[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

I am one of them.

I liked the LTC's logic: substitute "blacks" for "gays" and you're
right back into the days of segregated battalions.

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/play...26713&src=news

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 19, 9:01*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in

I am one of them.

So you are no longer retired?

I am one of the 75% who support gays openly serving in the military.
Here, so your insanity does not interfe

"75% support gays openly serving in the military. I am one who is in
the 75% of those that support gays openly serving in the military."

Now let's see the "debating trade" in action. I'm sure some of the
voices in GOIA's head will need to twist this further.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 19, 7:51*pm, "BretLudwig" wrote:
*What, you support letting open gays serve in the military, or you are an
openly gay currently serving in the military? Not sure how to interpret
that. If the latter, I will give you this: you have guts if not the best
judgment to post this, even under pseudonym!

Leave it to you and GOIA to intepret something out-of-context. Coupled
with the subject line, it is clear (to a sane mind) the intent is that
I support gays openly serving.

*Now, let me add there are numerous instances of gay war heroes, of gays
who completed 20, 30, or longer military careers without incident, and
also it's universally agreed by all and sundry that lesbians form a secret
corps of administrative effectiveness without which the military in
practice would be seriously impacted so that leaving them alone is a
near-necessity in purely pragmatic terms.

Yup, gay males can be "heroes" and lesbians can be "administratively
effective". LOL!

I never administered an Article 15 (non-judicial punishment) that didn't
include a charge and several specifications of Article 92.

I have. As a commander (Captain) I did several times. These were
"company-grade" article 15s. As a Major, I could administer "field-
grade" article 15s. It's a significant amount of power:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonjudicial_punishment

[Arny Krueger]

"BretLudwig" wrote in message
lkaboutaudio.com

What, you support letting open gays serve in the
military, or you are an openly gay currently serving in
the military?

Note that ****R won't take responsibility for writing something that is
obviously vague. He's been screwing up like crazy lately, and far be it from
him to admit even a less-than-clear wording.

Not sure how to interpret that. If the
latter, I will give you this: you have guts if not the
best judgment to post this, even under pseudonym!

Nahh, ****R posts under a nym because sockpuppets have no legal names. They
also have no SSNs.

Unlike the guy whose hand is up the butt of the ****R sockpuppet, I did
serve in the Army. Obviously there were gays in the Army way back then, but
as long as they did their job and kept their noses clean, where's the beef?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 20, 5:59*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"BretLudwig" wrote in message

lkaboutaudio.com

What, you support letting open gays serve in the
military, or you are an openly gay currently serving in
the military?

Note that ****R won't take responsibility for writing something that is
obviously vague. He's been screwing up like crazy lately, and far be it from
him to admit even a less-than-clear wording.

Oh, I AM SO SORRY FOR WRITING SOMETHING THAT YOU AND BRATZI
MISINTERPERETED!!!!!!!!!!!!

IF MY WRITING WAS LESS-THAN-CLEAR TO YOU PLEASE FORGIVE ME!!!!!!!!!

THIS IS, LIKE, THE BIGGEST DEAL EVER!!!!

*Not sure how to interpret that. If the
latter, I will give you this: you have guts if not the
best judgment to post this, even under pseudonym!

Nahh, ****R posts under a nym because sockpuppets have no legal names. They
also have no SSNs.

LOL!

Unlike the guy whose hand is up the butt of the ****R sockpuppet, I did
serve in the Army. Obviously there were gays in the Army way back then, but
as long as they did their job and kept their noses clean, where's the beef?

Juvenile attempt at reverse-psychology noted. You think you can goad
me into giving you any personal information.

Sorry, GOIA, it will not happen. Why not? Because as I've said many
times, I will not give it to you. LOL!

If you did a standard hitch, you were no higher than a specialist when
you got out. You, like 2pid, were not officer material.

[Arny Krueger]

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

On Jul 20, 5:59 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"BretLudwig" wrote in message

lkaboutaudio.com

What, you support letting open gays serve in the
military, or you are an openly gay currently serving in
the military?

Note that ****R won't take responsibility for writing
something that is obviously vague. He's been screwing up
like crazy lately, and far be it from him to admit even
a less-than-clear wording.

Oh, I AM SO SORRY FOR WRITING SOMETHING THAT YOU AND
BRATZI MISINTERPERETED!!!!!!!!!!!!

IF MY WRITING WAS LESS-THAN-CLEAR TO YOU PLEASE FORGIVE
ME!!!!!!!!!

As usual ****R you've missed the point - probably intentionally. Less-than
clear is excusable, posting something that was less-than-clear and then
calling people insane when they point that out is sign of a pathology.

