Krueger before he went to jail: (_._)



Krueger after he got out of jail: (__o__)

Margaret von Busenhalter said:

Krueger before he went to jail: (_._)

Krueger after he got out of jail: (__o__)

Did Nate give you permission to share that joke with the group?

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Margaret von Busenhalter said:

Krueger before he went to jail: (_._)

Krueger after he got out of jail: (__o__)

Did Nate give you permission to share that joke with the group?



He was still totally (_*_) about it. Poor guy.


Cheers,

MvB

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message

Margaret wrote:


Krueger before he went to jail: (_._)

Krueger after he got out of jail: (__o__)

He was probably hoping to be put in the juvenile detention hall.

The above syndrome may require treatment by Dr. Hugh Jass, the
eminent Texas proctologist.


Yet another example of the sensitivity, maturity and professionalism of Dr.
B.J. Richman.

Arny Krueger wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message

Margaret wrote:


Krueger before he went to jail: (_._)

Krueger after he got out of jail: (__o__)

He was probably hoping to be put in the juvenile detention hall.

The above syndrome may require treatment by Dr. Hugh Jass, the
eminent Texas proctologist.


Yet another example of the sensitivity, maturity and professionalism of Dr.
B.J. Richman.










Just another predictable ad hominem attack from RAO's most despised and hated
purveyor of slander and character defamation, as well documented over a 7 year
period.

Sociopathic hatemongers like Krueger are so driven with the compulsive need to
smear and lie about others at every opportunity that they can't respond in any
way other than his latest pathetic set of lies indicates.

Once again, he's just provided more evidence for why threads such as "A Bad
Krueger Experience" have been validated on an almost dalily basis, but this
pathological liar and bitter old man.

For further evidence, see the followiong URL:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...ews.worldnet.a
tt.net&output=gplain

Ofr course, since the above was written, Krueger has quite predictably added to
his enemies list on a regular basis. His paranoid attacks on almost all who
regularly post here are a vivid testament to his repulsive characterological
flaws.



Bruce J. Richman

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message


Ofr course, since the above was written, Krueger has quite
predictably added to his enemies list on a regular basis. His
paranoid attacks on almost all who regularly post here are a vivid
testament to his repulsive characterological flaws.

Very ironic given that Richman clearly struck the first blow against me with
this post:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=19...adder01.n ews.
aol.com

Prior to this time I had never mentioned him. Therefore, his first attack
against me was completely gratuitous and without any logical cause.

Looking back at my posts at the time, I see that it was clear that Richman
was such a exuberant supporter of Middius that I thought he might even be
one of Middius' sockpuppets. Still seems to be true.

Krueger lies again:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message


Ofr course, since the above was written, Krueger has quite
predictably added to his enemies list on a regular basis. His
paranoid attacks on almost all who regularly post here are a vivid
testament to his repulsive characterological flaws.

Very ironic given that Richman clearly struck the first blow against me with
this post:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=19...adder01.n ews.
aol.com

Prior to this time I had never mentioned him. Therefore, his first attack
against me was completely gratuitous and without any logical cause.

Looking back at my posts at the time, I see that it was clear that Richman
was such a exuberant supporter of Middius that I thought he might even be
one of Middius' sockpuppets. Still seems to be true.













What the pathological liar, Krueger, fails to mention, is that on a previous
post in whcih I posted a joke, he deliberately (1) excised most of it as he
usually does when deliberately distorting what people write via selective
editing, and (2) then proceeded to attack me by name without any provocation.
His name was obviously not mentioned by me when I posted the joke. He has done
the same - i.e.engage in unprovoked attacks on many occasions, as the Google
record clearly shows.

The relevant URL is as follows:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...40comcast.com&
output=gplain

So once again, we have an example of Krueger engaging in an unprovoked attack,
as is his usual custom.

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...40comcast.com&
output=gplain

Looking back at my posts at the time, I see that it was clear that Richman
was such a exuberant supporter of Middius that I thought he might even be
one of Middius' sockpuppets. Still seems to be true.



And above, we have yet the latest example of Krueger's delusional fantasies
about sockpuppets. He, of course, repeats this lie frequently without any
proof to support his lies. One can always depend on this pathological liar to
demoonstrate for all on RAO his latest paranoid ideations.

