[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Do you or do you not realize that your pal with the matted fur has an
irrational hatred of Stereophile?

[Clyde Slick]

On Jul 27, 10:22*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
Do you or do you not realize that your pal with the matted fur has an
irrational hatred of Stereophile?

Do you or do you not realize that you should know the
answer to your own question?

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

Do you or do you not realize that your pal with the matted fur has an
irrational hatred of Stereophile?

Do you or do you not realize that you should know the
answer to your own question?

Your "know" is a normal person's "speculate".

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Witless yapped:

Do you or do you not realize that your pal with the matted fur has an
irrational hatred of Stereophile?

Do you or do you not realize that you should know the
answer to your own question?

Your "know" is a normal person's "speculate".

LoL[sic]. Declaring that George "should know" anything is mere
speculation.

Another word for The List.

I wonder how you handle parent-teacher conferences at school, Witless. Or
maybe you skip them altogether on the grounds that book learning has been
"prooved" to be "worthless". (Yes, I'm mocking you again.)

--

" This one was highlighted by MM to draw attention while I think
it's not the most aggregious provision but it still has issues."

-- Scottie Witlessmongrel, self-described excellent writer, Feb. 22 2009

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Uh-oh. The kettle is whistling and the yapdown is looming.

Your "know" is a normal person's "speculate".

LoL[sic]. *Declaring that George "should know" anything is mere
speculation.

Another word for The List.

Another tacit agreement with my observation. You celebrate your ignorance like
Sarah Palin celebrates hers.

I wonder how you handle parent-teacher conferences at school, Witless. Or
maybe you skip them altogether on the grounds that book learning has been
"prooved" to be "worthless". (Yes, I'm mocking you again.)

Why would you care[sic]?

snicker

You're neither parent nor teacher so you
would
not
apply.

Your yapping has become incomprensible to humans. Time for a flea-dip.



--

" This one was highlighted by MM to draw attention while I think
it's not the most aggregious provision but it still has issues."

-- Scottie Witlessmongrel, self-described excellent writer, Feb. 22 2009

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 28, 12:20*pm, ScottW2 wrote:

*It's actually Atkinson's demonstrated lack of integrity in blatant
and intentional misrepresentation of my words that I find despicable.
..
Nobody knows what your words mean, 2pid. You've admitted that this is
intentional.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

*It's actually Atkinson's demonstrated lack of integrity in blatant
and intentional misrepresentation of my words that I find despicable.
.
Nobody knows what your words mean, 2pid. You've admitted that this is
intentional.

You're potato's are lumpey.

[Clyde Slick]

On Jul 28, 1:20*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jul 28, 5:34*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jul 27, 10:22*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:

Do you or do you not realize that your pal with the matted fur has an
irrational hatred of Stereophile?

Do you or do you not realize that you should know the
answer to your own question?

*It's actually Atkinson's demonstrated lack of integrity in blatant
and intentional misrepresentation of my words that I find despicable.
The rag he edits is merely annoying in the negative way it influences
the hobby.

ScottW

It does not affect the equipment I am interested in.

[Clyde Slick]

On Jul 28, 1:26*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
Clyde Slick said:

Do you or do you not realize that your pal with the matted fur has an
irrational hatred of Stereophile?

Do you or do you not realize that you should know the
answer to your own question?

Your "know" is a normal person's "speculate".

There is nothing to speculate about.
I have posted and/or replied to Scott many times on this`subject.
I am shocked that you need to ask about it.

[Clyde Slick]

On Jul 28, 4:36*pm, ScottW2 wrote:


replying to George:



..but I think
even you know that.

ScottW

Ha! I caught you speculating!

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

Do you or do you not realize that your pal with the matted fur has an
irrational hatred of Stereophile?

Do you or do you not realize that you should know the
answer to your own question?

Your "know" is a normal person's "speculate".

There is nothing to speculate about.
I have posted and/or replied to Scott many times on this`subject.
I am shocked that you need to ask about it.

It wasn't a "need". I wanted you to say it again as a reminder to
Witlessmongrel.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

..but I think
even you know that.

Ha! I caught you speculating!

