jail time of something like 6 months.

What did you do, narc on your dealer?
Anyway in '72 Ca. passed the "drug diversion program"
allowing first offenders to have all charges dismissed
in exchange for a drug treatment/education program
which was about as tough as traffic school.

You're ignoring the social, family, etc. implications.

You came from a family of prudes who would banish
you for drug use but accepted your sexual orientation?
Kind of an odd mix.

You're a bit
younger than I; you probably don't remember those times as well as I.

Just a few years. Your implicationt that the whole nation
sufferred your families social paranoia in the 70's is really
a hoot. Did you go to private school or perhaps a convent?

In '75 they decriminalized small time possession completely.

We were told that
such a thing would affect college acceptance, scholarships, etc.

Another Reefer Madness victim.

But true.

What you were told is true or that
you were truly told a lie?
Try to be clear.


Do you know who made that movie btw?

Yes

Probably explains your disdain for evangelicals.
They stole your youth with lies and fear of
social recrimination.

ScottW

[ScottW]

On Jun 26, 1:45 pm, George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast .
net wrote:
Witlessmongrel, smarting from his latest whuppin', growls in
trepidation.

You can't

While I was waiting for your scintillating reply, I browsed the web a
bit for the "can't vs. won't" problem. Most of the pages I found were in
the nature of teaching tips for helping ADD and FAS patients.

You're a disability case, Scooter. I have no doubts anymore. The
mountain of evidence is very high now.

After all these years, you still haven't come to terms with the obvious
fact that you were shortchanged in the IQ department.
Take your lame pre-school insults and shove 'em.

There, there. You'd better calm yourself down or else no dessert for
you. Now go to your room for a time-out.

Is this all you got? Pathetic.

ScottW

[Jenn]

In article .com,
ScottW wrote:

On Jun 26, 10:50 am, Jenn wrote:
In article ,





"ScottW" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message
.
net
...
In article om,
ScottW wrote:

On Jun 24, 10:26 pm, Jenn wrote:
In article ,

"ScottW" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message

rodi
gy.
net
...
In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast . net wrote:

Jenn said:

Using isn't necessarily abusing,

Understood. I'll correct say that I've used illegal drugs
once
in
my
life.

That's extraordinary. I went through a drinking phase and a pot
phase.
Now I drink a little, but I developed a strong adversion to
liquor.

I tried pot once when I was 16. I didn't do it anymore because
A. I
didn't like it

How many people got high the first time they smoked?

I have no idea.

All you liars can put your hand down.
Your as FOS as Clinton.

Who is it "your" talking about?

All you BS'ers claiming to have smoked once,
got high...and didn't like it.

Who said I got high?
At any rate, you can believe me or not; I don't care.

I believe you tried to smoke pot, couldn't choke it down
and get past your life ruination paranoia and decided
you didn't like it but have never been high on pot.

Pretty close, except for the paranoia.







You forgot to blame Clinton for world wide drug abuse.

Let's blame Carter for that. Peanuts can be so
intoxicating.

B. I was a "good kid"

since gone astray...

Yep, I've sunk so low as to try to have conversation with you.

Sunk low enought to spew gratuitous insults

Yes, I know that you believe that I'm "sinning" when I defend myself.

You call that defense? I call it abdication of your integrity
which isn't all that.

Whatever. I insult a bit here when I'm first insulted. I can live with
that. It's the coin of this realm.



and
spam test posts.

lol Obsess much?

Lots

There it is.

Yup, and you're now obsessing about my
obsessions. Who's twisted?

I'm not obsessing. You've succeeded in turning a one post thread which
upsets you for some reason into a 70 post thread, plus those in this
thread.





Again, the post, easily ignored had you chosen to,
was the perfectly logical thing to do given the problem.

Logical to your self centered arrogant view of the world
but hardly appropriate. If I have a bad FM receiver
should I set up a transmitter to test it in open air?

How would you have tested to see if the problem was solved, Scott?

I'd have duplicated the filters on alt.test and performed a test
post
there. If the result worked but still failed on RAO, the RAO filter
is
obviously corrupted and needed to be reset.

The exact same filters were already in place for 2 other groups that
were behaving normally. Next?


This
is obviously so important to you; show me the way.

It's really not the topic under discussion, its your
attitude.

