Hello Mickey! Watch out for the anthill -- oops, too late. Well, you can
always lick yourself clean.

Anyway..... Lately there's a been a spate of people realizing how
goddamned stupid you are. I think I've seen 7 or 8 different people make
a comment to the effect of "That Mickey is a real dumbass." So my
question is: Why don't you shut yourself off and sign up for cryonic
suspension? Maybe in a hundred years, they'll be able to fix your
genetic code so you're not such a moron. What say, Mickey?

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...



Hello Mickey! Watch out for the anthill -- oops, too late. Well, you can
always lick yourself clean.

Anyway..... Lately there's a been a spate of people realizing how
goddamned stupid you are. I think I've seen 7 or 8 different people make
a comment to the effect of "That Mickey is a real dumbass." So my
question is: Why don't you shut yourself off and sign up for cryonic
suspension? Maybe in a hundred years, they'll be able to fix your
genetic code so you're not such a moron. What say, Mickey?




I have several questions in response.

1. Why do you care?
2 Are you sure they are all different people?
3. When did you become such an altruist?
4. Why are you such a disgusting pig?

If it bothers you so much just don't read what I post.
It works for me on most of what you write.
Disagreeing with me doesn't make you right.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net wrote in message


Anyway..... Lately there's a been a spate of people
realizing how goddamned stupid you are. I think I've seen
7 or 8 different people make a comment to the effect of
"That Mickey is a real dumbass."

People are also posting about what an idiot you are, Middius. Are you going
to take it to heart adn wise up?

[George M. Middius's abusive post deleted.]
George should have left this forum years
ago. Almost all of his posts here are abusive.

--124

"124" wrote in
message
oups.com
[George M. Middius's abusive post deleted.]
George should have left this forum years
ago. Almost all of his posts here are abusive.

Dealing out abuse seems to be George's whole reason for existing. He almost
never posts on-topic. He might have made 5 on-topic posts in the past 5
years.

First and foremost George wants to have people agree with him. Had RAO been
overwhelmingly objectivist when he first started posting here, he'd probably
be vigorously attacking subjectivists to this day.

Arny Krueger wrote:

"124" wrote in
message
oups.com
[George M. Middius's abusive post deleted.]
George should have left this forum years
ago. Almost all of his posts here are abusive.

Dealing out abuse seems to be George's whole reason for existing. He almost
never posts on-topic. He might have made 5 on-topic posts in the past 5
years.

First and foremost George wants to have people agree with him. Had RAO been
overwhelmingly objectivist when he first started posting here, he'd probably
be vigorously attacking subjectivists to this day.

If I was a subjectivist, I would be deeply ashamed to have someone like
George on my side. George, perhaps more than any other person on
this forum, discredits the subjectivists. If one cannot supply any
evidence to support one's position, one must resort to insults or
abusive posts. Of course, not all subjectivists resort to insults or
abusive posts--e.g., Jenn. If only all subjectivists were like Jenn,
then this forum could be a place for civilized debate.

--124

"124" wrote in
message
ups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:

"124" wrote in
message
oups.com
[George M. Middius's abusive post deleted.]
George should have left this forum years
ago. Almost all of his posts here are abusive.

Dealing out abuse seems to be George's whole reason for
existing. He almost never posts on-topic. He might have
made 5 on-topic posts in the past 5 years.

First and foremost George wants to have people agree
with him. Had RAO been overwhelmingly objectivist when
he first started posting here, he'd probably be
vigorously attacking subjectivists to this day.

If I was a subjectivist, I would be deeply ashamed to
have someone like George on my side.

Some people seem to be "getting" that.

George, perhaps
more than any other person on
this forum, discredits the subjectivists.

I think that Art Sackman ("Clyde Slick" this week) comes close.

If one cannot
supply any evidence to support one's position, one must
resort to insults or abusive posts.

If you read carefully, George is against stuff like hard evidence.

Of course, not all
subjectivists resort to insults or abusive posts--e.g.,
Jenn. If only all subjectivists were like Jenn, then
this forum could be a place for civilized debate.

Jeen plays here own sick little game of pretentious superiority based on a
deep dark secret that she can talk about but can't reveal. She's obviously a
sockpuppet, but whose?