Not sure how to interpret that. If the
latter, I will give you this: you have guts if not the
best judgment to post this, even under pseudonym!

Nahh, ****R posts under a nym because sockpuppets have
no legal names. They also have no SSNs.

LOL!

Irrelevant.

Unlike the guy whose hand is up the butt of the ****R
sockpuppet, I did serve in the Army. Obviously there
were gays in the Army way back then, but as long as they
did their job and kept their noses clean, where's the
beef?

Juvenile attempt at reverse-psychology noted. You think
you can goad me into giving you any personal information.

Paranoid response noted. It takes a seriously disturbed person to interpret
a statement about gays in the military into an attempt to trick someone into
posting personal information. BTW, when did posting your legal name
constitute releasing sensitive personal information?

Sorry, my lord and master, it will not happen. Why not? Because as I've
said many times, I will not give it to you. LOL!

****R I'm quite sure you won't provide non-sensitive information like you
name because you fear being held accountable for your egregious behavior on
RAO. Also, being a sockpuppet, you have no personal information of any kind,
because you aren't a person. You're just a nym with a huge mouth and ego.

If you did a standard hitch, you were no higher than a
specialist when you got out.

Sue me for not take the OCS bait when it was offered.

You, like 2pid, were not officer material.

At the time I would have done as good of a job of dying in Vietnam, as many
fine officers did. Of course, you don't know anything about the average
lifetime of a Lieutenant in a LZ, do you?

[Clyde Slick]

On 21 Iul, 06:49, "Arny Krueger" wrote:


At the time I would have done as good of a job of dying in Vietnam,

too bad you ****ed it up.

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message


On 21 Iul, 06:49, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

At the time I would have done as good of a job of dying
in Vietnam,

too bad you ****ed it up.

Never tried.

What part of Canada were did you move to?

[Clyde Slick]

On 21 Iul, 11:59, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message



On 21 Iul, 06:49, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
At the time I would have done as good of a job of dying
in Vietnam,
too bad you ****ed it up.

Never tried.

What part of Canada were did you move to?

There is no part were I did, Bubba

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 21, 5:49*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in





On Jul 20, 5:59 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"BretLudwig" wrote in message

news:aea6b87fe019f72e746d81e8812abd88@localhost. talkaboutaudio.com

What, you support letting open gays serve in the
military, or you are an openly gay currently serving in
the military?

Note that ****R won't take responsibility for writing
something that is obviously vague. He's been screwing up
like crazy lately, and far be it from him to admit even
a less-than-clear wording.

Oh, I AM SO SORRY FOR WRITING SOMETHING THAT YOU AND
BRATZI MISINTERPERETED!!!!!!!!!!!!

IF MY WRITING WAS LESS-THAN-CLEAR TO YOU PLEASE FORGIVE
ME!!!!!!!!!

As usual ****R you've missed the point - probably intentionally. Less-than
clear is excusable, posting something that was less-than-clear and then
calling people insane when they point that out is sign of a pathology.

Did you notice that you and Bratzi were the only two who weren't able
to make that leap? At least Bratzi asked. You did not. That's because
you are, in fact, insane. LOL!

I rest my case. ;-)

Not sure how to interpret that. If the
latter, I will give you this: you have guts if not the
best judgment to post this, even under pseudonym!
Nahh, ****R posts under a nym because sockpuppets have
no legal names. They also have no SSNs.
LOL!

Irrelevant.

No, I'm laughing because of how hard you're trying to work it, GOIA.
First you try to bring up "you've never served" when even 2pid and
Clyde (the originators of that line) have dropped it.

Next up? I must be a "sockpuppet".

I find your 'logic' quite funny, but then again I find the insane
amusing.

LOL!

Unlike the guy whose hand is up the butt of the ****R
sockpuppet, I did serve in the Army. Obviously there
were gays in the Army way back then, but as long as they
did their job and kept their noses clean, where's the
beef?
Juvenile attempt at reverse-psychology noted. You think
you can goad me into giving you any personal information.

Paranoid response noted. It takes a seriously disturbed person to interpret
a statement about gays in the military into an attempt to trick someone into
posting personal information.

No, for that you brought out your sockpuppet saw.

BTW, when did posting your legal name
constitute releasing sensitive personal information?

When did posting a legal name constuitute "proof: somebody served in
the military?

Sorry, GOIA, it will not happen. Why not? Because as I've
said many times, I will not give it to you. LOL!

****R I'm quite sure you won't provide non-sensitive information like you
name because you fear being held accountable for your egregious behavior on
RAO. Also, being a sockpuppet, you have no personal information of any kind,
because you aren't a person. You're just a nym with a huge mouth and ego.

See? LOL!