Let's put it this way, there is a better chance that McKelvy is Krueger's
sockpuppet, given his slavish willingness to attack whomever Krueger attacks.

But of course, I don't make such stupid and delusional claims about
sockpuppets.
I'll leave that to Krueger, because in his case, ventilation can sometiomes be
therapeutic for the seriously disturbed.






Bruce J. Richman

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message


And above, we have yet the latest example of Krueger's delusional
fantasies about sockpuppets. He, of course, repeats this lie
frequently without any proof to support his lies.

OK Bruce, where is your proof for this claim that you made:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=19...3%40ng-ck1.aol
..com

"It is worth noting that Kruger has now adopted this despicable tactic (i.e.
questioning the validity of another's identity and credentials) - solely as
a
diversionary tactic to try and disguise the attack that he elected to start
a
series of personal attacks against me gratuitously. Of course, his
sockpuppet
henchman, Haugen, paved the way for him."

Bruce Richman, I challenge you to post your indisputable proof that Haugen
was actually my sockpuppet.

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message


Arny said:

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message


And above, we have yet the latest example of Krueger's delusional
fantasies about sockpuppets. He, of course, repeats this lie
frequently without any proof to support his lies.

OK Bruce, where is your proof for this claim that you made:


http://www.google.com/groups?selm=19...3%40ng-ck1.aol
.com

"It is worth noting that Kruger has now adopted this despicable
tactic (i.e. questioning the validity of another's identity and
credentials) - solely as a diversionary tactic to try and disguise the
attack that he elected
to start a series of personal attacks against me gratuitously. Of
course, his sockpuppet henchman, Haugen, paved the way for him."

Bruce Richman, I challenge you to post your indisputable proof that
Haugen was actually my sockpuppet.

He's not saying that Doug Haugen was YOUR sockpuppet.

What's unclear about "...his sockpuppet..."?

He's saying that Doug was your henchman AND a sockpuppet.

That's not what he said. I reproduced it above, in context.

What's unclear about "...his sockpuppet..."?

If this were an isolated event..

What about this post:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20...8%40mb-m25.aol
..com

"The above paragraph should be enteitled "How To Put A Negative Spin on
Damaging
and Relevant Information" - by Arny "the sockpuppet and pathological liar"
Krueger. "

Here Richman claims that I'm a sockpuppet. This should amuse you Philips,
given that you've bragged about stalking me in my house. So Phillips you
stalk sockpuppets in their imaginary houses? LOL!

That, it and of itself, is easy to prove.

What about this posts that claims that "tor b" is one of my sockpuppets:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20...9%40mb-m27.aol
..com

please notice the post's title


Then there is always:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20...6%40mb-m13.aol
..com

"Sockpuppet and liar Krueger, your inability to tell the truth is once again
in
evidence."

....and there are many more examples in google of Richman's delusional claims
about me and sockpuppets.

Learn to read, pervert.

Yes, you should learn to read Phillips, and yes you are a pervert as you've
demonstrated here many times.

Arny Krueger wrote:


"Marc Phillips" wrote in message


Arny said:

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message


And above, we have yet the latest example of Krueger's delusional
fantasies about sockpuppets. He, of course, repeats this lie
frequently without any proof to support his lies.

OK Bruce, where is your proof for this claim that you made:


http://www.google.com/groups?selm=19...3%40ng-ck1.aol
.com

"It is worth noting that Kruger has now adopted this despicable
tactic (i.e. questioning the validity of another's identity and
credentials) - solely as a diversionary tactic to try and disguise the
attack that he elected
to start a series of personal attacks against me gratuitously. Of
course, his sockpuppet henchman, Haugen, paved the way for him."

Bruce Richman, I challenge you to post your indisputable proof that
Haugen was actually my sockpuppet.

He's not saying that Doug Haugen was YOUR sockpuppet.

What's unclear about "...his sockpuppet..."?

He's saying that Doug was your henchman AND a sockpuppet.

That's not what he said. I reproduced it above, in context.

What's unclear about "...his sockpuppet..."?

If this were an isolated event..

