Any theory on why Arny "Onward Christian Soldier" Krueger was unable to
respond to my post wherein I referred to him using his faith as a get
out of Hell free card? Maybe one of those eight people e-mailed you
with the right answer?

trotsky said:

Any theory on why Arny "Onward Christian Soldier" Krueger was unable to
respond to my post wherein I referred to him using his faith as a get
out of Hell free card?

Prove he was "unable to respond". The only acceptable proof is some
kind of Kroo-emission.


Maybe one of those eight people e-mailed you with the right answer?

How quickly your madness turns your memory into a crumbling honeycomb
of dissolute neurons.

I dislike repeating myself, but I'll do so here out of pity: The total
number of individuals who have said in email that they believe you to
be off your rocker is now ten. That's 10, X, or ten to you.

BTW, while we're on the subject of nutcases, has your opinion of poor
Harold Ferstler changed? Bear in mind that he admitted to plagiarizing
a Web site for a book about audio luminaries.

Also, have you reconciled your mania for winning with the two times
I've caught you manufacturing "quotes" you claimed I uttered?

George M. Middius wrote:


trotsky said:


Any theory on why Arny "Onward Christian Soldier" Krueger was unable to
respond to my post wherein I referred to him using his faith as a get
out of Hell free card?


Prove he was "unable to respond". The only acceptable proof is some
kind of Kroo-emission.



Of course. I claim that you really don't want to rid the group of the
stench that is Krueger. What would you do with your Roddenberry tributes?





Maybe one of those eight people e-mailed you with the right answer?


How quickly your madness turns your memory into a crumbling honeycomb
of dissolute neurons.

I dislike repeating myself, but I'll do so here out of pity: The total
number of individuals who have said in email that they believe you to
be off your rocker is now ten. That's 10, X, or ten to you.



And yet, they only exist privately in your e-mails. Any explanation for
this?



BTW, while we're on the subject of nutcases, has your opinion of poor
Harold Ferstler changed? Bear in mind that he admitted to plagiarizing
a Web site for a book about audio luminaries.


I have no opinion of Howie one way or another. Why even ask--he next on
the list for the Roddenberry tributes?



Also, have you reconciled your mania for winning with the two times
I've caught you manufacturing "quotes" you claimed I uttered?


Can you produce those, or do they only exist in your e-mails too?

Arny Krueger wrote:

"trotsky" wrote in message
nk.net...

Any theory on why Arny "Onward Christian Soldier" Krueger was unable to
respond to my post wherein I referred to him using his faith as a get
out of Hell free card? Maybe one of those eight people e-mailed you
with the right answer?


True story - I didn't read it.


That's a little queer, Arny. Usually you have no problem doggedly
chasing down every poster's response. Were you afraid of what I had to say?



Singh fails to mention the vast number of posts from me that he's sloughed
off without answering. Typical of his vast hypocrisy.


We're talking about quality rather than quantity, Arny. Besides, if you
were a Christian you'd turn the other cheek on this kind of thing.
Instead, you make a joke out of it about "butt cheeks". Just answer the
question: WHY were you unable to respond to my post?

"trotsky" wrote in message
nk.net...
Arny Krueger wrote:

"trotsky" wrote in message
nk.net...

Any theory on why Arny "Onward Christian Soldier" Krueger was unable to
respond to my post wherein I referred to him using his faith as a get
out of Hell free card? Maybe one of those eight people e-mailed you
with the right answer?

True story - I didn't read it.

That's a little queer, Arny.

Don't say "little queer" too loudly Singh, Middius might come running.

Usually you have no problem doggedly
chasing down every poster's response.

Wrong. People have repeatedly complained that I misssed their post.

Were you afraid of what I had to say?

I don't know what you said, since I obviously didn't read it. However, if it
was anything like this post of yours Singh, you said nothing worthy of a
reply.

Singh fails to mention the vast number of posts from me that he's
sloughed
off without answering. Typical of his vast hypocrisy.