Work it, baby, work it.

If you did a standard hitch, you were no higher than a
specialist when you got out.

Sue me for not take the OCS bait when it was offered.

Prove that it was offered. ;-)

You, like 2pid, were not officer material.

At the time I would have done as good of a job of dying in Vietnam, as many
fine officers did. Of course, you don't know anything about the average
lifetime of a Lieutenant in a LZ, do you?

So you were airmobile?

Funny, I'd gotten the impression you were a REMF radar tech.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 21, 2:36*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Jul 21, 12:19*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jul 21, 5:49*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

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

No, I'm laughing because of how hard you're trying to work it, GOIA.
First you try to bring up "you've never served" when even 2pid and
Clyde (the originators of that line) have dropped it.

*Since no one has any provable "_first-hand_" knowledge of your
service it is irrelevant.
Rules according to Atkinson.

Hundreds of people *do* have first-hand knowledge of my military
service.

I simply *choose* not to share it here.

A straight-up question: do you believe that sharing personal data
online is a good idea?

[Arny Krueger]

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

On Jul 21, 5:49 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in






On Jul 20, 5:59 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"BretLudwig" wrote in message

lkaboutaudio.com

What, you support letting open gays serve in the
military, or you are an openly gay currently serving
in the military?

Note that ****R won't take responsibility for writing
something that is obviously vague. He's been screwing
up like crazy lately, and far be it from him to admit
even a less-than-clear wording.

Oh, I AM SO SORRY FOR WRITING SOMETHING THAT YOU AND
BRATZI MISINTERPERETED!!!!!!!!!!!!

IF MY WRITING WAS LESS-THAN-CLEAR TO YOU PLEASE FORGIVE
ME!!!!!!!!!

As usual ****R you've missed the point - probably
intentionally. Less-than
clear is excusable, posting something that was
less-than-clear and then
calling people insane when they point that out is sign
of a pathology.

Did you notice that you and Bratzi were the only two who
weren't able to make that leap?

Just goes to show how little you understand about logic and evidence, ****R.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

IOW just because we noticed your badly formed post, doesn't mean we were the
only ones. We were the only ones with time to waste in yet another futile
effort to get an intelligent response out of you ****R.

At least Bratzi asked. You did not.
That's because
you are, in fact, insane. LOL!

It is kinda insane to expect you act like a mature adult, ****R.

I rest my case. ;-)

You have no case ****R, except maybe a case of some kind of brain disease.
Untreated syph, or some such. :-(

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" wrote in message

On Jul 21, 12:19 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jul 21, 5:49 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote in



No, I'm laughing because of how hard you're trying to
work it, GOIA. First you try to bring up "you've never
served" when even 2pid and Clyde (the originators of
that line) have dropped it.


Since no one has any provable "_first-hand_" knowledge
of your
service it is irrelevant.
Rules according to Atkinson.

Trust me, ****R has zero first-hand military experience, except maybe with
whatever experience it would take to get rejected on the grounds of being
mentally unfit. In my day people like him never got past the induction
station.

[Arny Krueger]

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

On Jul 21, 2:36 pm, ScottW wrote:
On Jul 21, 12:19 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jul 21, 5:49 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote in


No, I'm laughing because of how hard you're trying to
work it, GOIA. First you try to bring up "you've never
served" when even 2pid and Clyde (the originators of
that line) have dropped it.

Since no one has any provable "_first-hand_" knowledge
of your service it is irrelevant.
Rules according to Atkinson.

Hundreds of people *do* have first-hand knowledge of my
military
service.

Hmm, there were that many people at the recruiter's office when he threw you
out?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 21, 3:27*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in





On Jul 21, 2:36 pm, ScottW wrote:
On Jul 21, 12:19 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jul 21, 5:49 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote in


No, I'm laughing because of how hard you're trying to
work it, GOIA. First you try to bring up "you've never
served" when even 2pid and Clyde (the originators of
that line) have dropped it.

Since no one has any provable "_first-hand_" knowledge
of your service it is irrelevant.
Rules according to Atkinson.

Hundreds of people *do* have first-hand knowledge of my
military
service.

Hmm, there were that many people at the recruiter's office when he threw you
out?

Yes, GOIA. That's it.

There, there. Everything will be OK.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 21, 3:27*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"ScottW" wrote in message







On Jul 21, 12:19 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jul 21, 5:49 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote in


No, I'm laughing because of how hard you're trying to
work it, GOIA. First you try to bring up "you've never
served" when even 2pid and Clyde (the originators of
that line) have dropped it.

*Since no one has any provable "_first-hand_" knowledge
of your
service it is irrelevant.
Rules according to Atkinson.