No Scott, it's YOUR attitude. You're all ****ed off because I dared to
do a simple test post in YOUR newsgroup. You say that you're concerned
about "spamming" the newsgroup, and yet you answer the test post
unnecessarily, thereby creating more of the "spam" that you detest. I
should say "evidently detest" because you create more off-topic spam
than anyone else here, by a large margin. So it's YOUR attitude that
causes you to act as the cop in this situation.



and it didn't fit with the rest
of my life, and C. An arrest for pot at that time ruined
people's
lives.

What state and when?

CA, '71/'72.

Care to explain how Ca. pot laws "ruined" lives in '72?
If you said Texas or Ok. I might understand but Ca.
wasn't known for severe punishment AFAIK.

The only two pot busts that I recall from my high school from that era
resulted in jail time of something like 6 months.

What did you do, narc on your dealer?
Anyway in '72 Ca. passed the "drug diversion program"
allowing first offenders to have all charges dismissed
in exchange for a drug treatment/education program
which was about as tough as traffic school.

You're ignoring the social, family, etc. implications.

You came from a family of prudes who would banish
you for drug use

Who said that? Stop making things up.

but accepted your sexual orientation?
Kind of an odd mix.

Thanks for displaying a total ignorance of the nature of sexual
orientation vs. the choice of illegal drug abuse.


You're a bit
younger than I; you probably don't remember those times as well as I.

Just a few years. Your implicationt that the whole nation
sufferred your families social paranoia in the 70's is really
a hoot.

You're ignorant of the fact that society changed rather suddenly circa
1973/74. Perhaps you should speak to someone a bit older than you about
it. Here is a sample of the change: Up until my senior year in high
school, men got suspended for 3 days if their hair come over 1/4" over
the top of their ears, or if their sideburns extended to lower than
exactly half way down their ears. Women were suspended for 3 days if
their skirts were higher than exactly three inches from the middle of
their knees. "Smoking in the boy's room" meant a three day suspension;
on the third offense, you could be expelled forever. If you were known
as a toker, it was presumed widely that you were not "college material"
and you were a social outcast to all in school other than other than
other weed smokers. This was in the Vista Unified School District, and
I'm quite sure that the situation was the same at Sam Marcos Unified.
The following year, everything changed. Due to a court case statewide
(or nationally; I'll have to look that up), all of those rules were out
the window. The "good kids" still didn't do drugs, but the change was
evident.

Did you go to private school or perhaps a convent?

In '75 they decriminalized small time possession completely.

We were told that
such a thing would affect college acceptance, scholarships, etc.

Another Reefer Madness victim.

But true.

What you were told is true or that
you were truly told a lie?
Try to be clear.

The former.



Do you know who made that movie btw?

Yes

Probably explains your disdain for evangelicals.

I don't disdain evangelicals per se. Stop making things up.

They stole your youth with lies and fear of
social recrimination.

lol They stole my youth because I didn't feel comfortable doing drugs?
lol

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

No Scott, it's YOUR attitude. You're all ****ed off because I dared to
do a simple test post in YOUR newsgroup.

Scottie is always ****ed off. You're only guessing about what causes it.

You say that you're concerned
about "spamming" the newsgroup, and yet you answer the test post
unnecessarily, thereby creating more of the "spam" that you detest. I
should say "evidently detest" because you create more off-topic spam
than anyone else here, by a large margin. So it's YOUR attitude that
causes you to act as the cop in this situation.

None of the posts in question qualifies as spam. Yours was a curiosity,
and Scottie's are offal. Notice how Witless just caved when I zeroed in
on his mental defects? That's one of his touchiest buttons.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Jenn]

In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast . net wrote:

Jenn said:

No Scott, it's YOUR attitude. You're all ****ed off because I dared to
do a simple test post in YOUR newsgroup.

Scottie is always ****ed off. You're only guessing about what causes it.

You say that you're concerned
about "spamming" the newsgroup, and yet you answer the test post
unnecessarily, thereby creating more of the "spam" that you detest. I
should say "evidently detest" because you create more off-topic spam
than anyone else here, by a large margin. So it's YOUR attitude that
causes you to act as the cop in this situation.

None of the posts in question qualifies as spam. Yours was a curiosity,
and Scottie's are offal. Notice how Witless just caved when I zeroed in
on his mental defects? That's one of his touchiest buttons.

George, I have to say that I made an error in not including you in a
list of those who create the most off-topic spam here.

I personally don't care if there are off-topic posts or not. It just
seems odd that someone who obviously DOES care creates so much of it
himself.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

None of the posts in question qualifies as spam. Yours was a curiosity,
and Scottie's are offal. Notice how Witless just caved when I zeroed in
on his mental defects? That's one of his touchiest buttons.