Arny Krueger wrote:

"124" wrote in


Of course, not all
subjectivists resort to insults or abusive posts--e.g.,
Jenn. If only all subjectivists were like Jenn, then
this forum could be a place for civilized debate.


Jeen plays here own sick little game of pretentious superiority based on a
deep dark secret that she can talk about but can't reveal. She's obviously a
sockpuppet, but whose?



So much for "civilized debate, eh 124? It's enough to be a
"subjectivist" to insult and offend the turdborg, obviously.. The same
goes for mickeymickmickey, btw..

And what's wrong with George's posts anyway? He *does* try to warn
mickmickey that watch out, you'll hit that desk, or anthill, etc, what
in the world do you think is wrong with that? I ask you, I beseech you.
He is actually trying to help out, says I.

Forwarder wrote:

And what's wrong with George's posts anyway?

Most of them are simply personal insults !

It's rare for 'George' to post anything about audio at all.

Graham

4 of 12 said:

If I was a subjectivist, I would be deeply ashamed to have someone like
George on my side. George, perhaps more than any other person on
this forum, discredits the subjectivists. If one cannot supply any
evidence to support one's position, one must resort to insults or
abusive posts.

sneer
guffaw
other assorted sounds of derision

Did you ever consider that it's just plain fun making fun of the
feeble-minded?

BTW, the "subjectivists" don't give a crap about your pathetic quest for
"debating trade" points. No Normal cares about having credibility in
your eyes. We know how ****ed-up your fear and hatred of consumer audio
are, so why would we seek to obtain your approval?

Oh, one other thing: You obviously have no ****ing clue about my own
personal approach to audio for my own personal use. But that's par for
the 'borg course, isn't it.


What did you say your name is, little coward? ;-)

Pooh Bear wrote:


Forwarder wrote:


And what's wrong with George's posts anyway?


Most of them are simply personal insults !

But they *are* funny. And good command of the english language as well!
And they are witty too. There was this insult dog, or somesuch in Conan
O'brien show, somewhat similar stuff, almost art...



It's rare for 'George' to post anything about audio at all.

Look at how krueger approaches "Jenn" though, right here in this thread,
and you might get a hint as to why George's abuses are somewhat related
to audio in the final analysis, as it were.

I've read most of Jenn' posts, not all, but most, and not in one single
of the said posts did I encounter "sick little game"s or "deep dark
secrets" .. And anyone that does not conform to the borg doctrine is
almost automatically a sockpuppet. If someone is insulted by just the
mere fact that the other thinks different then that someone deserves the
consequential direct insults, IMHO.


Graham

"Forwarder" wrote in message

Pooh Bear wrote:


Forwarder wrote:


And what's wrong with George's posts anyway?


Most of them are simply personal insults !

But they *are* funny. And good command of the english
language as well! And they are witty too.

Everybody who is surprised or confused by the following should raise their
hand...

Post headers:

Path:
border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!ne wsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.hanau.net!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!newsfeed.cw.net!cw.n et!news-FFM2.ecrc.de!uio.no!newsfeed.kolumbus.fi!feeder2.n ews.jippii.net!reader1.news.jippii.net!53ab2750!no t-for-mail
From: Forwarder
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.8)
Gecko/20050511
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
Subject: [Meta] George's Abusive Posts
References:
.com

. com



In-Reply-To:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 33
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 18:20:17 +0200
NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.110.108.33
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace: reader1.news.jippii.net 1138119781 193.110.108.33 (Tue, 24 Jan 2006
18:23:01 EET)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 18:23:01 EET
Organization: Saunalahti Customer

The posting IP address traces back to:

netname: F-SECURE-NET
descr: F-Secure OYj
descr: PL 24
descr: 00180 HELSINKI
country: FI
admin-c: ML17360-RIPE
tech-c: FSH11-RIPE
status: ASSIGNED PI
mnt-by: KQFI-NOC-MNT
mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-PI-MNT
mnt-lower: RIPE-NCC-HM-PI-MNT
mnt-routes: F-SECURE-MNT
source: RIPE # Filtered

role: F-Secure Hostmaster
address: F-Secure Corporation
address: PL 24
address: 00181 Helsinki
phone: +358 9 2520 0700
fax-no: +358 9 2520 5001
e-mail:
remarks: trouble:
admin-c: ML17360-RIPE
tech-c: JN1652-RIPE
nic-hdl: FSH11-RIPE
mnt-by: DATANET-NOC
source: RIPE # Filtered

person: Miika Lehikoinen
address: PL 24
address: 00181 Helsinki
phone: +358 9 2520 5531
fax-no: +358 9 2520 5015
nic-hdl: ML17360-RIPE
mnt-by: DATANET-NOC
source: RIPE # Filtered

Finland, right? ;-)

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Forwarder" wrote in message


Pooh Bear wrote:


Forwarder wrote:



And what's wrong with George's posts anyway?