Trust me, ****R has zero first-hand military experience, except maybe with
whatever experience it would take to get rejected on the grounds of being
mentally unfit. In my day people like him never got past the induction
station.

Why should anybody trust you, GOIA?

The fact that you think you should be trusted is evidence of your
insanity. LOL!

[Arny Krueger]

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

On Jul 21, 3:27 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"ScottW" wrote in message







On Jul 21, 12:19 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jul 21, 5:49 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote in


No, I'm laughing because of how hard you're trying to
work it, GOIA. First you try to bring up "you've never
served" when even 2pid and Clyde (the originators of
that line) have dropped it.

Since no one has any provable "_first-hand_" knowledge
of your
service it is irrelevant.
Rules according to Atkinson.

Trust me, ****R has zero first-hand military experience,
except maybe with whatever experience it would take to
get rejected on the grounds of being mentally unfit. In
my day people like him never got past the induction
station.

Why should anybody trust you, My master and commander?

Because I'm so much better than you, ****R.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 21, 3:25*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in





On Jul 21, 5:49 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in


On Jul 20, 5:59 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"BretLudwig" wrote in message

news:aea6b87fe019f72e746d81e8812abd88@localhos t.talkaboutaudio.com

What, you support letting open gays serve in the
military, or you are an openly gay currently serving
in the military?

Note that ****R won't take responsibility for writing
something that is obviously vague. He's been screwing
up like crazy lately, and far be it from him to admit
even a less-than-clear wording.

Oh, I AM SO SORRY FOR WRITING SOMETHING THAT YOU AND
BRATZI MISINTERPERETED!!!!!!!!!!!!

IF MY WRITING WAS LESS-THAN-CLEAR TO YOU PLEASE FORGIVE
ME!!!!!!!!!

As usual ****R you've missed the point - probably
intentionally. Less-than
clear is excusable, posting something that was
less-than-clear and then
calling people insane when they point that out is sign
of a pathology.

Did you notice that you and Bratzi were the only two who
weren't able *to make that leap?

Just goes to show how little you understand about logic and evidence, ****R.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

IOW just because we noticed your badly formed post, doesn't mean we were the
only ones. We were the only ones with time to waste in yet another futile
effort to get an intelligent response out of you ****R.

Let's see: Bratzi asked. You jumped to a conclusion that the post
meant that I had not retired. That would indicate that I had served,
but lied for some reason about retiring. Now you jump to the
conclusion that I never served.

So what will your insane mind (or the voices in your head) tell you
next? LOL!

At least Bratzi asked. You did not.
That's because
you are, in fact, insane. LOL!

It is kinda insane to expect you act like a mature adult, ****R.

Whatever, GOIA. To bring this back to the point: I will not give you
any personal information no matter how hard you apply your "dsebating
trade" techniques, no matter how much you wheedle, beg, distort, plead
or question.

As long as we're clear on that, by all means proceed.

I rest my case. ;-)

You have no case ****R, except maybe a case of some kind of brain disease..
Untreated syph, or some such. :-(

Didn't you just accuse me of doing this same thing?

LOL!

[Arny Krueger]

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

On Jul 21, 3:25 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in






On Jul 21, 5:49 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in


On Jul 20, 5:59 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"BretLudwig" wrote in message

lkaboutaudio.com

What, you support letting open gays serve in the
military, or you are an openly gay currently serving
in the military?

Note that ****R won't take responsibility for writing
something that is obviously vague. He's been screwing
up like crazy lately, and far be it from him to admit
even a less-than-clear wording.

Oh, I AM SO SORRY FOR WRITING SOMETHING THAT YOU AND
BRATZI MISINTERPERETED!!!!!!!!!!!!

IF MY WRITING WAS LESS-THAN-CLEAR TO YOU PLEASE
FORGIVE ME!!!!!!!!!

As usual ****R you've missed the point - probably
intentionally. Less-than
clear is excusable, posting something that was
less-than-clear and then
calling people insane when they point that out is sign
of a pathology.

Did you notice that you and Bratzi were the only two who
weren't able to make that leap?

Just goes to show how little you understand about logic
and evidence, ****R. "Absence of evidence is not
evidence of absence".

IOW just because we noticed your badly formed post,
doesn't mean we were the
only ones. We were the only ones with time to waste in
yet another futile
effort to get an intelligent response out of you ****R.

Let's see: Bratzi asked. You jumped to a conclusion that
the post
meant that I had not retired. That would indicate that I
had served,
but lied for some reason about retiring. Now you jump to
the
conclusion that I never served.

So what will your insane mind (or the voices in your
head) tell you
next? LOL!

At least Bratzi asked. You did not.
That's because
you are, in fact, insane. LOL!