George, I have to say that I made an error in not including you in a
list of those who create the most off-topic spam here.

Spam is commercial in nature. Examples are posts that say "click here
for naked beauties" and "cheap software!" I don't create *any* spam.
Never have, never will.

Also, I disagree as to the "OT" rubric. I have repeatedly stated, and
supported, my opinion that ridicule and mockery of audio religionists
are peripherally related to the nominal subject of this group. If you
accept my reasoning, that excuses some portion of my posts from being
patently OT.

BTW, if you're stuck for a term to refer to OT posts, how about noise?

I personally don't care if there are off-topic posts or not. It just
seems odd that someone who obviously DOES care creates so much of it
himself.

Scottie's estrangement from logical thinking is a matter of historial
record. Like his idol the Krooborg, Terrierdork has his own private
dialect of human language. His condition allows him to misuse words and
blithely ignore corrections from non-retards.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Bill Riel]

In article jennconductsREMOVETHIS-0B9CDA.15113426062007
@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net,
says...

George, I have to say that I made an error in not including you in a
list of those who create the most off-topic spam here.

I personally don't care if there are off-topic posts or not. It just
seems odd that someone who obviously DOES care creates so much of it
himself.

Well, if I may be a bit pedantic, none of these posts (including
Scott's) are spam. They are off topic, but spam has a very specific
meaning.

However, I understand what you are saying: Scott is incredibly
hypocritical to complain about your "test" posts when he's probably the
number one offender when it comes to off-topic posts.

--
Bill

[Jenn]

In article ,
Bill Riel wrote:

In article jennconductsREMOVETHIS-0B9CDA.15113426062007
@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net,
says...

George, I have to say that I made an error in not including you in a
list of those who create the most off-topic spam here.

I personally don't care if there are off-topic posts or not. It just
seems odd that someone who obviously DOES care creates so much of it
himself.

Well, if I may be a bit pedantic, none of these posts (including
Scott's) are spam. They are off topic, but spam has a very specific
meaning.

Understood now. I was using Scott's word.


However, I understand what you are saying: Scott is incredibly
hypocritical to complain about your "test" posts when he's probably the
number one offender when it comes to off-topic posts.

--
Bill

[Clyde Slick]

George M. Middius a scris:
Jenn said:

Using isn't necessarily abusing,

Understood. I'll correct say that I've used illegal drugs once in my life.

That's extraordinary. I went through a drinking phase and a pot phase.
Now I drink a little, but I developed a strong adversion to liquor.

A big month of drinking for me is two in a month. I'm pretty boring that way.

Homeless drunks are far less of a burden on society than homeless crack
addicts.



I have never been mugged by a drunkard.

[ScottW]

On Jun 26, 2:58 pm, Jenn wrote:
In article .com,





ScottW wrote:
On Jun 26, 10:50 am, Jenn wrote:
In article ,

"ScottW" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message
.
net
...
In article om,
ScottW wrote:

On Jun 24, 10:26 pm, Jenn wrote:
In article ,

"ScottW" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message

rodi
gy.
net
...
In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast . net wrote:

Jenn said:

Using isn't necessarily abusing,

Understood. I'll correct say that I've used illegal drugs
once
in
my
life.

That's extraordinary. I went through a drinking phase and a pot
phase.
Now I drink a little, but I developed a strong adversion to
liquor.

I tried pot once when I was 16. I didn't do it anymore because
A. I
didn't like it

How many people got high the first time they smoked?

I have no idea.

All you liars can put your hand down.
Your as FOS as Clinton.

Who is it "your" talking about?

All you BS'ers claiming to have smoked once,
got high...and didn't like it.

Who said I got high?
At any rate, you can believe me or not; I don't care.

I believe you tried to smoke pot, couldn't choke it down
and get past your life ruination paranoia and decided
you didn't like it but have never been high on pot.

Pretty close, except for the paranoia.

You forgot to blame Clinton for world wide drug abuse.

Let's blame Carter for that. Peanuts can be so
intoxicating.

B. I was a "good kid"

since gone astray...

Yep, I've sunk so low as to try to have conversation with you.

Sunk low enought to spew gratuitous insults

Yes, I know that you believe that I'm "sinning" when I defend myself.

You call that defense? I call it abdication of your integrity
which isn't all that.

Whatever. I insult a bit here when I'm first insulted. I can live with
that. It's the coin of this realm.

and
spam test posts.

lol Obsess much?