Most of them are simply personal insults !

But they *are* funny. And good command of the english
language as well! And they are witty too.


Everybody who is surprised or confused by the following should raise their
hand...

Post headers:


Finland, right? ;-)



Hmmm, I fail to see the relevance here.

Poopie said:

It's rare for 'George' to post anything about audio at all.

You sound much different from the Krooglebeast. I hope you take that as
a compliment.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"124" wrote in
message
oups.com
[George M. Middius's abusive post deleted.]
George should have left this forum years
ago. Almost all of his posts here are abusive.

Dealing out abuse seems to be George's whole reason for existing. He
almost never posts on-topic. He might have made 5 on-topic posts in the
past 5 years.

First and foremost George wants to have people agree with him. Had RAO
been overwhelmingly objectivist when he first started posting here, he'd
probably be vigorously attacking subjectivists to this day.

Personally, I think he lives for the people who disagree with him, those are
the ones he talks to most. The others he speaks to only by way of agreeing
with him about the people he disagrees with.

Without the people he disagees with, he'd have nothing to say.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"124" wrote in
message
ups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:

"124" wrote in
message
oups.com
[George M. Middius's abusive post deleted.]
George should have left this forum years
ago. Almost all of his posts here are abusive.

Dealing out abuse seems to be George's whole reason for
existing. He almost never posts on-topic. He might have
made 5 on-topic posts in the past 5 years.

First and foremost George wants to have people agree
with him. Had RAO been overwhelmingly objectivist when
he first started posting here, he'd probably be
vigorously attacking subjectivists to this day.

If I was a subjectivist, I would be deeply ashamed to
have someone like George on my side.

Some people seem to be "getting" that.

George, perhaps
more than any other person on
this forum, discredits the subjectivists.

I think that Art Sackman ("Clyde Slick" this week) comes close.

If one cannot
supply any evidence to support one's position, one must
resort to insults or abusive posts.

If you read carefully, George is against stuff like hard evidence.

Of course, not all
subjectivists resort to insults or abusive posts--e.g.,
Jenn. If only all subjectivists were like Jenn, then
this forum could be a place for civilized debate.

Jeen plays here own sick little game of pretentious superiority

LOL Pot, meet kettle. I don't claim to be superior to anyone. What
gives you that idea?

based on a
deep dark secret that she can talk about but can't reveal.

What secret is that, Arny?

She's obviously a
sockpuppet, but whose?

I'm no one's "sock", Arny. Why do you think that?

Jenn wrote:

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:


"124" wrote in
message
roups.com

Arny Krueger wrote:


"124" wrote in
message
legroups.com

[George M. Middius's abusive post deleted.]
George should have left this forum years
ago. Almost all of his posts here are abusive.

Dealing out abuse seems to be George's whole reason for
existing. He almost never posts on-topic. He might have
made 5 on-topic posts in the past 5 years.

First and foremost George wants to have people agree
with him. Had RAO been overwhelmingly objectivist when
he first started posting here, he'd probably be
vigorously attacking subjectivists to this day.

If I was a subjectivist, I would be deeply ashamed to
have someone like George on my side.

Some people seem to be "getting" that.


George, perhaps
more than any other person on
this forum, discredits the subjectivists.

I think that Art Sackman ("Clyde Slick" this week) comes close.


If one cannot
supply any evidence to support one's position, one must
resort to insults or abusive posts.

If you read carefully, George is against stuff like hard evidence.


Of course, not all
subjectivists resort to insults or abusive posts--e.g.,
Jenn. If only all subjectivists were like Jenn, then
this forum could be a place for civilized debate.