What about this post:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20...8%40mb-m25.aol
.com

"The above paragraph should be enteitled "How To Put A Negative Spin on
Damaging
and Relevant Information" - by Arny "the sockpuppet and pathological liar"
Krueger. "

Here Richman claims that I'm a sockpuppet. This should amuse you Philips,
given that you've bragged about stalking me in my house. So Phillips you
stalk sockpuppets in their imaginary houses? LOL!

That, it and of itself, is easy to prove.

What about this posts that claims that "tor b" is one of my sockpuppets:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20...9%40mb-m27.aol
.com

please notice the post's title


Then there is always:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20...6%40mb-m13.aol
.com

"Sockpuppet and liar Krueger, your inability to tell the truth is once again
in
evidence."

...and there are many more examples in google of Richman's delusional claims
about me and sockpuppets.

Learn to read, pervert.

Yes, you should learn to read Phillips, and yes you are a pervert as you've
demonstrated here many times.










All of the above represents just another pathetic attempt by Krueger to avoid
responsibility for making yet another set of pathological, delusional lies. It
is, of course, obvious that on the subject of why he chose to attack me for
posting a joke - without provocation - this coward has nothing to say. How
typical that Krueger would simply try and change the subject as a diversionary
tactic rather than admit that he made yet another unprovoked attack on a post
which had nothing to do with him.



Bruce J. Richman

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:


"Marc Phillips" wrote in message


Arny said:

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message


And above, we have yet the latest example of Krueger's delusional
fantasies about sockpuppets. He, of course, repeats this lie
frequently without any proof to support his lies.

OK Bruce, where is your proof for this claim that you made:



http://www.google.com/groups?selm=19...3%40ng-ck1.aol
.com

"It is worth noting that Kruger has now adopted this despicable
tactic (i.e. questioning the validity of another's identity and
credentials) - solely as a diversionary tactic to try and disguise
the attack that he elected to start a series of personal attacks
against me gratuitously. Of
course, his sockpuppet henchman, Haugen, paved the way for him."

Bruce Richman, I challenge you to post your indisputable proof that
Haugen was actually my sockpuppet.

He's not saying that Doug Haugen was YOUR sockpuppet.

What's unclear about "...his sockpuppet..."?

He's saying that Doug was your henchman AND a sockpuppet.

That's not what he said. I reproduced it above, in context.

What's unclear about "...his sockpuppet..."?

If this were an isolated event..

What about this post:


http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20...8%40mb-m25.aol
.com

"The above paragraph should be enteitled "How To Put A Negative Spin
on Damaging
and Relevant Information" - by Arny "the sockpuppet and pathological
liar" Krueger. "

Here Richman claims that I'm a sockpuppet. This should amuse you
Philips, given that you've bragged about stalking me in my house. So
Phillips you stalk sockpuppets in their imaginary houses? LOL!

That, it and of itself, is easy to prove.

What about this posts that claims that "tor b" is one of my
sockpuppets:


http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20...9%40mb-m27.aol
.com

please notice the post's title


Then there is always:


http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20...6%40mb-m13.aol
.com

"Sockpuppet and liar Krueger, your inability to tell the truth is
once again in
evidence."

...and there are many more examples in google of Richman's
delusional claims about me and sockpuppets.

Learn to read, pervert.

Yes, you should learn to read Phillips, and yes you are a pervert
as you've demonstrated here many times.


All of the above represents just another pathetic attempt by Krueger
to avoid responsibility for making yet another set of pathological,
delusional lies.


Wrong. The pathological delusional lies are clearly identified as to their
source - BJ Richman.

It is, of course, obvious that on the subject of
why he chose to attack me for posting a joke - without provocation -
this coward has nothing to say.

Notice that BJ Richman tries to pass his hypocritical behavior as a joke.

How typical that Krueger would
simply try and change the subject as a diversionary tactic rather
than admit that he made yet another unprovoked attack on a post which
had nothing to do with him.

Notice that Richman wants you to believe that a post titled " Graphic
Krueger joke!" has nothing to do with me.

LOL!

Arny Krueger wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:


"Marc Phillips" wrote in message


Arny said:

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message


And above, we have yet the latest example of Krueger's delusional
fantasies about sockpuppets. He, of course, repeats this lie
frequently without any proof to support his lies.