Lots

There it is.

Yup, and you're now obsessing about my
obsessions. Who's twisted?

I'm not obsessing. You've succeeded in turning a one post thread which
upsets you for some reason into a 70 post thread, plus those in this
thread.







Again, the post, easily ignored had you chosen to,
was the perfectly logical thing to do given the problem.

Logical to your self centered arrogant view of the world
but hardly appropriate. If I have a bad FM receiver
should I set up a transmitter to test it in open air?

How would you have tested to see if the problem was solved, Scott?

I'd have duplicated the filters on alt.test and performed a test
post
there. If the result worked but still failed on RAO, the RAO filter
is
obviously corrupted and needed to be reset.

The exact same filters were already in place for 2 other groups that
were behaving normally. Next?



This
is obviously so important to you; show me the way.

It's really not the topic under discussion, its your
attitude.

No Scott, it's YOUR attitude.

NO..ITS Y_O_U_R attitude.

You're all ****ed off

Wrong again. I was never ****ed off. Just bored.

because I dared to
do a simple test post in YOUR newsgroup. You say that you're concerned
about "spamming" the newsgroup, and yet you answer the test post
unnecessarily, thereby creating more of the "spam" that you detest.

Who said I detest it? You're full of false assumptions.

I
should say "evidently detest" because you create more off-topic spam
than anyone else here, by a large margin. So it's YOUR attitude that
causes you to act as the cop in this situation.

Do you feel policed? Up against the wall with cuffs?
Wah, wah, wah. GMAB.
You simply don't cope well with criticism.







and it didn't fit with the rest
of my life, and C. An arrest for pot at that time ruined
people's
lives.

What state and when?

CA, '71/'72.

Care to explain how Ca. pot laws "ruined" lives in '72?
If you said Texas or Ok. I might understand but Ca.
wasn't known for severe punishment AFAIK.

The only two pot busts that I recall from my high school from that era
resulted in jail time of something like 6 months.

What did you do, narc on your dealer?
Anyway in '72 Ca. passed the "drug diversion program"
allowing first offenders to have all charges dismissed
in exchange for a drug treatment/education program
which was about as tough as traffic school.

You're ignoring the social, family, etc. implications.

You came from a family of prudes who would banish
you for drug use

Who said that? Stop making things up.

But they would ruin your life!


but accepted your sexual orientation?
Kind of an odd mix.

Thanks for displaying a total ignorance of the nature of sexual
orientation vs. the choice of illegal drug abuse.

One's against God, the other is against the government.
Is that it ?




You're a bit
younger than I; you probably don't remember those times as well as I.

Just a few years. Your implicationt that the whole nation
sufferred your families social paranoia in the 70's is really
a hoot.

You're ignorant of the fact that society changed rather suddenly circa
1973/74. Perhaps you should speak to someone a bit older than you about
it. Here is a sample of the change: Up until my senior year in high
school, men got suspended for 3 days if their hair come over 1/4" over
the top of their ears,

Maybe where you went to school but not mine. Not even close.

or if their sideburns extended to lower than
exactly half way down their ears. Women were suspended for 3 days if
their skirts were higher than exactly three inches from the middle of
their knees. "Smoking in the boy's room" meant a three day suspension;
on the third offense, you could be expelled forever. If you were known
as a toker, it was presumed widely that you were not "college material"
and you were a social outcast to all in school other than other than
other weed smokers. This was in the Vista Unified School District, and
I'm quite sure that the situation was the same at Sam Marcos Unified.
The following year, everything changed.

Total transformation of society in a single year. LOL.
This is really quite funny.....fictitious but funny.

Due to a court case statewide
(or nationally; I'll have to look that up), all of those rules were out
the window. The "good kids" still didn't do drugs, but the change was
evident.

While all those evil bad kids got scholarships to Berkley.

Did you go to private school or perhaps a convent?

In '75 they decriminalized small time possession completely.

We were told that
such a thing would affect college acceptance, scholarships, etc.

Another Reefer Madness victim.

But true.

What you were told is true or that
you were truly told a lie?
Try to be clear.

The former.

Wrong...try again.

ScottW

[ScottW]

On Jun 26, 3:11 pm, Jenn wrote:
In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast . net wrote:





Jenn said:

No Scott, it's YOUR attitude. You're all ****ed off because I dared to
do a simple test post in YOUR newsgroup.

Scottie is always ****ed off. You're only guessing about what causes it.