Jeen plays here own sick little game of pretentious superiority


LOL Pot, meet kettle. I don't claim to be superior to anyone. What
gives you that idea?


based on a
deep dark secret that she can talk about but can't reveal.


What secret is that, Arny?


She's obviously a
sockpuppet, but whose?


I'm no one's "sock", Arny. Why do you think that?

Jenn, be carefull, Arny might look at the headers of your post and find
out which country you are posting from, which ISP/security gateway you
are using, etc.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


4 of 12 said:

If I was a subjectivist, I would be deeply ashamed to have someone like
George on my side. George, perhaps more than any other person on
this forum, discredits the subjectivists. If one cannot supply any
evidence to support one's position, one must resort to insults or
abusive posts.

sneer
guffaw
other assorted sounds of derision

Did you ever consider that it's just plain fun making fun of the
feeble-minded?

BTW, the "subjectivists" don't give a crap about your pathetic quest for
"debating trade" points.

Nor do they gie a crap about reality and the facts about audio either.

No Normal cares about having credibility in
your eyes. We know how ****ed-up your fear and hatred of consumer audio
are, so why would we seek to obtain your approval?

It's not hatred of consumer audio, it's disdain for those who are involved
in consumer audio for the sole reason of getting consumers to pay outrageous
sums of money for things that do nothing.
When they stop selling $400.00 wooden volume knobs and speaker wire that
sells for $100.00 plus per foot which is no better than the stuff that costs
..23 cents per foot, then maybe nobody would express their disdain. In any
other field, these kind of products would most likely be taken off the
market, but because the typical high end audiophile, doesn't beilieve that
these products are shams, the con artists keep on with the deceptions.



Oh, one other thing: You obviously have no ****ing clue about my own
personal approach to audio for my own personal use. But that's par for
the 'borg course, isn't it.

It's hard to have a clue about something you never speak of.

What did you say your name is, little coward? ;-)


The coward is the guy posting through Finland.
SO aside from EddieM, and "Fella" who else are you pretending to be?

In article ,
Forwarder wrote:

Jenn wrote:

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:


"124" wrote in
message
roups.com

Arny Krueger wrote:


"124" wrote in
message
legroups.com

[George M. Middius's abusive post deleted.]
George should have left this forum years
ago. Almost all of his posts here are abusive.

Dealing out abuse seems to be George's whole reason for
existing. He almost never posts on-topic. He might have
made 5 on-topic posts in the past 5 years.

First and foremost George wants to have people agree
with him. Had RAO been overwhelmingly objectivist when
he first started posting here, he'd probably be
vigorously attacking subjectivists to this day.

If I was a subjectivist, I would be deeply ashamed to
have someone like George on my side.

Some people seem to be "getting" that.


George, perhaps
more than any other person on
this forum, discredits the subjectivists.

I think that Art Sackman ("Clyde Slick" this week) comes close.


If one cannot
supply any evidence to support one's position, one must
resort to insults or abusive posts.

If you read carefully, George is against stuff like hard evidence.


Of course, not all
subjectivists resort to insults or abusive posts--e.g.,
Jenn. If only all subjectivists were like Jenn, then
this forum could be a place for civilized debate.

Jeen plays here own sick little game of pretentious superiority


LOL Pot, meet kettle. I don't claim to be superior to anyone. What
gives you that idea?


based on a
deep dark secret that she can talk about but can't reveal.


What secret is that, Arny?


She's obviously a
sockpuppet, but whose?


I'm no one's "sock", Arny. Why do you think that?

Jenn, be carefull, Arny might look at the headers of your post and find
out which country you are posting from, which ISP/security gateway you
are using, etc.

Oh dread!

"Pooh Bear" wrote

Forwarder wrote:

And what's wrong with George's posts anyway?

Most of them are simply personal insults !

It's rare for 'George' to post anything about audio at all.

It's "rare" to read anything about new empirical
experiences or new technology by anyone on this
board. Trade debating opponents fear exposing
themselves. They have anger, frustration and
feelings of inadequacy baggage issues.

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Had RAO been overwhelmingly objectivist when he
first started posting here, he'd probably be vigorously
attacking subjectivists to this day.

And yet you keep fighting *what is.* Why is that?

"124" wrote

If one cannot supply any evidence to support one's
position, one must resort to insults or abusive posts.