OK Bruce, where is your proof for this claim that you made:



http://www.google.com/groups?selm=19...3%40ng-ck1.aol
.com

"It is worth noting that Kruger has now adopted this despicable
tactic (i.e. questioning the validity of another's identity and
credentials) - solely as a diversionary tactic to try and disguise
the attack that he elected to start a series of personal attacks
against me gratuitously. Of
course, his sockpuppet henchman, Haugen, paved the way for him."

Bruce Richman, I challenge you to post your indisputable proof that
Haugen was actually my sockpuppet.

He's not saying that Doug Haugen was YOUR sockpuppet.

What's unclear about "...his sockpuppet..."?

He's saying that Doug was your henchman AND a sockpuppet.

That's not what he said. I reproduced it above, in context.

What's unclear about "...his sockpuppet..."?

If this were an isolated event..

What about this post:


http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20...8%40mb-m25.aol
.com

"The above paragraph should be enteitled "How To Put A Negative Spin
on Damaging
and Relevant Information" - by Arny "the sockpuppet and pathological
liar" Krueger. "

Here Richman claims that I'm a sockpuppet. This should amuse you
Philips, given that you've bragged about stalking me in my house. So
Phillips you stalk sockpuppets in their imaginary houses? LOL!

That, it and of itself, is easy to prove.

What about this posts that claims that "tor b" is one of my
sockpuppets:


http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20...9%40mb-m27.aol
.com

please notice the post's title


Then there is always:


http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20...6%40mb-m13.aol
.com

"Sockpuppet and liar Krueger, your inability to tell the truth is
once again in
evidence."

...and there are many more examples in google of Richman's
delusional claims about me and sockpuppets.

Learn to read, pervert.

Yes, you should learn to read Phillips, and yes you are a pervert
as you've demonstrated here many times.


All of the above represents just another pathetic attempt by Krueger
to avoid responsibility for making yet another set of pathological,
delusional lies.


Wrong. The pathological delusional lies are clearly identified as to their
source - BJ Richman.


What the pathological liar, Krueger, again tries to avoid - is taking
responsibility for personally attacking a joke that I posted that had no
reference to him. The URL has already been provided in a previous post and is
a matter of Google record.



It is, of course, obvious that on the subject of
why he chose to attack me for posting a joke - without provocation -
this coward has nothing to say.

Notice that BJ Richman tries to pass his hypocritical behavior as a joke.


It's obvious that the hatemonger,l Krueger, can't comprehend written English.
The joke posted was deliberately distorted via selective editing by the
delusional liar, Krueger, as is his custom. He then proceded to level an
unprovoked personal attack - as is his custom. Regular readers of RAO have
seen his deliberate quoting of partial posts out of context on numerous
occasions.

Typically, when this lying creep gives URLs, he selects one or 2 sentences of
another poster to try and misrepresent what the other poster said. Of course,
when people read what the poster Krueger attacks *actually* said, Krueger's
basic dishonesty is easily exposed.



How typical that Krueger would
simply try and change the subject as a diversionary tactic rather
than admit that he made yet another unprovoked attack on a post which
had nothing to do with him.

Notice that Richman wants you to believe that a post titled " Graphic
Krueger joke!" has nothing to do with me.

LOL!




False laughter from this arrogant hatemonger duly noted. Of course, the post
in which I refer was the one with the following message ID:

Message-id:


As the liar, Krueger, tries to avoid mentioning, it was entitled "For Those
That Are Tired of Debating Foreign Policy - .........." Of course, nothing in
the title has any reference to the pathological liar, Krueger, at all. Of
course, Krueger simply tries to pretend this post doesn't exist and divert
attention to another post with a different title - just another of his usual
diversionary tactics to avoid taking responsibility for an unprovoked personal
attack.

Kruger then proceeded to deliberately quote out of context only the last line
of the joke which I posted and then leveled an provoked personal attack, as
identified in Message ID #:

Message-id:

"Richman, are you a class act or what?"

Above is a direct quote from the liar, Krueger, who, as the above referenced,
Message Id clearly indicates, chose to attack the Iast line of a joke - after
delilberately deleting 99% of its content .

This, of course, represents typical Krueger behavior toward one the many
"enemies" that his paranoid and delusional set of conspiracy theories has
driven him to commit over a seven year period on RAO. This week, he added
"Schizoid Man" to his enemies list. Who will it be next week?