You say that you're concerned
about "spamming" the newsgroup, and yet you answer the test post
unnecessarily, thereby creating more of the "spam" that you detest. I
should say "evidently detest" because you create more off-topic spam
than anyone else here, by a large margin. So it's YOUR attitude that
causes you to act as the cop in this situation.

None of the posts in question qualifies as spam. Yours was a curiosity,
and Scottie's are offal. Notice how Witless just caved when I zeroed in
on his mental defects? That's one of his touchiest buttons.

George, I have to say that I made an error in not including you in a
list of those who create the most off-topic spam here.

I personally don't care if there are off-topic posts or not. It just
seems odd that someone who obviously DOES care creates so much of it
himself.

OT posts aren't spam IMO... OT posts can be interesting.
SPAM by definition is not. Test posts have no chance of being
interesting
are therefore SPAM.

ScottW

[ScottW]

On Jun 26, 3:24 pm, George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast .
net wrote:
Jenn said:

None of the posts in question qualifies as spam. Yours was a curiosity,
and Scottie's are offal. Notice how Witless just caved when I zeroed in
on his mental defects? That's one of his touchiest buttons.
George, I have to say that I made an error in not including you in a
list of those who create the most off-topic spam here.

Spam is commercial in nature. Examples are posts that say "click here
for naked beauties" and "cheap software!" I don't create *any* spam.
Never have, never will.

Also, I disagree as to the "OT" rubric. I have repeatedly stated, and
supported, my opinion that ridicule and mockery of audio religionists


What is an audio religionist?
Your tendency to stereotype people based on wether they support
or oppose your "resistance" is obvious and has nothing to do
with their audio preferences.


are peripherally related to the nominal subject of this group. If you
accept my reasoning, that excuses some portion of my posts from being
patently OT.

Absolute crock of BS rationalization for
your childish self amusement.



BTW, if you're stuck for a term to refer to OT posts, how about noise?

I personally don't care if there are off-topic posts or not. It just
seems odd that someone who obviously DOES care creates so much of it
himself.

Scottie's estrangement from logical thinking is a matter of historial
record. Like his idol the Krooborg, Terrierdork has his own private
dialect of human language.

Complete and utter BS from the vinyphobic middiot.
But thanks for demonstrating your Kreuger Derangement Syndrome
and how it plays into your bogus "audio religionists" stereotype.

ScottW

[George M. Middius]

Terrierdork is snarling mad again.

Also, I disagree as to the "OT" rubric. I have repeatedly stated, and
supported, my opinion that ridicule and mockery of audio religionists
are peripherally related to the nominal subject of this group. If you
accept my reasoning, that excuses some portion of my posts from being
patently OT.

What is an audio religionist?

Uh-oh. Another drop in Witlessmongrel's meager IQ. Very sad.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[ScottW]

On Jun 27, 2:29 pm, George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast .
net wrote:
Terrierdork is snarling mad again.

Also, I disagree as to the "OT" rubric. I have repeatedly stated, and
supported, my opinion that ridicule and mockery of audio religionists
are peripherally related to the nominal subject of this group. If you
accept my reasoning, that excuses some portion of my posts from being
patently OT.
What is an audio religionist?

Uh-oh. Another drop in Witlessmongrel's meager IQ. Very sad.

I seriously doubted your ability to define it yourself.

Further, this lame idea that you can define people as worthy
of ridicule and mockery based on your view that they practice
some view of audio religion is total BS.
You like to mock and ridicule to pump up your own failing ego
and hide your absolute uselessness to society and this group.

Your only area of knowledge is prime time TV programming
which says much about your life....loser.

Jenn knows this, I know it...hell, even Arny knows it.

ScottW

[George M. Middius]

Somebody, please take Terrierdork to the vet.

Also, I disagree as to the "OT" rubric. I have repeatedly stated, and
supported, my opinion that ridicule and mockery of audio religionists
are peripherally related to the nominal subject of this group. If you
accept my reasoning, that excuses some portion of my posts from being
patently OT.

What is an audio religionist?

Uh-oh. Another drop in Witlessmongrel's meager IQ. Very sad.

I seriously doubted your ability to define it yourself.

Still struggling with common English words, I see. Did you even peek at
those links I gave you yesterday? You depend on "objective" sources of
information like dictionaries when you need to deflect attention away
from your stupidity. And yet, hypocrite that you are, you refuse to make
the slightest effort to learn what every 10-year-old child is expected
to know.