True enough. And others like you withdraw when
your belief system is challenged. What's worse?
Both are failures to communicate.

"Forwarder" wrote in message


Jenn, be carefull, Arny might look at the headers of your
post and find out which country you are posting from,
which ISP/security gateway you are using, etc.

Lat time I looked, she uses the SBC anonymizer, which is almost as good as
AOL's.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net wrote in message



Oh, one other thing: You obviously have no ****ing clue
about my own personal approach to audio for my own
personal use. But that's par for the 'borg course, isn't
it.

You hide it well, but with a little educated guessing about who pulls your
strings Mr. Sockpuppet...

"Powell" wrote in message

"124" wrote

If one cannot supply any evidence to support one's
position, one must resort to insults or abusive posts.

True enough. And others like you withdraw when
your belief system is challenged. What's worse?
Both are failures to communicate.

Reminds me of a guy around here who interpreted just about every question
about his peculiar brand of radical subjectivism in terms of class warfare.
Relevant phrase was, as I recall: "Broke-ass". ;-)

"Powell" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Had RAO been overwhelmingly objectivist when he
first started posting here, he'd probably be vigorously
attacking subjectivists to this day.

And yet you keep fighting *what is.* Why is that?

Which *what is* might that be? ;-)

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:39:56 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Of course, not all
subjectivists resort to insults or abusive posts--e.g.,
Jenn. If only all subjectivists were like Jenn, then
this forum could be a place for civilized debate.

Jeen plays here own sick little game of pretentious superiority based on a
deep dark secret that she can talk about but can't reveal. She's obviously a
sockpuppet, but whose?

See, THIS is exactly why you're ignoring the REAL problem around here,
Mr. 7.

If you could get past your enabling of the above poster, you'd come a
little closer to understand why some feel compelled to be as
outrageous as possible.

You can ask people like the mild-mannered Paul Packer what happens if
you disagree with Mr. Krueger. Even James Johnston, whom you might or
might not remember (former member of Bell Labs and a leading
"objectivist" most of the time and one of the leading researchers in
perceptual coding), was eventually sickened by Mr. Krueger's behavior
by the end of his tenure here on RAO.

dave weil said to 4 of 12:

Jeen[sic] plays here own sick little game of pretentious superiority based on a
deep dark secret that she can talk about but can't reveal. She's obviously a
sockpuppet, but whose?

See, THIS is exactly why you're ignoring the REAL problem around here,
Mr. 7.

If you could get past your enabling of the above poster, you'd come a
little closer to understand why some feel compelled to be as
outrageous as possible.

We've seen 4's behavior pattern before by other 'borgs. Arnii didn't
actually call Jenn any nasty names, so Mr. **** gets a pass. Not being real
people, the 'borgs have a peculiar approach to social intercourse. ;-)

I defy any rational creature, either cybernetic or Organic, to call out the
Krooborg on why it's "obvious" Jenn is a "sockpuppet".

BTW, dave, why did you call 4 "Mr. 7"? Do you know something the rest of us
don't know? G

dave weil wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:39:56 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Of course, not all
subjectivists resort to insults or abusive posts--e.g.,
Jenn. If only all subjectivists were like Jenn, then
this forum could be a place for civilized debate.

Jeen plays here own sick little game of pretentious superiority based on a
deep dark secret that she can talk about but can't reveal. She's obviously a
sockpuppet, but whose?

See, THIS is exactly why you're ignoring the REAL problem around here,
Mr. 7.

If you could get past your enabling of the above poster, you'd come a
little closer to understand why some feel compelled to be as
outrageous as possible.

You mean people who can only endure their own pathetic insecure lives
by fixating on and magnifying someone else's own disturbing issues?


You can ask people like the mild-mannered Paul Packer what happens if
you disagree with Mr. Krueger. Even James Johnston, whom you might or
might not remember (former member of Bell Labs and a leading
"objectivist" most of the time and one of the leading researchers in
perceptual coding), was eventually sickened by Mr. Krueger's behavior
by the end of his tenure here on RAO.

Don't BS Dave. JJ had plenty of exchanges with Arny and despised
Arny's constant diminishment of others in a futile attempt to prop up
his own ego... but in the long run... the constant harrassment of
George was just as tiresome for him to deal with and as much or more of
a reason for his departure.