You can tell Witless is on the rag when the pitch of his yapping goes up half
an octave or more.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 28, 4:01*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
Shhhh! said:

*It's actually Atkinson's demonstrated lack of integrity in blatant
and intentional misrepresentation of my words that I find despicable.
.
Nobody knows what your words mean, 2pid. You've admitted that this is
intentional.

You're potato's are lumpey.

Am not. Your a aggregious looser.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 28, 6:39*pm, ScottW2 wrote:

*LoL. *I do speculate that George should know that,
but it is by no means a certainty.

The only certainty here is that George knows a lot more about George
than 2pid knows about 2pid. LoL.

[Clyde Slick]

On 28 iul., 17:34, George M. Middius wrote:
Clyde Slick said:

Do you or do you not realize that your pal with the matted fur has an
irrational hatred of Stereophile?

Do you or do you not realize that you should know the
answer to your own question?

Your "know" is a normal person's "speculate".

There is nothing to speculate about.
I have posted and/or replied to Scott many times on this`subject.
I am shocked that you need to ask about it.

It wasn't a "need". I wanted you to say it again as a reminder to
Witlessmongrel.

I don't need your help.
I said pretty much the same thing in another thread
His assertion that subjective reviews are BS is his
subjective opinion and is a BS opinion.
He should charge us money to read his subjective BS opinions!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 29, 7:31*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

His assertion that subjective reviews are BS is his
subjective opinion and is a BS opinion.

You're friend are a imbecile.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

His assertion that subjective reviews are BS is his
subjective opinion and is a BS opinion.

You're friend are a imbecile.

Sacky's second hobby is stealing people's doormats so their visitors can't
wipe off traces of Witless when they go inside.

[This joke was not pre-approved by Stereophile.]

[Clyde Slick]

On 29 iul., 15:49, George M. Middius wrote:
Shhhh! said:

His assertion that subjective reviews are BS is his
subjective opinion and is a BS opinion.

You're friend are a imbecile.

Sacky's second hobby is stealing people's doormats so their visitors can't
wipe off traces of Witless when they go inside.


I found this at George's door. I left it there.
http://www.installerstore.com/imgs/t_1955.jpg

[[email protected]]

On Jul 29, 3:49*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
Shhhh! said:
His assertion that subjective reviews are BS is his
subjective opinion and is a BS opinion.

You're friend are a imbecile.

Sacky's second hobby is stealing people's doormats so their visitors can't
wipe off traces of Witless when they go inside.

[This joke was not pre-approved by Stereophile.]

Your lacking integrity.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Witless, did you skip your p.m. lie-down today?

Sacky's second hobby is stealing people's doormats so their visitors can't
wipe off traces of Witless when they go inside.

[This joke was not pre-approved by Stereophile.]

Your lacking integrity.

As usual, the best Atkinson can do to demonstrate his own integrity is
to prove he has none.

Scooter, we've been after you for years to tell us what YOU mean by
'integrity'. All we know for sure is that meaning you imagine has nothing in
common with the actual human meaning of the word. Your inane comment above
reinforces that viewpoint because nothing about JA's three little words has
any bearing on human-defined integrity.

If just once you could even explain why you're angry all the time, we might
give you a break when you fulminate in frustration at your betters. But since
you have zero self-awareness, your own anger is invisible to you, and all you
can do is bark mindlessly at every passing impulse.


--

"Why do you keep morphing the terminology?"

-- Scottie Witlessmongrel, 20 April 2009

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 29, 7:13*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jul 29, 5:08*pm, wrote:

On Jul 29, 3:49*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:

Sacky's second hobby is stealing people's doormats so their visitors can't
wipe off traces of Witless when they go inside.

[This joke was not pre-approved by Stereophile.]

Your lacking integrity.

As usual, the best Atkinson can do to demonstrate his own integrity is
to prove he has none.

Why is it that Satomayor is "Sato" and JA is not "Atkin" or Atki"?

I'm just curious about the inner workings of the imbecilic 'mind'.

[GeoSynch]

Pudge the Gimp steps in it again:

Your yapping has become incomprensible [sic] to humans. Time for a flea-dip.

Nice one, pudgy. ;-)

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Witless scratches at the door. Will his people let him out into the yard?

me:
Sacky's second hobby is stealing people's doormats so their visitors can't
wipe off traces of Witless when they go inside.
[This joke was not pre-approved by Stereophile.]

JA:
Your lacking integrity.