You give new meaning to the term pathetic, Scooter. You're pitiable and
lame and imbecilic, and you don't care who knows it.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[ScottW]

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
ScottW wrote:

On Jun 26, 10:50 am, Jenn wrote:
In article ,





"ScottW" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message
.
net
...
In article om,
ScottW wrote:

On Jun 24, 10:26 pm, Jenn wrote:
In article ,

"ScottW" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message

rodi
gy.
net
...
In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast . net wrote:

Jenn said:

Using isn't necessarily abusing,

Understood. I'll correct say that I've used illegal drugs
once
in
my
life.

That's extraordinary. I went through a drinking phase and a pot
phase.
Now I drink a little, but I developed a strong adversion to
liquor.

I tried pot once when I was 16. I didn't do it anymore because
A. I
didn't like it

How many people got high the first time they smoked?

I have no idea.

All you liars can put your hand down.
Your as FOS as Clinton.

Who is it "your" talking about?

All you BS'ers claiming to have smoked once,
got high...and didn't like it.

Who said I got high?
At any rate, you can believe me or not; I don't care.

I believe you tried to smoke pot, couldn't choke it down
and get past your life ruination paranoia and decided
you didn't like it but have never been high on pot.

Pretty close, except for the paranoia.







You forgot to blame Clinton for world wide drug abuse.

Let's blame Carter for that. Peanuts can be so
intoxicating.

B. I was a "good kid"

since gone astray...

Yep, I've sunk so low as to try to have conversation with you.

Sunk low enought to spew gratuitous insults

Yes, I know that you believe that I'm "sinning" when I defend myself.

You call that defense? I call it abdication of your integrity
which isn't all that.

Whatever. I insult a bit here when I'm first insulted. I can live with
that. It's the coin of this realm.



and
spam test posts.

lol Obsess much?

Lots

There it is.

Yup, and you're now obsessing about my
obsessions. Who's twisted?

I'm not obsessing.

Gee, neither am I. Guess we're both confused...or
perhaps just you.

You've succeeded in turning a one post thread which
upsets you

wrong again

for some reason

I told you, it's called boredom.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"George M. Middius" cmndr _ george @ comcast . net wrote in message
...


Somebody, please take Terrierdork to the vet.

Also, I disagree as to the "OT" rubric. I have repeatedly stated, and
supported, my opinion that ridicule and mockery of audio religionists
are peripherally related to the nominal subject of this group. If you
accept my reasoning, that excuses some portion of my posts from being
patently OT.

What is an audio religionist?

Uh-oh. Another drop in Witlessmongrel's meager IQ. Very sad.

I seriously doubted your ability to define it yourself.

Still struggling with common English words, I see. Did you even peek at
those links I gave you yesterday? You depend on "objective" sources of
information like dictionaries when you need to deflect attention away
from your stupidity. And yet, hypocrite that you are, you refuse to make
the slightest effort to learn what every 10-year-old child is expected
to know.

You give new meaning to the term pathetic, Scooter. You're pitiable and
lame and imbecilic, and you don't care who knows it.

Pontificate away. Your bluff has been called.
Stand and deliver or STFU you fat incontinent pathetic impotent windbag.

ScottW

[George M. Middius]

Oooooh! Scottie is maaaaaaad!

Still struggling with common English words, I see. Did you even peek at
those links I gave you yesterday? You depend on "objective" sources of
information like dictionaries when you need to deflect attention away
from your stupidity. And yet, hypocrite that you are, you refuse to make
the slightest effort to learn what every 10-year-old child is expected
to know.

You give new meaning to the term pathetic, Scooter. You're pitiable and
lame and imbecilic, and you don't care who knows it.

Your bluff has been called.

Your remaining 3 brain cells have come loose from their moorings.

Pontificate away.

Yo momma so dumb, she smoked two packs a day during pregnancy.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[ScottW]

"George M. Middius" cmndr _ george @ comcast . net wrote in message
...


Oooooh! Scottie is maaaaaaad!

Yeah, pimples on my ass make me sooooo mad.


Still struggling with common English words, I see. Did you even peek at
those links I gave you yesterday? You depend on "objective" sources of
information like dictionaries when you need to deflect attention away
from your stupidity. And yet, hypocrite that you are, you refuse to make
the slightest effort to learn what every 10-year-old child is expected
to know.

You give new meaning to the term pathetic, Scooter. You're pitiable and
lame and imbecilic, and you don't care who knows it.

Your bluff has been called.

Your remaining 3 brain cells have come loose from their moorings.