For those who weren't around at the time... just do a google search
of this group and Phoebe. You'll find George vendetta along with
posts like this
where JJ expresses his opinion of Georges civility.

ScottW

Scottie gives credit where, sadly, it isn't due.

the constant harrassment of
George was just as tiresome for him to deal with and as much or more of
a reason for his departure.

blush

That's way too kind of you, Terrierborg. I wish I could lay claim to the
departure of that emotionally stunted, socially inept, booger-eating,
'borg-loving nerd from RAO. But I can't take the credit, in all honesty.

Perhaps you've conveniently forgotten Phoebe's screeching about the
"anti-science" contingent. Not to mention the Witch's gentle caressing of
the Krooborg's tormented soul (such as it is). Or -- and let me know if I'm
going out on a limb here -- perhaps you are all too willing to forgive
Phoebe's snottiness and bitchiness because she, like you, hates the
gentrification of the high end.

"ScottW" wrote in message
ups.com

Don't BS Dave. JJ had plenty of exchanges with Arny
and despised Arny's constant diminishment of others in a
futile attempt to prop up his own ego...

Ah, a futile attempt by ScottW to do a little ego propping of his own.

Actually, JJ was suffering from cognitive dissonance at the time because he
was being agressively romanced by Atkinson (promotion JJ's spatial
microphone) and Shain (various perks and gifts). . Unfortunately they are
just posers, so in the end JJ lost a bit of face. On top of that, AT&T labs
sort of collapsed under him.

Well it was all a good breaking point, and JJ now seems to be doing well at
MS. I guess we can call that a happy ending.

George M. Middius wrote:
Scottie gives credit where, sadly, it isn't due.

the constant harrassment of
George was just as tiresome for him to deal with and as much or more of
a reason for his departure.

blush

That's way too kind of you, Terrierborg. I wish I could lay claim to the
departure of that emotionally stunted, socially inept, booger-eating,
'borg-loving nerd from RAO. But I can't take the credit, in all honesty.

George mounts a defense based on his own impotence.


Perhaps you've conveniently forgotten Phoebe's screeching about the
"anti-science" contingent. Not to mention the Witch's gentle caressing of
the Krooborg's tormented soul (such as it is). Or -- and let me know if I'm
going out on a limb here -- perhaps you are all too willing to forgive
Phoebe's snottiness and bitchiness because she, like you, hates the
gentrification of the high end.

Funny George... I never thought that the state of being gentrified
made it high end to you.

JJ appreciated pure performance. If something outperformed for a
price... there was value... if it didn't.... there wasn't. Amazing
that such a simple concept can be so lost on people... and even more
amazing that those who acknowledge the wisdom of such a concept... can
be despised for it.

ScottW

In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote:

dave weil said to 4 of 12:

Jeen[sic] plays here own sick little game of pretentious superiority based
on a
deep dark secret that she can talk about but can't reveal. She's obviously
a
sockpuppet, but whose?

See, THIS is exactly why you're ignoring the REAL problem around here,
Mr. 7.

If you could get past your enabling of the above poster, you'd come a
little closer to understand why some feel compelled to be as
outrageous as possible.

We've seen 4's behavior pattern before by other 'borgs. Arnii didn't
actually call Jenn any nasty names, so Mr. **** gets a pass. Not being real
people, the 'borgs have a peculiar approach to social intercourse. ;-)

I defy any rational creature, either cybernetic or Organic, to call out the
Krooborg on why it's "obvious" Jenn is a "sockpuppet".

I wouldn't expect an answer, were I you.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Forwarder" wrote in message


Jenn, be carefull, Arny might look at the headers of your
post and find out which country you are posting from,
which ISP/security gateway you are using, etc.

Lat time I looked,

Why would you look?

she uses the SBC anonymizer, which is almost as good as
AOL's.

I guess that I "use" it, in as much as I'm a SBC subscriber.

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 15:07:16 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:

BTW, dave, why did you call 4 "Mr. 7"? Do you know something the rest of us
don't know? G

I can add.