We're talking about quality rather than quantity, Arny.

Then you lose again, Singh.

Besides, if you
were a Christian you'd turn the other cheek on this kind of thing.

What kind of thing?

Instead, you make a joke out of it about "butt cheeks".

Prove it.

Just answer the question: WHY were you unable to respond to my post?

Asked and answered.

trotsky said:

Any theory on why Arny "Onward Christian Soldier" Krueger was unable to
respond to my post wherein I referred to him using his faith as a get
out of Hell free card?


Prove he was "unable to respond". The only acceptable proof is some
kind of Kroo-emission.

Of course. I claim that you really don't want to rid the group of the
stench that is Krueger. What would you do with your Roddenberry tributes?

Random subject change. That means you've conceded the previous point,
which, as it happens, is one you raised. Specifically, you just
conceded there is no way to know whether Krooger was "unable to
respond" unless he tells us. This also undercuts all your past (and
future) claims of mindreading on the same subject.

God, you're easy.



I dislike repeating myself, but I'll do so here out of pity: The total
number of individuals who have said in email that they believe you to
be off your rocker is now ten. That's 10, X, or ten to you.

And yet, they only exist privately in your e-mails. Any explanation for
this?

You keep asking the same stupid question, and I keep giving the same
simple answer. Are you retarded?


BTW, while we're on the subject of nutcases, has your opinion of poor
Harold Ferstler changed? Bear in mind that he admitted to plagiarizing
a Web site for a book about audio luminaries.

I have no opinion of Howie one way or another. Why even ask--he next on
the list for the Roddenberry tributes?

In the past, you did have an opinion, and it was favorable. That makes
two memory issues in a row. Have you been to a shrink of some sort? I
mean that constructively.

Also, have you reconciled your mania for winning with the two times
I've caught you manufacturing "quotes" you claimed I uttered?

Can you produce those, or do they only exist in your e-mails too?

Oooh! Three memory lapses in a row.

No, Gregipus, they exist in the Google archive. They occurred within
the past week, and already you've forgotten. How pathetic.

Here's a hint: They involved quote marks, and each time I called you
on your lying.

Arny Krueger wrote:

"trotsky" wrote in message
nk.net...

Arny Krueger wrote:


"trotsky" wrote in message
link.net...


Any theory on why Arny "Onward Christian Soldier" Krueger was unable to
respond to my post wherein I referred to him using his faith as a get
out of Hell free card? Maybe one of those eight people e-mailed you
with the right answer?


True story - I didn't read it.


That's a little queer, Arny.


Don't say "little queer" too loudly Singh, Middius might come running.



Lack of Christian morality duly noted.




Usually you have no problem doggedly
chasing down every poster's response.


Wrong. People have repeatedly complained that I misssed their post.



You're being evasive. I claim that you didn't "miss" my post--you knew
it was there and either read it and lied about it afterwards, or were
too afraid to read it because you knew what direction I was heading.
You pick.




Were you afraid of what I had to say?


I don't know what you said, since I obviously didn't read it. However,
if it
was anything like this post of yours Singh, you said nothing worthy of a
reply.



That doesn't answer the question, Krueger. You're being a total weasel.
What new!




Singh fails to mention the vast number of posts from me that he's

sloughed

off without answering. Typical of his vast hypocrisy.


We're talking about quality rather than quantity, Arny.


Then you lose again, Singh.



No, because you are afraid to confront the quality of the information
that I posted. There's nothing admirable in being a coward, Krueger.




Besides, if you
were a Christian you'd turn the other cheek on this kind of thing.


What kind of thing?


That slight you claim to have felt by my "sloughing off" your poorly
written posts. Did you even read the New Testament?




Instead, you make a joke out of it about "butt cheeks".


Prove it.



Why is proof necessary? Are you denying the validity of what I'm
saying? Complete the lie.


Just answer the question: WHY were you unable to respond to my post?