You are a wimp.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 27, 4:15 pm, ScottW wrote:

Absolute crock of BS rationalization for
your childish self amusement.

And what do rashes of OT political posts constitute, other than your
decision to pollute a group for your own "childish self-amusement" (or
to overcome your fear of a "dead" group)?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 27, 9:52 pm, "ScottW" wrote:

Stand and deliver or STFU you fat incontinent pathetic impotent windbag.

Very impressive.

Do you 'mind' if I emulate you, you obese diaper-wearing imbecilic
'manly' ;-) intellectual giant?

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jun 27, 4:15 pm, ScottW wrote:

Absolute crock of BS rationalization for
your childish self amusement.

And what do rashes of OT political posts constitute, other than your
decision to pollute a group for your own "childish self-amusement" (or
to overcome your fear of a "dead" group)?

You consider political discussions childish self-amusement?
How odd.
Can you pollute a dead sea?

BTW...do you see me starting OT political threads...yet?
Don't tempt me.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jun 27, 9:52 pm, "ScottW" wrote:

Stand and deliver or STFU you fat incontinent pathetic impotent windbag.

Very impressive.

Do you 'mind' if I emulate you, you obese diaper-wearing imbecilic
'manly' ;-) intellectual giant?

I think you lack consistency. Find a theme and stay with it.
Your rambling but not bad for a start.

ScottW

[[email protected]]

Wow. I actually thought that the 70 posts in this thread would
actually be about the Rega P1. Silly me.

Anyway, I've had plenty of experience with this one. Here's what you
should know:

1)It's no better than any of the cheap Music Halls or Pro-Jects in its
stock form. The MDF platter wobbles notably, and the felt mat doesn't
fit right.

2) Replace the MDF platter and felt mat (called an "upgrade kit," and
available from most Rega dealers for $69), and have the dealer upgrade
the Ortofon OM-5e cartridge for an OM-10 or OM-20, and the sound
quality becomes very similar to a stock Rega P2 for about $100 less.

3) Regas may or may not have had speed problems in the past. I owned
two (a P3 from 1992-1998, and a P25 from 1998-2003), and never noticed
a problem. Recently, a dealer friend of mine pulled three P3s from his
stock and tested the speed, and they were all right on. The P1 my
magazine reviewed ran at perfect speed, too.

4) I smoked pot once. It didn't get me high. In fact, it took quite
a few times, IIRC.

Boon

[Joe Duffy]

In article ,
Jenn wrote:
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.1 (Intel Mac OS X)
Message-ID:

Lines: 27
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.161.57.220
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace: newssvr19.news.prodigy.net 1182895894 ST000 64.161.57.220 (Tue,
26 Jun 2007 18:11:34 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 18:11:34 EDT
Organization: AT&T http://yahoo.sbc.com
X-UserInfo1:
TSU[@I_A\S@GRTPX@ZKZOQD@@R\NALHIQ@T@_FYLKX^JGEUNDO_AR\ JZQLYJX\_ITFD_KFVLUN[DOM_A_NSYNWPFWNS[XV\I]PZ@BQ[@CDQDPCL^FKCBIPC@KLGEZEFNMDYMKHRL_YYYGDSSODXYN@[\BK[LVTWI@AXGQCOA_SAH@TPD^\AL\RLGRFWEARBM
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 15:11:34 -0700
Bytes: 2797

In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast . net wrote:

Jenn said:

No Scott, it's YOUR attitude. You're all ****ed off because I dared to
do a simple test post in YOUR newsgroup.

Scottie is always ****ed off. You're only guessing about what causes it.

You say that you're concerned
about "spamming" the newsgroup, and yet you answer the test post
unnecessarily, thereby creating more of the "spam" that you detest. I
should say "evidently detest" because you create more off-topic spam
than anyone else here, by a large margin. So it's YOUR attitude that
causes you to act as the cop in this situation.

None of the posts in question qualifies as spam. Yours was a curiosity,
and Scottie's are offal. Notice how Witless just caved when I zeroed in
on his mental defects? That's one of his touchiest buttons.

George, I have to say that I made an error in not including you in a
list of those who create the most off-topic spam here.

I personally don't care if there are off-topic posts or not. It just
seems odd that someone who obviously DOES care creates so much of it
himself.



LOL!
Speaking of touchiest buttons, the midjet sure
did squeal while listing the names of friends.
It is actually in society's interest that he does
have friends, even if only in cyberspace.