It is kinda insane to expect you act like a mature
adult, ****R.

Whatever, GOIA. To bring this back to the point: I will
not give you
any personal information no matter how hard you apply
your "dsebating
trade" techniques, no matter how much you wheedle, beg,
distort, plead
or question.

As long as we're clear on that, by all means proceed.

I rest my case. ;-)

You have no case ****R, except maybe a case of some kind
of brain disease.
Untreated syph, or some such. :-(

Didn't you just accuse me of doing this same thing?

When I do it, it is justified by the fact that I'm a real person, while you
are nobody real.

Imaginary people have no rights at all, right?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 21, 3:42*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

On Jul 21, 3:27 pm, "Arny Krueger"

Trust me, ****R has zero first-hand military experience,
except maybe with whatever experience it would take to
get rejected on the grounds of being mentally unfit. In
my day people like him never got past the induction
station.

Why should anybody trust you, GOIA?

Because I know I'm inferior to you. We worship you every Sunday at my chruch.

I see.

I would never claim to be your personal god, GOIA. That's a call you
get to make.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 21, 3:46*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

So what will your insane mind (or the voices in your
head) tell you
next? LOL!

Tacit admission of insanity noted. Tacit admission of hearing voices
in your head noted.

You have no case ****R, except maybe a case of some kind
of brain disease.
Untreated syph, or some such. :-(

Didn't you just accuse me of doing this same thing?

When I do it, it is justified by the fact that I'm a real person, while you
are nobody real.

Ah, I see. Why are you bothering to respond to somebody who is "not
real"? Does that sound a little, er, um, insane to you? LOL!

Imaginary people have no rights at all, right?

I wouldn't know about that, GOIA. What does "Francis" say to you on
that matter?

LOL!

[Clyde Slick]

On 21 Iul, 16:42, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in





On Jul 21, 3:27 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"ScottW" wrote in message



On Jul 21, 12:19 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jul 21, 5:49 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote in


No, I'm laughing because of how hard you're trying to
work it, GOIA. First you try to bring up "you've never
served" when even 2pid and Clyde (the originators of
that line) have dropped it.

Since no one has any provable "_first-hand_" knowledge
of your
service it is irrelevant.
Rules according to Atkinson.

Trust me, ****R has zero first-hand military experience,
except maybe with whatever experience it would take to
get rejected on the grounds of being mentally unfit. In
my day people like him never got past the induction
station.

Why should anybody trust you, My master and commander?

Because I'm so much better than you, ****R.- Ascunde citatul -

- Afiºare text în citat -

Free pass #22

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

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

On Jul 21, 3:25 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in

m





On Jul 21, 5:49 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in

.com

On Jul 20, 5:59 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"BretLudwig" wrote in message

lkaboutaudio.com

What, you support letting open gays serve in the
military, or you are an openly gay currently serving
in the military?

Note that ****R won't take responsibility for writing
something that is obviously vague. He's been screwing
up like crazy lately, and far be it from him to admit
even a less-than-clear wording.

Oh, I AM SO SORRY FOR WRITING SOMETHING THAT YOU AND
BRATZI MISINTERPERETED!!!!!!!!!!!!

IF MY WRITING WAS LESS-THAN-CLEAR TO YOU PLEASE
FORGIVE ME!!!!!!!!!

As usual ****R you've missed the point - probably
intentionally. Less-than
clear is excusable, posting something that was
less-than-clear and then
calling people insane when they point that out is sign
of a pathology.

Did you notice that you and Bratzi were the only two who
weren't able to make that leap?

Just goes to show how little you understand about logic
and evidence, ****R. "Absence of evidence is not
evidence of absence".

IOW just because we noticed your badly formed post,
doesn't mean we were the
only ones. We were the only ones with time to waste in
yet another futile
effort to get an intelligent response out of you ****R.

Let's see: Bratzi asked. You jumped to a conclusion that
the post
meant that I had not retired. That would indicate that I
had served,
but lied for some reason about retiring. Now you jump to
the
conclusion that I never served.

So what will your insane mind (or the voices in your
head) tell you
next? LOL!

At least Bratzi asked. You did not.
That's because
you are, in fact, insane. LOL!

It is kinda insane to expect you act like a mature
adult, ****R.

Whatever, GOIA. To bring this back to the point: I will
not give you
any personal information no matter how hard you apply
your "dsebating
trade" techniques, no matter how much you wheedle, beg,
distort, plead
or question.

As long as we're clear on that, by all means proceed.

I rest my case. ;-)

You have no case ****R, except maybe a case of some kind
of brain disease.
Untreated syph, or some such. :-(

Didn't you just accuse me of doing this same thing?

