[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Scottie Witlessmongrel: Don't you hate Stereophile? I do too. Boy, do I
hate them!

Somebody Else: Why do you hate them?

SW: Atkinson is such a ****ty elitist. I hate everything about elitists.

SE: Why do you say he's an elitist?

SW: When was the last time S'phile gave an honest review of that
overpriced **** that get's advertised in his mag? Honest is telling the
truth. The truth is that any $10K amplifier SUCKS. Atkinson doesn't tell
the truth.

SE: So Atkinson is an elitist because he doesn't say what you want him
to say?

SW: You're just like ****R, the liar who quit the Army because he was
afraid of getting shot at.

SE: I thought we were talking about Stereophile.

SW: S'pile really needs some DBT's to balance out the corruption. That's
the truth about S'phile.

SE: I thought you said the problem you have with Stereophile is that the
editor is elitist. What do you mean by corruption? That word is normally
used to refer to abusing a public trust.

SW: Atkinson turns a blind eye to the corruption. How do you think he
can afford a Mercedes for every day of the week?

SE: But you drive a Mercedes too. Are you corrupt?

SW: You're just like Jenn. She claims to be neutral but she's an elitist
just like you are.

SE: This has been an interesting discussion. Don't call me.

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On May 21, 6:31 pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
snip

:-)

John "elitist" Atkinson
Stereophile

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Scottie has an itch that he can't scratch.

I don't hate Stereophile or Atkinson. But he sure seems to want me to.

Why do you say that?

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" wrote in message

On May 22, 3:57 am, John Atkinson
wrote:
On May 21, 6:31 pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
snip

:-)

John "elitist" Atkinson
Stereophile


I don't hate Stereophile or Atkinson. But he sure seems
to want me to.

He did the same thing to me, many years ago. He can dish it out but he can't
take it. :-(

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 22, 4:06*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

On May 22, 3:57 am, John Atkinson
wrote:

:-)

:-(


And that about sums it up.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

"duh!" barked the pooch. "duh?" it yapped back to its reflection.
"duh-DUH!" said its original self excitedly. "duh-DUH-duh-duh, DUH!"
mimicked the reflection, shedding half a pound of dead fur.

Scottie has an itch that he can't scratch.

*I don't hate Stereophile or Atkinson. *But he sure seems to want me to.

Why do you say that?

Why do you ask that?

Because I don't know why you believe John Atkinson wants you to hate
him. I'll bet nobody knows, not even you, even though you're the one who
made the claim.

I expect you'll throw a tantrum here. Maybe you'll screech for Mistress
Jenn to castigate me, or maybe you'll launch into an irrelevant diatribe
about all of Stereophile's terrible sins. But since you seem to have no
idea what you meant by your incredible accusation, the last thing I
expect is for you to explain why you believe JA wants you to hate him.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

:-)

:-(

And that about sums it up.

I wonder what the dinnertime saying-of-grace ceremony entails in the
Krooger household....

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" wrote in
message
"duh!" barked the pooch. "duh?" it yapped back to its
reflection. "duh-DUH!" said its original self excitedly.
"duh-DUH-duh-duh, DUH!" mimicked the reflection, shedding
half a pound of dead fur.

Scottie has an itch that he can't scratch.

I don't hate Stereophile or Atkinson. But he sure
seems to want me to.

Why do you say that?

Why do you ask that?

Because I don't know why you believe John Atkinson wants
you to hate him.

That really complex word "seem" is totally over your head, eh Middiot?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 22, 4:18*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"George M. Middius" wrote in
messagenews:vbob345o5am8eo8djhihjscm234lrjhhj9@4ax .com





"duh!" barked the pooch. "duh?" it yapped back to its
reflection. "duh-DUH!" said its original self excitedly.
"duh-DUH-duh-duh, DUH!" mimicked the reflection, shedding
half a pound of dead fur.

Scottie has an itch that he can't scratch.

I don't hate Stereophile or Atkinson. But he sure
seems to want me to.

Why do you say that?