Joe

[Joe Duffy]

In article ,
George M. Middius do not reply wrote:


Jenn said:

I personally don't care if there are off-topic posts or not. It just
seems odd that someone who obviously DOES care creates so much of it
himself.

Scottie's estrangement from logical thinking is a matter of historial
record. Like his idol the Krooborg, Terrierdork has his own private
dialect of human language. His condition allows him to misuse words and
blithely ignore corrections from non-retards.



Wow, Jenn, you have actually caused the subroutine
to lock up and spit out midjetspeak!
I commend your ability to push buttons.



Joe

[Joe Duffy]

In article .com,
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
On Jun 27, 9:52 pm, "ScottW" wrote:

Stand and deliver or STFU you fat incontinent pathetic impotent windbag.

Very impressive.

Do you 'mind' if I emulate you, you obese diaper-wearing imbecilic
'manly' ;-) intellectual giant?



Hey, Sack-of, where you going with that sack
of Depends in your hand?



Joe

[George M. Middius]

The Doofster is disoriented.

Do you 'mind' if I emulate you, you obese diaper-wearing imbecilic
'manly' ;-) intellectual giant?

Hey, Sack-of, where you going with that sack
of Depends in your hand?

Feeling inferior again, Doof? Can't say I blame you. If I had to look at
a picture of your ugly-ass mama every day, I'd be cranky too.

http://www.geocities.com/glanbrok/RA.../mama_doof.jpg





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[George M. Middius]

BTW, Doof, I realize you were trying to insult me with those other two
posts. I didn't reply directly because I couldn't fathom what your point
was. Your other post, in reply to Shushie's, was irresistible. Clearly
you've discovered a combination of liquor and cigars that makes the
complexities ;-) of RAO too much for your limited brainpower.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Bill Riel]

In article . com,
says...
Wow. I actually thought that the 70 posts in this thread would
actually be about the Rega P1. Silly me.

Indeed - this is RAO after all.

Anyway, I've had plenty of experience with this one. Here's what you
should know:

1)It's no better than any of the cheap Music Halls or Pro-Jects in its
stock form. The MDF platter wobbles notably, and the felt mat doesn't
fit right.

2) Replace the MDF platter and felt mat (called an "upgrade kit," and
available from most Rega dealers for $69), and have the dealer upgrade
the Ortofon OM-5e cartridge for an OM-10 or OM-20, and the sound
quality becomes very similar to a stock Rega P2 for about $100 less.

I looked at the P1 (haven't listened) but in stock form it *seemed* to
be inferior in build quality than the Pro-Ject entry level stuff. That
impression may have been due to the platter more than anything else
though.

3) Regas may or may not have had speed problems in the past. I owned
two (a P3 from 1992-1998, and a P25 from 1998-2003), and never noticed
a problem. Recently, a dealer friend of mine pulled three P3s from his
stock and tested the speed, and they were all right on. The P1 my
magazine reviewed ran at perfect speed, too.

I've heard from others that speed problems haven't been an issue with
Regas for quite some time, though I have no personal experience one way
or another.

Where did you review the P1? Perhaps in Tone Magazine? I'd like to read
your review.

--
Bill

[George M. Middius]

Bill Riel said:

Wow. I actually thought that the 70 posts in this thread would
actually be about the Rega P1. Silly me.

Indeed - this is RAO after all.

Did you see duh-Scottie's latest riff on human language? He said anybody
who doesn't actually own a turntable is a "vinylphobe". That one can go
right next to his delusion that every time he demands an explanation for
something, he's issuing a command from the highest authority. ;-)






--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[ScottW]

On Jun 28, 8:46 am, George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast .
net wrote:
Bill Riel said:

Wow. I actually thought that the 70 posts in this thread would
actually be about the Rega P1. Silly me.
Indeed - this is RAO after all.

Did you see duh-Scottie's latest riff on human language? He said anybody
who doesn't actually own a turntable is a "vinylphobe".

No, I said you're a vinylphobe. Basically because the effort
required to
get good sound out of vinyl scares the crap out of you.
You and Packer at least this in common.

ScottW

[Bill Riel]

In article , George M.
Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast . net says...

Did you see duh-Scottie's latest riff on human language?

Unfortunately, no. I'm afraid that I'm finding a lot of the back and
forth absolutely mind-numbing and I haven't been keeping up.

He said anybody who doesn't actually own a turntable is a "vinylphobe".

Hmmm... if you reversed that it sounds an awful lot like something the
beloved Mr. Krueger would say.

--
Bill