Witless:
As usual, the best Atkinson can do to demonstrate his own integrity is
to prove he has none.

Thus Scottie Witlessmongrel infers that JA's comment somehow bears on the
latter's own integrity. Let's see if the mutt's eckthpluhnashun can reveal why
he barked that claim.

Scooter, we've been after you for years to tell us what YOU mean by
'integrity'. All we know for sure is that meaning you imagine has nothing in
common with the actual human meaning of the word. Your inane comment above
reinforces that viewpoint because nothing about JA's three little words has
any bearing on human-defined integrity.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/integrity
: firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values

That is indeed the primary human definition of the word. The problem to which
I referred, however, is not whether you are capable of copy-pasting a
dictionary definition; the problem is your own, personal lack of
comprehension. You have leveled the accusation that various RAOers "lack
integrity" dozens of times, but in not one single case have you been able to
explain why you made the accusation. That is also the case with JA's tiny
little jab above: All he did was echo a very common bit of mockery that is
frequently directed at you. Atkinson has never claimed that mocking fools is
immoral or otherwise unseemly for him (or other Normals) to do. In fact,
mocking of fools is one of the most common social releases in all but the most
formal settings. (One exception is a court of law.)

So in the view of humans who use the word "integrity" in its human sense,
John's comment does not bear on his own integrity in any way. Too bad you're
too ****ed in the head to understand that.

I think you should be able to figure it out from here, but given your
lack of integrity, i.e., any adherence to any code of moral values, I
have my doubts.

You're babbling incoherently. Par for the course. Go chase a mail truck.

--
"There are words and there are definitions.
Sometimes the definition of a word changes with context."
-- Scottie Witlessmongrel, RAO, June 24, 2009

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 29, 8:38*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jul 29, 5:33*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:





Witless, did you skip your p.m. lie-down today?

Sacky's second hobby is stealing people's doormats so their visitors can't
wipe off traces of Witless when they go inside.

[This joke was not pre-approved by Stereophile.]

Your lacking integrity.

As usual, the best Atkinson can do to demonstrate his own integrity is
to prove he has none.

Scooter, we've been after you for years to tell us what YOU mean by
'integrity'. All we know for sure is that meaning you imagine has nothing in
common with the actual human meaning of the word. Your inane comment above
reinforces that viewpoint because nothing about JA's three little words has
any bearing on human-defined integrity.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/integrity

: firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values

*I think you should be able to figure it out from here, but given your
lack of integrity, i.e., any adherence to any code of moral values, I
have my doubts.

I find myself wondering how JA's comment (for example) "Your lacking
integrity" shows (to you) that JA lacks "firm adherence to a code of
especially moral or artistic values".

Not bad though, 2pid. After several years you've now shown that you
are capable of looking up words, 2pid. Now it's time to try to
understand what all of those silly definitions mean. LoL.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 29, 9:08*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jul 29, 7:02*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:



*I think you should be able to figure it out from here, but given your
lack of integrity, i.e., any adherence to any code of moral values, I
have my doubts.

You're babbling incoherently. Par for the course. Go chase a mail truck..

* And there it is.

And there what is, 2pid?

Does this post show a "lack of integrity"?

What a moron. Go chase a mail truck. LoL.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 29, 9:02*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:

"There are words and there are definitions.
Sometimes the definition of a word changes with context."
* * * * * * * * -- Scottie Witlessmongrel, RAO, June 24, 2009

Did 2pid really bark that?

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

"There are words and there are definitions.
Sometimes the definition of a word changes with context."
* * * * * * * * -- Scottie Witlessmongrel, RAO, June 24, 2009

Did 2pid really bark that?

Guh-huh.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

"There are words and there are definitions.
Sometimes the definition of a word changes with context."
* * * * * * * * -- Scottie Witlessmongrel, RAO, June 24, 2009

Did 2pid really bark that?

You had some fun with it at the time.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 30, 2:00*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
Shhhh! said:

"There are words and there are definitions.
Sometimes the definition of a word changes with context."
* * * * * * * * -- Scottie Witlessmongrel, RAO, June 24, 2009

Did 2pid really bark that?

You had some fun with it at the time.

Oh, I've had some more urgent things come up in the meantime. It's
hard to keep track of all the stupid things 2pid says.