* Why do you ask that?

Because I don't know why you believe John Atkinson wants
you to hate him.

I was wondering the same thing.

That really complex word "seem" is totally over your head, eh Middiot?

No, the word meaning is clear. It's the deluded "logic" behind the
statement that makes one wonder.

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On May 22, 4:52*pm, ScottW wrote:
*I don't hate Stereophile or Atkinson. *But he sure seems
to want me to.

Nope, that's not it. I was just noting another example of
George's skill as a writer.

As you don't read Stereophile and as you have stated
that you will not read Stereophile, then I respectfully
suggest that your opinion of me is moot.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On May 22, 9:49 pm, ScottW wrote:
On May 22, 2:55 pm, John Atkinson wrote:
I was just noting another example of
George's skill as a writer.

Yes, I think George should edit S'Puke.

Glad you're a fan. But writing and editing are
different professions.

As you don't read Stereophile and as you have stated
that you will not read Stereophile, then I respectfully
suggest that your opinion of me is moot.

You suggest your comments here on various topics
aren't worthy of forming an opinion of you?

I have no idea how you can infer that question from
what I wrote, ScottW. I was specifically stating that
your opinions of Stereophile carry no weight for the
reason I gave above.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 23, 6:16*am, John Atkinson wrote:
On May 22, 9:49 pm, ScottW wrote:

On May 22, 2:55 pm, John Atkinson wrote:
I was just noting another example of
George's skill as a writer.

*Yes, I think George should edit S'Puke.

Glad you're a fan. But writing and editing are
different professions.

As you don't read Stereophile and as you have stated
that you will not read Stereophile, then I respectfully
suggest that your opinion of me is moot.

You suggest your comments here on various topics
aren't worthy of forming an opinion of you?

I have no idea how you can infer that question from
what I wrote, ScottW. I was specifically stating that
your opinions of Stereophile carry no weight for the
reason I gave above.

Hang on, here, JA. 2pid has conclusively 'proven' that its opinion on
military matters of stategy and tactics is equally as valid as anybody
else's.

In 2pid's 'mind' he could sit down with, say, GEN David Petreus and
"hold its own" with him.

So 2pid can have any opinion on anything and its opinion will be as
valid as theirs is.

I'm still waiting for 2pid's complete break with McCain for McCain's
attack on Obama's lack of military service. I'm quite sure 2pid does
not want someone with a "Starship Trooper" mentality like McCain
obviously has running the country.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 23, 11:04*am, ScottW wrote:

Glad you aren't in politics.

Another gem from 2pid. Lol

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 23, 2:01*pm, ScottW wrote:
On May 23, 11:50*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On May 23, 6:16*am, John Atkinson wrote:

On May 22, 9:49 pm, ScottW wrote:

On May 22, 2:55 pm, John Atkinson wrote:
I was just noting another example of
George's skill as a writer.

*Yes, I think George should edit S'Puke.

Glad you're a fan. But writing and editing are
different professions.

As you don't read Stereophile and as you have stated
that you will not read Stereophile, then I respectfully
suggest that your opinion of me is moot.

You suggest your comments here on various topics
aren't worthy of forming an opinion of you?

I have no idea how you can infer that question from
what I wrote, ScottW. I was specifically stating that
your opinions of Stereophile carry no weight for the
reason I gave above.

Hang on, here, JA. 2pid has conclusively 'proven' that its opinion on
military matters of stategy and tactics is equally as valid as anybody
else's.

*Who was it that just said my opinion is as valid as anyone else's?

Who is it that entirely misses massive doses of sarcasm?

Lol

In 2pid's 'mind' he could sit down with, say, GEN David Petreus and
"hold its own" with him.

*Lol. *You do suffer some serious delusions at time.
Petreus has my respect and admiration.
You do not.

Oh, so only those who you like and admire and respect can have
opinions more valid than yours.

I seem to recall you saying that I was "full of ****" when I was
advocating almost exactly the path that the General has laid down in
Iraq prior to his assuming command. I think I called it our "last,
best hope" or something like that.