Asked and answered.



False claim.

George M. Middius wrote:


trotsky said:


Any theory on why Arny "Onward Christian Soldier" Krueger was unable to
respond to my post wherein I referred to him using his faith as a get
out of Hell free card?


Prove he was "unable to respond". The only acceptable proof is some
kind of Kroo-emission.



Of course. I claim that you really don't want to rid the group of the
stench that is Krueger. What would you do with your Roddenberry
tributes?


Random subject change.



That's a complete lie. The subject is always the Krueger problem with
you. I'm right on topic.


That means you've conceded the previous point,
which, as it happens, is one you raised. Specifically, you just
conceded there is no way to know whether Krooger was "unable to
respond" unless he tells us. This also undercuts all your past (and
future) claims of mindreading on the same subject.

God, you're easy.


George, I've never seen you behave like such a coward before. I think
it's painfully obvious that my tack of attacking Krueger on his lack of
Christian morals is a quadrillion times more effective than anything
you've tried. Krueger can't last five seconds in a theological
discussion about his online behavior. Because I've shown you the best
course of action and you refuse to accept it I'm accusing you of being
part of the problem.



I dislike repeating myself, but I'll do so here out of pity: The total
number of individuals who have said in email that they believe you to
be off your rocker is now ten. That's 10, X, or ten to you.



And yet, they only exist privately in your e-mails. Any explanation for
this?


You keep asking the same stupid question, and I keep giving the same
simple answer. Are you retarded?



George, nothing is simple with you. Any post from you is an invitation
to get lost in the catacombs of your mind. Do you deny having a problem
with being straightforward with your language? Like all cowards, you
refuse to show an ounce of self-awareness.


BTW, while we're on the subject of nutcases, has your opinion of poor
Harold Ferstler changed? Bear in mind that he admitted to plagiarizing
a Web site for a book about audio luminaries.



I have no opinion of Howie one way or another. Why even ask--he next on
the list for the Roddenberry tributes?


In the past, you did have an opinion, and it was favorable. That makes
two memory issues in a row. Have you been to a shrink of some sort? I
mean that constructively.



Howie strikes me as pretty harmless. Krueger doesn't. Which trip in
the catacombs are we on now?

Also, have you reconciled your mania for winning with the two times
I've caught you manufacturing "quotes" you claimed I uttered?



Can you produce those, or do they only exist in your e-mails too?


Oooh! Three memory lapses in a row.

No, Gregipus, they exist in the Google archive. They occurred within
the past week, and already you've forgotten. How pathetic.

Here's a hint: They involved quote marks, and each time I called you
on your lying.



I've had this discussion before. (Not with you--somebody else.)
Quotation marks, technically speaking, are only supposed to be for
direct quotes, but I feel they are suitable for paraphrasing despite
what my grammar books tell me. It's kind of like the time I related
Bush's gaffe of referring to Pakistanis as "Paki's", and explained that
I put the apostrophe there to make sure the pronounciation was correct.
The English language is somewhat malleable and sometimes one has to
introduce his own interpretations.

trotsky said to ****-for-Brains:

I claim that you didn't "miss" my post--you knew
it was there and either read it and lied about it afterwards, or were
too afraid to read it because you knew what direction I was heading.

You're being a total weasel.

This quaint screed buttresses your bizarre accusations that others
are "afraid" to answer your posts: You believe you control reality
to the point where it is impossible for somebody to miss (as in not
see) your posts, or for somebody to simply get disgusted and bow out
of the exchange, or for someone to see the futility of trying to
explain his thoughts in a logical and coherent manner when the
monstrous train wreck of trotsky is dominating the cyberscape.

Here's the clincher, though: You yourself are trying to "win" a
"debate" against Krooger. A sane person knows that arguing with
Krooger is only good for self-satisfaction because Krooger never
admits he's wrong. Your goal is more grandiose than that, which
shows you can't distinguish an exercise in futility from one that
may pay off.