LOL!



Bruce J. Richman

Arny said:

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message


Arny said:

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message


And above, we have yet the latest example of Krueger's delusional
fantasies about sockpuppets. He, of course, repeats this lie
frequently without any proof to support his lies.

OK Bruce, where is your proof for this claim that you made:


http://www.google.com/groups?selm=19...3%40ng-ck1.aol
.com

"It is worth noting that Kruger has now adopted this despicable
tactic (i.e. questioning the validity of another's identity and
credentials) - solely as a diversionary tactic to try and disguise the
attack that he elected
to start a series of personal attacks against me gratuitously. Of
course, his sockpuppet henchman, Haugen, paved the way for him."

Bruce Richman, I challenge you to post your indisputable proof that
Haugen was actually my sockpuppet.

He's not saying that Doug Haugen was YOUR sockpuppet.

What's unclear about "...his sockpuppet..."?

He's saying that Doug was your henchman AND a sockpuppet.

That's not what he said. I reproduced it above, in context.

What's unclear about "...his sockpuppet..."?

Doug was A sockpuppet, not YOUR sockpuppet.


If this were an isolated event..

What about this post:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20...8%40mb-m25.aol
.com

"The above paragraph should be enteitled "How To Put A Negative Spin on
Damaging
and Relevant Information" - by Arny "the sockpuppet and pathological liar"
Krueger. "

Here Richman claims that I'm a sockpuppet. This should amuse you Philips,
given that you've bragged about stalking me in my house.

No, I haven't.

So Phillips you
stalk sockpuppets in their imaginary houses? LOL!

Did the voices in your head tell you that would make sense?


That, it and of itself, is easy to prove.

What about this posts that claims that "tor b" is one of my sockpuppets:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20...9%40mb-m27.aol
.com

please notice the post's title


Then there is always:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20...6%40mb-m13.aol
.com

"Sockpuppet and liar Krueger, your inability to tell the truth is once again
in
evidence."

...and there are many more examples in google of Richman's delusional claims
about me and sockpuppets.

Great. Too bad Dr. Richman and I are two different people. You almost made
sense there for a minute.


Learn to read, pervert.

Yes, you should learn to read Phillips, and yes you are a pervert as you've
demonstrated here many times.


That would be an out and out lie, generated by someone who is so consumed by
his own perversions that he can no longer defend himself adequately. It is you
that is a pervert, and this is documented. I am not a pervert, and this has
never been documented.

Please make a note of this.

Boon

Arny said:

Yes, you should learn to read Phillips, and yes you are a pervert
as you've demonstrated here many times.

That would be an out and out lie, generated by someone who is so
consumed by his own perversions that he can no longer defend himself
adequately.

This is an example of your perversion, Phillips.

It is no such thing.

While you've told the world
about iminent legal action against me for the better part of a year, in fact
nothing has happened at all.

So you say. I do know that they have a police file on you at the Grosse Pointe
Woods PD. Any other actions against you, or details of the investigation are
kept private until you are charged. I think they're just watching and waiting.


It is you that is a pervert, and this is documented.

There is no documentation of that at all.

There is copious documentation, which I have produced on numerous occasions.
You are the one who introduced the idea of fondling your dead teenaged son in
his coffin to this newsgroup. That alone marks you.

All that has been documented is
the fact that you dislike me.

Poor baby. Maybe if you weren't a habitual liar, hypocrite and pervert, you
wouldn't have to spend your entire life sitting at a computer arguing with a
bunch of strangers who despise you.


I am not a pervert, and this has never been documented.

The documentation is clear in google, Phillips.

Prove it!

You're obsessed with
pedophilia, you bring it up repeatedly, and have repeated delusions that
there are pedophiles on RAO who are going to harm you.

Not true. I'm not obsessed with pedophilia at all. If I'm obsessed with
anything, it's in ridding this group of a known pedophile named Arny Krueger.

This is absolutely ludicrous, of course.

Only a pervert like yourself would object to this.

Boon

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Marc Phillips" wrote in message


Arny said:

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message


And above, we have yet the latest example of Krueger's delusional
fantasies about sockpuppets. He, of course, repeats this lie
frequently without any proof to support his lies.