On 24 Jan 2006 12:09:36 -0800, "ScottW" wrote:

Don't BS Dave. JJ had plenty of exchanges with Arny and despised
Arny's constant diminishment of others in a futile attempt to prop up
his own ego... but in the long run... the constant harrassment of
George was just as tiresome for him to deal with and as much or more of
a reason for his departure.

Did YOU have any private correspondence with him that touched on these
subjects? I did.

Now, turn around the first part of your last sentence. the converse is
that Arnold was *just* as tiresome as George was to him. And that's
pretty much true, if his posts to me are to be believed. Howard was
ALSO getting on his last nerve.

I remember that he once called Arnold "half of the problem" here on
RAO. The other "half of the problem", according to him, was George and
Trotsky. Of course, that doesn't quite compute chuckle. Arnold's
saving grace, according to jj was the fact that he "could be quite
civil behind the scenes". Of course, as some of us have heard, "Roy
Briggs" found out otherwise, when he called to try to have a
rapproachment with our boy.

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:06:49 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote:

dave weil said to 4 of 12:

Jeen[sic] plays here own sick little game of pretentious superiority based
on a
deep dark secret that she can talk about but can't reveal. She's obviously
a
sockpuppet, but whose?

See, THIS is exactly why you're ignoring the REAL problem around here,
Mr. 7.

If you could get past your enabling of the above poster, you'd come a
little closer to understand why some feel compelled to be as
outrageous as possible.

We've seen 4's behavior pattern before by other 'borgs. Arnii didn't
actually call Jenn any nasty names, so Mr. **** gets a pass. Not being real
people, the 'borgs have a peculiar approach to social intercourse. ;-)

I defy any rational creature, either cybernetic or Organic, to call out the
Krooborg on why it's "obvious" Jenn is a "sockpuppet".

I wouldn't expect an answer, were I you.

Nice to see the subjunctive, even if it *is* used a little
anachronistically. It's a fading art, the subjunctive.

In article ,
dave weil wrote:

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:06:49 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote:

dave weil said to 4 of 12:

Jeen[sic] plays here own sick little game of pretentious superiority
based
on a
deep dark secret that she can talk about but can't reveal. She's
obviously
a
sockpuppet, but whose?

See, THIS is exactly why you're ignoring the REAL problem around here,
Mr. 7.

If you could get past your enabling of the above poster, you'd come a
little closer to understand why some feel compelled to be as
outrageous as possible.

We've seen 4's behavior pattern before by other 'borgs. Arnii didn't
actually call Jenn any nasty names, so Mr. **** gets a pass. Not being
real
people, the 'borgs have a peculiar approach to social intercourse. ;-)

I defy any rational creature, either cybernetic or Organic, to call out
the
Krooborg on why it's "obvious" Jenn is a "sockpuppet".

I wouldn't expect an answer, were I you.

Nice to see the subjunctive, even if it *is* used a little
anachronistically.

That's me in a nutshell, I suppose: an anachronism.

It's a fading art, the subjunctive.

:-)

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:09:30 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Forwarder" wrote in message


Jenn, be carefull, Arny might look at the headers of your
post and find out which country you are posting from,
which ISP/security gateway you are using, etc.

Lat time I looked,

Why would you look?

she uses the SBC anonymizer, which is almost as good as
AOL's.

I guess that I "use" it, in as much as I'm a SBC subscriber.

Yes, he once accused me of the same thing, since apparently Bell South
does something similar.

Of course, he also thought that he had discovered that I was the
guitarist for a white-hot Atlanta band as well.

Ironically, the picture that he uncovered had the subject wearing a
hat very similar to one that I enjoy wearing. It was freaky! And now,
it turns out that I have a slightly similar guitar to the one that
this Dave Weil was playing, even though I didn't have it at the time.
Perhaps, in about 10 years, we WILL be the same person. Of course,
that would imply that I could play the guitar halfway decently. That
will probably *never* happen.

So watch out. He'll probably search and search until he finds a
picture of some Jennifer that happens to do some conducting. I hope
for your sake that she ends up looking like the cellist of the Brodsky
Quartet, whose name at least starts with the same letter as yours
(she's even *more* attractive attractive in person than in pictures,
BTW).

dave weil said:

I wouldn't expect an answer, were I you.

Nice to see the subjunctive, even if it *is* used a little
anachronistically. It's a fading art, the subjunctive.

What are we drinking tonite?