But that position wasn't valid, because you do not like me. The
General, I suppose, is a genius though.

Lol

And you wonder why we laugh at you.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 23, 3:24*pm, ScottW wrote:
On May 23, 12:37*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:

*Lol. *You do suffer some serious delusions at time.
Petreus has my respect and admiration.
You do not.

Oh, so only those who you like and admire and respect can have
opinions more valid than yours.

You seem to put more merit in the owner of the opinion than
the opinion itself. * That's a bit of problem on usenet
dealing with anonymous lunatics such as yourself.

But the opinions themselves have merit, 2pid. It may onIy may only be
you who doesn't 'think' so. Lol

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 23, 3:24*pm, ScottW wrote:
On May 23, 12:37*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

Oh, so only those who you like and admire and respect can have
opinions more valid than yours.

You seem to put more merit in the owner of the opinion than
the opinion itself. * That's a bit of problem on usenet
dealing with anonymous lunatics such as yourself.

I have devloped a flow chart for "2pidlogic". This can be taken hand-
in-hand with George's "Audio Discussion" post:

1. Make a claim based on emotion, blogs, or propaganda, but based on
poor, little or no logic. I think I can hear people laughing at me.

a. I have gotten my ass kicked...again. Disappear for a while.
b. I have gotten my ass kicked...again. Pretend that did not happen
and repeat (1)
c. I have gotten my ass kicked...again. Accuse someone of being like
Jenn or JA.
d. I have gotten my ass kicked...again. Start a new thread based on a
similar assertion.

2. Veer off-topic and respond, but not to the question posed. This
seems to make people laugh at me.

a. I have gotten my ass kicked...again. Disappear for a while.
b. I have gotten my ass kicked...again. Pretend that did not happen
and repeat (1)
c. I have gotten my ass kicked...again. Accuse someone of being like
Jenn or JA.
d. I have gotten my ass kicked...again. Start a new thread based on a
similar assertion.

3. My hypocrisy has been defined and shown...again. I think people are
laughing at me.

a. I have gotten my ass kicked...again. Disappear for a while.
b. I have gotten my ass kicked...again. Pretend that did not happen
and repeat (1)
c. I have gotten my ass kicked...again. Accuse someone of being like
Jenn or JA.
d. I have gotten my ass kicked...again. Start a new thread based on a
similar assertion.

4. I whine about how mean people are, which means that I have gotten
may ass handed to me...again. That makes me wonder why everybody is
laughing at me.

a. I have gotten my ass kicked...again. Disappear for a while.
b. I have gotten my ass kicked...again. Pretend that did not happen
and repeat (1)
c. I have gotten my ass kicked...again. Accuse someone of being like
Jenn or JA.
d. I have gotten my ass kicked...again. Start a new thread based on a
similar assertion.

5. I wonder why everybody always laughs at me when I bring up
"integrity" or "morality".

a. I have gotten my ass kicked...again. Disappear for a while.
b. I have gotten my ass kicked...again. Pretend that did not happen
and repeat (1)
c. I have gotten my ass kicked...again. Accuse someone of being like
Jenn or JA.
d. I have gotten my ass kicked...again. Start a new thread based on a
similar assertion.

6. I set myself up on a pedestal of being just a little superior to my
superiors. I wonder why everybody is laughing at me.

a. I have gotten my ass kicked...again. Disappear for a while.
b. I have gotten my ass kicked...again. Pretend that did not happen
and repeat (1)
c. I have gotten my ass kicked...again. Accuse someone of being like
Jenn or JA.
d. I have gotten my ass kicked...again. Start a new thread based on a
similar assertion.

There may be some subtle differences, but I have not detected them
yet. ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote autobiographically in message


Finally, we see ****R evidencing a little introspection:

3. My hypocrisy has been defined and shown...again. I
think people are laughing at me.

5. I wonder why everybody always laughs at me when I
bring up "integrity" or "morality".

6. I set myself up on a pedestal of being just a little
superior to my superiors. I wonder why everybody is
laughing at me.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 23, 7:34*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote autobiographically in

Finally, we see ****R evidencing a little introspection:

Lol Read it again, GOIA. Your insanity is clouding your judgment.