When I do it, it is justified by the fact that I'm a real person, while you
are nobody real.

Imaginary people have no rights at all, right?

This is of interest to me, Arny. In what way is he an "imaginary
person"? Is it because he doesn't reveal his name? Does that make, say
"ScottW" an imaginary person as well?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 21, 4:10*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article ,
*"Arny Krueger" wrote:





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

On Jul 21, 3:25 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in

m

On Jul 21, 5:49 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in

.com

On Jul 20, 5:59 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"BretLudwig" wrote in message

news:aea6b87fe019f72e746d81e8812abd88@localh ost.talkaboutaudio.com

What, you support letting open gays serve in the
military, or you are an openly gay currently serving
in the military?

Note that ****R won't take responsibility for writing
something that is obviously vague. He's been screwing
up like crazy lately, and far be it from him to admit
even a less-than-clear wording.

Oh, I AM SO SORRY FOR WRITING SOMETHING THAT YOU AND
BRATZI MISINTERPERETED!!!!!!!!!!!!

IF MY WRITING WAS LESS-THAN-CLEAR TO YOU PLEASE
FORGIVE ME!!!!!!!!!

As usual ****R you've missed the point - probably
intentionally. Less-than
clear is excusable, posting something that was
less-than-clear and then
calling people insane when they point that out is sign
of a pathology.

Did you notice that you and Bratzi were the only two who
weren't able to make that leap?

Just goes to show how little you understand about logic
and evidence, ****R. "Absence of evidence is not
evidence of absence".

IOW just because we noticed your badly formed post,
doesn't mean we were the
only ones. We were the only ones with time to waste in
yet another futile
effort to get an intelligent response out of you ****R.

Let's see: Bratzi asked. You jumped to a conclusion that
the post
meant that I had not retired. That would indicate that I
had served,
but lied for some reason about retiring. Now you jump to
the
conclusion that I never served.

So what will your insane mind (or the voices in your
head) tell you
next? LOL!

At least Bratzi asked. You did not.
That's because
you are, in fact, insane. LOL!

It is kinda insane to expect you act like a mature
adult, ****R.

Whatever, GOIA. To bring this back to the point: I will
not give you
any personal information no matter how hard you apply
your "dsebating
trade" techniques, no matter how much you wheedle, beg,
distort, plead
or question.

As long as we're clear on that, by all means proceed.

I rest my case. ;-)

You have no case ****R, except maybe a case of some kind
of brain disease.
Untreated syph, or some such. :-(

Didn't you just accuse me of doing this same thing?

When I do it, it is justified by the fact that I'm a real person, while you
are nobody real.

Imaginary people have no rights at all, right?

This is of interest to me, Arny. *In what way is he an "imaginary
person"? *Is it because he doesn't reveal his name? *Does that make, say
"ScottW" an imaginary person as well?

When somebody cannot attack the logic of an argument, all they can do
is attack the person making the argument.

GOIA believes that he can goad me into throwing up my hands and
crying, "No mas! You're "ripping my torso apart"! Here is my SSN, home
address, name, CV, and nine personal references!"

That will not happen, but it appears that's what he believes.

LOL!

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

The Krooborg made a joke.

Trust me

LOL! LMAO! Bwahahaha! Yuk-yuk-yuk!

Arnii said "Trust me". Can you beat that? LOL, ROOTLFMOO, harharhar!

Good one, Turdy. "Trust me" says Arnii Kroofeces. hahahahahaha. Ha.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 21, 6:06*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Jul 21, 12:47*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

A straight-up question: do you believe that sharing personal data
online is a good idea?

*About as good as trying to make lame posts stand on your
credentials.

2pid, I think most people have seen by now that my "lame posts"
concerning military matters have handed your ass to you. I think most
people can agree that you blow things out of youe ass when it comes to
military matters. Do we really need to rehash how you called all the
ideas I put forth in the thread called "Is this how to fight an
insurgency?" "lame" or "stupid" or whatever? Do we need to go down
that list and see how many of those "dumb", "lame" ideas are current
policy under the current CG in Iraq? LOL!

Anyway, without avoiding the question again, how about it: would you
advise your children, or their children, to post private data online?
Do you think it's a good idea?

(Hint: that's a "yes" or "no" question.)

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Jul 21, 7:08 pm, ScottW wrote:
On Jul 21, 2:23 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jul 21, 4:10 pm, Jenn wrote:
This is of interest to me, Arny. In what way is he an "imaginary
person"? Is it because he doesn't reveal his name? Does that
make, say "ScottW" an imaginary person as well?

When somebody cannot attack the logic of an argument, all they
can do is attack the person making the argument.