OK Bruce, where is your proof for this claim that you made:



http://www.google.com/groups?selm=19...3%40ng-ck1.aol
.com

"It is worth noting that Kruger has now adopted this despicable
tactic (i.e. questioning the validity of another's identity and
credentials) - solely as a diversionary tactic to try and disguise the
attack that he elected
to start a series of personal attacks against me gratuitously. Of
course, his sockpuppet henchman, Haugen, paved the way for him."

Bruce Richman, I challenge you to post your indisputable proof that
Haugen was actually my sockpuppet.

He's not saying that Doug Haugen was YOUR sockpuppet.

What's unclear about "...his sockpuppet..."?

As one may note above the actual context is: "... his sockpuppet henchmen,"
In this context sockpuppet define the type of henchmen. Henchmen means: A
loyal and trusted follower or subordinate. Thus, the statement should mean
that the sockpuppet "Haugen" acted as your henchmen or a loyal and trusted
follower or subordinate. Note, by definition of henchmen, Arny can not be
the sockpuppet "Haugen," therefore by definition Richman did not may the
accusation that Mr. Krueger was the sockpuppet, only that the sockpuppet
acted as his loyal follower.
Hopefully this clear up things.

Phil

"Phil" wrote in message
. net
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Marc Phillips" wrote in message


Arny said:

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message


And above, we have yet the latest example of Krueger's delusional
fantasies about sockpuppets. He, of course, repeats this lie
frequently without any proof to support his lies.

OK Bruce, where is your proof for this claim that you made:




http://www.google.com/groups?selm=19...3%40ng-ck1.aol
.com

"It is worth noting that Kruger has now adopted this despicable
tactic (i.e. questioning the validity of another's identity and
credentials) - solely as a diversionary tactic to try and disguise
the attack that he elected to start a series of personal attacks
against me gratuitously. Of
course, his sockpuppet henchman, Haugen, paved the way for him."

Bruce Richman, I challenge you to post your indisputable proof that
Haugen was actually my sockpuppet.

He's not saying that Doug Haugen was YOUR sockpuppet.

What's unclear about "...his sockpuppet..."?

As one may note above the actual context is: "... his sockpuppet
henchmen," In this context sockpuppet define the type of henchmen.
Henchmen means: A loyal and trusted follower or subordinate. Thus,
the statement should mean that the sockpuppet "Haugen" acted as your
henchmen or a loyal and trusted follower or subordinate. Note, by
definition of henchmen, Arny can not be the sockpuppet "Haugen,"
therefore by definition Richman did not may the accusation that Mr.
Krueger was the sockpuppet, only that the sockpuppet acted as his
loyal follower. Hopefully this clear up things.

As usual you're spinning your wheels Phil, because however you want to bend
this quote, I found a number of others that are far clearer examples, and
put them up in another post.

However, your ongoing desire to support you ally and best buddy Phillips is
noted. I wonder why you enjoy hanging out with a pervert like him. I thought
you might be a decent guy.

"Phil" wrote in message
news:vGdUa.143648$N7.19815@sccrnsc03
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

However, your ongoing desire to support you ally and best buddy Phillips
is
noted. I wonder why you enjoy hanging out with a pervert like him. I
thought you might be a decent guy.

Actually none of the above.

Thanks Phil for publicly admitting that you aren't a decent guy. Of course
many of us knew this all along.

Since you seem to be proud of your indecent behavior, I guess there really
isn't a lot to say to you.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Phil" wrote in message
news:vGdUa.143648$N7.19815@sccrnsc03
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

However, your ongoing desire to support you ally and best buddy
Phillips
is
noted. I wonder why you enjoy hanging out with a pervert like him. I
thought you might be a decent guy.

Actually none of the above.

Thanks Phil for publicly admitting that you aren't a decent guy. Of course
many of us knew this all along.

Since you seem to be proud of your indecent behavior, I guess there really
isn't a lot to say to you.

Arny you've got to start paying attention to what you actually say and what
I said. In the context you used, "I thought you might be a decent guy",
implies that I am not a decent guy. Therefore my statement, "Actually none
of the above" refutes that implication. However if you meant that you actual
thought I was decent guy and I misunderstood you then accept my apologies,
but the form of your language was misleading, at least to me.

Phil