Arnii, why have you suddenly made me the object of your paranoid ravings?
We're all used to your continual discoveries of "plots" that revolve
around the E.H.E.E. and Dark Lord Atkinson. As bizarre as it sounds, those
fears of yours at least had the virtue of focusing your impotent rage on
an issue that one could at least debate. Now, though, you seem more
desperate than ever. Why do you care if I'm me or somebody else? You don't
rant about the other posters you know only by their screen names. I
suspect that, as somebody observed recently on RAO, you're so buffaloed by
the superior wit and wisdom of the Normals that you flail impotently for
any shred of argument you can get your grubby hands on.

From: George M. Middius
Date: Mon, Mar 6 2006 5:17 pm
Email: George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net

Why do you care if I'm me or somebody else?

It's simply a diversion.

If you're losing a debate, you suddenly start flailing around. You
know, 'excluded middle,' 'red herring,' and so forth. You can even
bring in people who are not a part of that debate.

Failing that, you can declare that a person 'does not exist' because
they have not posted their telephone number, address or social security
number on the Internet.

Don't you know anything about the 'debating trade'?

Shhhh! said:

Why do you care if I'm me or somebody else?

It's simply a diversion.

If you're losing a debate, you suddenly start flailing around. You
know, 'excluded middle,' 'red herring,' and so forth. You can even
bring in people who are not a part of that debate.

Yes, I recognize the pattern.

Failing that, you can declare that a person 'does not exist' because
they have not posted their telephone number, address or social security
number on the Internet.

Prove it or admit you're a liar.(tm)

Don't you know anything about the 'debating trade'?

Speaking of that particular sump, let's consult with Mr. Kroofeces
himself. Here he is boasting about his upcoming "debate" against Lord
Atkinson in NYC earlier this year:

"Even though I'm a global master of the debating trade as applied to
audio as John Atkinson will learn to his chagrin this weekend..."

And here comes Mr. **** again, boasting, if you can believe it, about
something all the Normals mock him for:

"I have been proclaimed a master of the debating trade by a number of
other people, I believe including Art, George, David, and Brice[sic]."

In Krooger's dementia, the "debating trade" is the Beast's crowning
achievement in audio. For Normals, the term carries a somewhat different
connotation.

From: George M. Middius
Date: Mon, Mar 6 2006 10:13 pm
Email: George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net

Speaking of that particular sump, let's consult with Mr. Kroofeces
himself. Here he is boasting about his upcoming "debate" against Lord
Atkinson in NYC earlier this year:

But I saw what happened on the Stereophile site. He got his ass kicked.

Color me confused...

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in message
ups.com
From: George M. Middius
Date: Mon, Mar 6 2006 5:17 pm
Email: George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george
[at] comcast [dot] net

Why do you care if I'm me or somebody else?

It's simply a diversion.

Good point. Note that Jon Atkinson has been pursuing it the hardest of
anybody.

If you're losing a debate, you suddenly start flailing
around.

Yup, you get sloppy - start using obvious "debating trade" techniques very
sloppily.

You know, 'excluded middle,' 'red herring,' and
so forth.

Right, use of these obvious devices in obvious ways is a sign of
desperation.

You can even bring in people who are not a part
of that debate.

Not necessary to bring Middius in - Middius gratuitously adds his childish
name-calling to just about every thread.

Failing that, you can declare that a person 'does not
exist' because they have not posted their telephone
number, address or social security number on the Internet.

You mean sorta like you, Mr. Shhhh?

Don't you know anything about the 'debating trade'?

Myabe it just comes naturally to subjectivists, eh?

Nice talking to you Mr. Shhhh. Its good to see that we agree about so many
things.

Shhhh! said:

Speaking of that particular sump, let's consult with Mr. Kroofeces
himself. Here he is boasting about his upcoming "debate" against Lord
Atkinson in NYC earlier this year:

But I saw what happened on the Stereophile site. He got his ass kicked.
Color me confused...

I'd say your confusion lies in expecting Turdborg's prediction to come
true. The poor dumb Beast is hardly ever up to the task of recounting
simple facts from the recent past without embellishing or distorting them.
Mix the Krooborg's "debating trade" with the future, and you might as well
bet on space aliens invading earth and unleashing giant machines of
destruction they deposited here eons ago.

On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 18:17:48 -0500, George M. Middius wrote:

Note for Mr. ****

Why are you writing notes to yourself in here, Middiarse?

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in message
ups.com
From: George M. Middius
Date: Mon, Mar 6 2006 5:17 pm
Email: George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george
[at] comcast [dot] net

Why do you care if I'm me or somebody else?

It's simply a diversion.

Good point. Note that Jon Atkinson has been pursuing it the hardest of
anybody.

Prove it. (tm)


You know, 'excluded middle,' 'red herring,' and
so forth.

Right, use of these obvious devices in obvious ways is a sign of
desperation.

Right. And to me, everything you ever post is a sign of desperation.

Failing that, you can declare that a person 'does not
exist' because they have not posted their telephone
number, address or social security number on the Internet.

You mean sorta like you, Mr. Shhhh?

Perhaps you exist Mr. Kreuger. And perhaps you don't. But the question
is... who really cares?

Don't you know anything about the 'debating trade'?

Myabe it just comes naturally to subjectivists, eh?

No, "eh". It comes naturally to what you are calling "objectivists"
(however, you're anything but "objective"). The people you call
"subjectivists (who nevertheless do NOT follow subjectivist principles)
are generally NOT interested in "debates". They're interested in
discussion. (I mean "normal" subjectivists. Not the wayward slackers
that hang around here...). Perhaps its because "normal audio
subjectivists" realize you don't get better sound by "debating" crap
all day.

Nice talking to you Mr. Shhhh. Its good to see that we agree about so many
things.

You're not convincing me with that act. I think it makes you downright
miserable to agree with anyone about anything.

wrote in message
ups.com

No, "eh". It comes naturally to what you are calling
"objectivists" (however, you're anything but
"objective"). The people you call "subjectivists (who
nevertheless do NOT follow subjectivist principles) are
generally NOT interested in "debates". They're interested
in discussion.

Inability to understand the natural overlap between discussions and debates
noted.

(I mean "normal" subjectivists. Not the
wayward slackers that hang around here...).

It is true that the quality of the local crop of subjectivist is very poor.
Unfortunately, they have low-lifes like Middius and Sackman bringng their
average intellectual capacity and interest in audio way down.

Perhaps its
because "normal audio subjectivists" realize you don't
get better sound by "debating" crap all day.

Well, lets tell the whole truth - one does not get better sound by just
talking about it. Note that unlike just about all of the subjectivist
slackers around here I actually do hands-on audio projects.


Nice talking to you Mr. Shhhh. Its good to see that we
agree about so many things.

You're not convincing me with that act. I think it makes
you downright miserable to agree with anyone about
anything.

Contrary to subjectivist religious beliefs, simply thinking something does
not make it so. Check the google archives, I've specifically voiced my
agreement with others on audio topics here more often than any other poster
on RAO.