You do have that in common with Atkinson.

That's dreadful, ScottW. How can you stand it?

Er, Google appears not ot be working correctly.
I am sure you are correct, of course, ScottW, but
when exactly was it that I attacked the person, not
the argument?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 21, 6:08*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Jul 21, 2:23*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

When somebody cannot attack the logic of an argument, all they can do
is attack the person making the argument.

* You do have that in common with Atkinson.

LOL!

Yes, 2pid, I've never torn apart one of your brainless 'arguments'.
I've never provided citations, nor spent the time explaining where you
are incorrect. And after all of that time and effort, you invariably
revert back to the position that has been shown to be erroneous.

That is the mark of an imbecile. When I call you an "imbecile" it is
not an attack. It is a statement of fact.

The fact that you cannot perceive when your arguments are in tatters
is entertaining to many of us.

LOL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 21, 10:32*pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
On Jul 21, 6:08 pm, ScottW wrote:

On Jul 21, 2:23 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
When somebody cannot attack the logic of an argument, all they can do
is attack the person making the argument.

You do have that in common with Atkinson.

LOL!

Yes, 2pid, I've never torn apart one of your brainless 'arguments'.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Only in your own delusions.

Others can form their own opinions, 2pid.

So far I count one in the 'deluded' column: you.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I've never provided citations, nor spent the time explaining where you
are incorrect.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Funny, you were the one complaining that you weren't going
to read my citations.

Funny, I actually quote what I am referring to. Others have mentioned
the same problem with your cites: it takes too much effort to try to
decipher what you meant. When somebody takes a guess, you call them
wrong. So why bother?

Too many facts for you too handle.

I see. LOL!

The rest of your BS is just more of the same.

Not quite. When it comes to the military it seems that senior leaders
always (as in "invariably") end up confirming what I've said. They
never (as in "never") seem to agree with you. Go figure.

Not bad for someone who is just "chest-thumping" (and who has never
served and doesn't actually exist), right? LOL!

Unsubstantiated chest thumping from a very small
man who is too dimwitted to realize the he can't claim
authority from anonymity, he has to show it.

No, he doesn't. The expertise is all there, the knowledge is all
there.

Someone who is right is right regardless of whether or not you know
their name.

All you show is immaturity.

I see.

LOL!

What a moron.

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Jul 21, 11:29 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
...
On Jul 21, 7:08 pm, ScottW wrote:
On Jul 21, 2:23 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
When somebody cannot attack the logic of an argument, all
they can do is attack the person making the argument.

You do have that in common with Atkinson.

That's dreadful, ScottW. How can you stand it?

Er, Google appears not ot be working correctly.
I am sure you are correct, of course, ScottW, but
when exactly was it that I attacked the person, not
the argument?

You are one dumb SOB.

I see. So, to sum up: You say that rather than address an
argument, I attack the person making the argument. I
correctly argue that google.groups doesn't find messages
containing examples of that behavior. In response, rather
than "attack the argument" I am making, you attack _me_.

Do you really not see the irony, ScottW?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

When I do it, it is justified by the fact that I'm a
real person, while you are nobody real.

Imaginary people have no rights at all, right?

This is of interest to me, Arny. In what way is he an
"imaginary person"?

Where is conclusive or indicative proof that he is real?

Is it because he doesn't reveal his name?

Real people have real names. They may or may not be their legal names, but
they have real names.

You Jenn, at least have what appears to be a real name.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" wrote in
message

On Jul 21, 7:08 pm, ScottW wrote:
On Jul 21, 2:23 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jul 21, 4:10 pm, Jenn
wrote:
This is of interest to me, Arny. In what way is he an
"imaginary person"? Is it because he doesn't reveal
his name? Does that make, say "ScottW" an imaginary
person as well?

When somebody cannot attack the logic of an argument,
all they can do is attack the person making the
argument.

You do have that in common with Atkinson.

That's dreadful, ScottW. How can you stand it?

Yes, John it is dreadful that a person's of your presumed status resorts to
so much name-calling.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

When I do it, it is justified by the fact that I'm a
real person, while you are nobody real.

Imaginary people have no rights at all, right?

This is of interest to me, Arny. In what way is he an
"imaginary person"?

Where is conclusive or indicative proof that he is real?

His posts appear here. He wrote them.


Is it because he doesn't reveal his name?

Real people have real names. They may or may not be their legal names, but
they have real names.

He chooses not to reveal it. But obviously a real person writes the
posts.


You Jenn, at least have what appears to be a real name.

So do you. We chose to reveal them. That doesn't make us any more
"real" than those who don't, like Shhhh, Scoot, et al.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

When I do it, it is justified by the fact that I'm a
real person, while you are nobody real.