3. My hypocrisy has been defined and shown...again. I
think people are laughing at me.
5. I wonder why everybody always laughs at me when I
bring up "integrity" or "morality".
6. I set myself up on a pedestal of being just a little
superior to my superiors. I wonder why everybody is
laughing at me.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Not that Shushie needs any help dealing with you, Witless, but sometimes
you're just so over-the-top obtuse that my kettle boils all on its own.

But the opinions themselves have merit, 2pid.

Occasionally your posts do. But far more often they're
simply unsubstantiated claims or childish insults.

The part you don't get (because you're stupid) is that the
"substantiation" is obvious and apparent to anybody who has a normal
intellect. You say something stupid, and the rest of us laugh at you.
Some of us take the time to jeer at your stupidity. You, being incurably
stupid, then "interpret" the jeering as "childishness".

I'd tell you to grow a brain, but that ship sailed a long time ago.

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" wrote in
message

The part you don't get (because you're stupid) is that the
"substantiation" is obvious and apparent to anybody who
has a normal intellect.

Working off of various examples around here, it is clear that the Middiot
definition of "normal intellect" involves an IQ on the shady side of carrot.
Three examples: The Middot himself, Art and ****R.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 24, 11:22*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"George M. Middius" wrote in
messagenews:2mdg34t0k4k9rne32k7hppr4d5f9302glq@4ax .com

The part you don't get (because you're stupid) is that the
"substantiation" is obvious and apparent to anybody who
has a normal intellect.

Working off of various examples around here, it is clear that the Middiot
definition of "normal intellect" involves an IQ on the shady side of carrot.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

The part you don't get (because you're stupid) is that the
"substantiation" is obvious and apparent to anybody who
has a normal intellect.

Working off of various examples around here, it is clear that [my supreme master]
definition of "normal intellect" involves an IQ on the shady side of carrot.
Three examples: [my supreme master] himself, Art and ****R.

That hurt, GOIA. Being judged by a christian Pillar of Virtue such as
yourself is like a pike being drived through my heart. If you were
sane it would hurt even more.

Arnii is getting all worked up. He might be jealous of Scottie's "angry
white man" label.

I also believe we should give Scottie some craziness credit. The other day,
he said John wants Scottie to hate him. When I asked him why he thought so,
he said it was because John was involved in a fraudulent enterprise. That
kind of deranged babbling goes beyond garden-variety stupidity. It's also
way past the emotional constipation of Asperger's.

Scottie and Arnii, together for eternity....

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

MiNe 109 said:

Scottie and Arnii, together for eternity....

Scottie, played by Michael Douglas, Arny by Billy Bob Thornton.

Somebody said recently that you have a wee tendency to wax obscure. Do you
think that was unfair?

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

MiNe 109 said:

Scottie and Arnii, together for eternity....

Scottie, played by Michael Douglas, Arny by Billy Bob Thornton.

Somebody said recently that you have a wee tendency to wax obscure. Do you
think that was unfair?

;-)

AWM is rather obvious (see IMDB). That second one's obscure because it's
not a reference, definitely not the Thornton of Sling Blade!

You can't look up "AWM" on IMDB.

More plainly, see IMDB for "Falling Down". Then he

Oh, I see now. Well, it's a good thing you crossed off Sling Blade -- the
AWM was Dwight, not Billy Bob.

Anyway, if you're scoping a script, neither of those actors would
appreciate being typecast. Although if you take away the anger, there's
definitely a resemblance between our Scottie and Karl Childers.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

MiNe 109 said:

Anyway, if you're scoping a script, neither of those actors would
appreciate being typecast. Although if you take away the anger, there's
definitely a resemblance between our Scottie and Karl Childers.

He's not Scott, but Milton from Office Space is everywhere on Usenet.