Imaginary people have no rights at all, right?

This is of interest to me, Arny. In what way is he an
"imaginary person"?

Where is conclusive or indicative proof that he is real?

His posts appear here. He wrote them.

Someone probably wrote them. Of course there might be an enhanced Eliza
program that spews the kinds of repetitive insults that he fills his posts
with. Maybe all of his posts were made that way.

Is it because he doesn't reveal his name?

Real people have real names. They may or may not be
their legal names, but they have real names.

He chooses not to reveal it. But obviously a real person
writes the posts.

Not obvious at all. Of course it takes a certain lack of suspension of
disbelief to think that way.

You Jenn, at least have what appears to be a real name.

So do you. We chose to reveal them. That doesn't make
us any more "real" than those who don't, like Shhhh,
Scoot, et al.

Sure it does. Speaks to your suspended disbelief, Jenn.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

When I do it, it is justified by the fact that I'm a
real person, while you are nobody real.

Imaginary people have no rights at all, right?

This is of interest to me, Arny. In what way is he an
"imaginary person"?

Where is conclusive or indicative proof that he is real?

His posts appear here. He wrote them.

Someone probably wrote them. Of course there might be an enhanced Eliza
program that spews the kinds of repetitive insults that he fills his posts
with. Maybe all of his posts were made that way.

I see.


Is it because he doesn't reveal his name?

Real people have real names. They may or may not be
their legal names, but they have real names.

He chooses not to reveal it. But obviously a real person
writes the posts.

Not obvious at all. Of course it takes a certain lack of suspension of
disbelief to think that way.

What do you think that chances are that an Eliza program writes his
posts, Arny?


You Jenn, at least have what appears to be a real name.

So do you. We chose to reveal them. That doesn't make
us any more "real" than those who don't, like Shhhh,
Scott, et al.

Sure it does. Speaks to your suspended disbelief, Jenn.

lol Since the chances are overwhelming that an Eliza doesn't write the
posts, the person writing the posts is obviously real.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

When I do it, it is justified by the fact that I'm a
real person, while you are nobody real.

Imaginary people have no rights at all, right?

This is of interest to me, Arny. In what way is he an
"imaginary person"?

Where is conclusive or indicative proof that he is
real?

His posts appear here. He wrote them.

Someone probably wrote them. Of course there might be an
enhanced Eliza program that spews the kinds of
repetitive insults that he fills his posts with. Maybe
all of his posts were made that way.

I see.


Is it because he doesn't reveal his name?

Real people have real names. They may or may not be
their legal names, but they have real names.

He chooses not to reveal it. But obviously a real
person writes the posts.

Not obvious at all. Of course it takes a certain lack of
suspension of disbelief to think that way.

What do you think that chances are that an Eliza program
writes his posts, Arny?

Far greater than zero. Even infinitely greater than zero.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Jenn said:

[Shhhh] chooses not to reveal it. But obviously a real person
writes the posts.

Not obvious at all. Of course it takes a certain lack of suspension of
disbelief to think that way.

What do you think that chances are that an Eliza program writes his
posts, Arny?

Well, put it like this:™ The Krooborg sincerely believes that "competing"
on Usenet is the ultimate proving ground for audio chops. (Witness the
hundreds of times Mr. **** has boasted of his "Usenet career".) We also
know Turdy believes that engineering for profit is sinful. So it's not
much of a stretch to see that Turdborg might also believe that a
frontier-busting AI program would appear first in the world on Usenet.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

When I do it, it is justified by the fact that I'm a
real person, while you are nobody real.

Imaginary people have no rights at all, right?

This is of interest to me, Arny. In what way is he an
"imaginary person"?

Where is conclusive or indicative proof that he is
real?

His posts appear here. He wrote them.

Someone probably wrote them. Of course there might be an
enhanced Eliza program that spews the kinds of
repetitive insults that he fills his posts with. Maybe
all of his posts were made that way.

I see.


Is it because he doesn't reveal his name?

Real people have real names. They may or may not be
their legal names, but they have real names.

He chooses not to reveal it. But obviously a real
person writes the posts.

Not obvious at all. Of course it takes a certain lack of
suspension of disbelief to think that way.

What do you think that chances are that an Eliza program
writes his posts, Arny?

Far greater than zero. Even infinitely greater than zero.

Infinitely greater than zero?

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in message


What do you think that chances are that an Eliza program
writes his posts, Arny?

Far greater than zero. Even infinitely greater than zero.

Infinitely greater than zero?

Yes.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 22, 12:30*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

Sure it does. Speaks to your suspended disbelief, Jenn.

You may call me Jim Smith is it helps your diseased mind process my
posts.