I see a parallel between Karl and Scottie. They're both 'special'.

Who would you say is RAO's Milton? I don't think Krooger is a good fit
because Milton wasn't insane.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 24, 10:33*am, ScottW wrote:
On May 23, 4:39*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On May 23, 3:24*pm, ScottW wrote:

On May 23, 12:37*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
*Lol. *You do suffer some serious delusions at time.
Petreus has my respect and admiration.
You do not.

Oh, so only those who you like and admire and respect can have
opinions more valid than yours.

You seem to put more merit in the owner of the opinion than
the opinion itself. * That's a bit of problem on usenet
dealing with anonymous lunatics such as yourself.

But the opinions themselves have merit, 2pid.

Occasionally your posts do. *But far more often they're
simply unsubstantiated claims or childish insults.
Stick to the former and you'd be far more persuasive.

So if I "stick to unsubstantiated claims" I'll be more "persuasive".

Thanks for the heads up.

Here is proof positive of why it is an utter waste of time to go
through the bother of providing cites when 'discussing' things with
2pid.

The latter is just an insecure lunatic suffering severe
intolerance for differing points of view.

OK, 2pid, I have a couple of questions for you. Please don't run away
from them, as I really want to know:

Let's presume that there's a continuum of points of view. Let's say
that POVs like Jesus had are on one end, and that POVs held by the
likes of Genghis Khan, the KKK, and Adolf Hitler are on the other.
Questions:

1. Are all of these POVs "equally valid"?

2. Is one required to sit idly by and not say "you're crazy" or
"that's stupid" to some of them?

3. If the answer to #2 is "no", where is the cut to you? At Genghis,
the KKK, or Adolf?

4. If the answer to #2 is "yes", then you're even more of an imbecile
than I thought.

LoL

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 24, 10:55*am, ScottW wrote:
On May 24, 8:42*am, George M. Middius
wrote:

Not that Shushie needs any help dealing with you, Witless, but sometimes
you're just so over-the-top obtuse that my kettle boils all on its own.

But the opinions themselves have merit, 2pid.

Occasionally your posts do. *But far more often they're
simply unsubstantiated claims or childish insults.

The part you don't get (because you're stupid) is that the
"substantiation" is obvious and apparent to anybody who has a normal
intellect.

*You and cogent substantiation parted ways before my time on RAO.

High content level noted.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 24, 6:24*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
Shhhh! said:

The part you don't get (because you're stupid) is that the
"substantiation" is obvious and apparent to anybody who
has a normal intellect.

Working off of various examples around here, it is clear that [my supreme master]
definition of "normal intellect" involves an IQ on the shady side of carrot.
Three examples: [my supreme master] himself, Art and ****R.

That hurt, GOIA. Being judged by a christian Pillar of Virtue such as
yourself is like a pike being drived through my heart. If you were
sane it would hurt even more.

Arnii is getting all worked up. He might be jealous of Scottie's "angry
white man" label.

I also believe we should give Scottie some craziness credit. The other day,
he said John wants Scottie to hate him. When I asked him why he thought so,
he said it was because John was involved in a fraudulent enterprise. That
kind of deranged babbling goes beyond garden-variety stupidity. It's also
way past the emotional constipation of Asperger's.

Scottie and Arnii, together for eternity....

So where's nob when you need him. :-)

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

MiNe 109 said:

Anyway, if you're scoping a script, neither of those actors would
appreciate being typecast. Although if you take away the anger, there's
definitely a resemblance between our Scottie and Karl Childers.

He's not Scott, but Milton from Office Space is everywhere on Usenet.

I see a parallel between Karl and Scottie. They're both 'special'.

Who would you say is RAO's Milton? I don't think Krooger is a good fit
because Milton wasn't insane.

Probably one of those name-shifters who drop by every couple of months
or years to resurrect old grievances.

That's it -- Queenie Catie!

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" wrote in message


Scottie, played by Michael Douglas, Arny by Billy Bob
Thornton.

Stephen, played by a cabbage with delusions of being a musician.