[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

Next pool is for when the Krooborg will have himself committed. I'll pick
March 15, 2009.

Well, that's a nice scam you got running. Nobody is going
to win, and your going to keep the pool money
I'm not going to send you any of my money.

Busted. Rats!

A better pool would be for what day that his wife
will finally involuntarily commit him.

Nobody will bet on that. It's too farfetched.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 8, 6:06*pm, ScottW wrote:

*He didn't say your wife committing you.

You must take lessons. It's a good thing that isn't "education". LOL!

[Harry Lavo]

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


I'm admittedly uneducated about the scientific aspects of
audio. I've admitted that all along. But by definition,
I'm highly educated about what sounds like music to my
ears. Obviously, that is far more important.

I believe the word for the day is solipsism.

Solipsism (Latin: solus, alone + ipse, self) is the philosophical idea
that
"My mind is the only thing that I know exists." Solipsism is an
epistemological or metaphysical position that knowledge of anything
outside
the mind is unjustified. The external world and other minds cannot be
known
and might not exist.


IOW Jenn lives in a little universe that is known only to her. In her
little
universe, she is always right.

In order to persist in this mental state, she has to admit that she can
know
nothing that exists outside her mind. IOW, she is incapable of speaking
sensibly to anybody but herself. Many of us have known this all along.
Thanks for finally admitting this critical fact to us, Jenn.

Lordy, Arny. What did they do to you yesterday?

My paragraph at the top of this page is clear and reasonable to the
normal reader. Two questions:
1. Does anyone else know more about how music sounds to you than you?
2. When you listen to music, which is more important, A. how it sounds
to you, or, B. how it sounds to someone else?

**********************************************

This seems to add substance to the observation that Arny is on his worst
behavior right after church.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" wrote in
message

On Sep 8, 4:45 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in
message

You said that I have "long held" that you are "insane,"
Mr. Krueger...This is not correct.

Are you saying that ****R doesn't believe that I'm
insane?

He has stated many times that he does. But that has
nothing to do with me.

Maybe yes, maybe no.

Certainly, your many suggests that I may be insane were part of his mindset
before he started his current campaign of libel and character assassination.

As I said, he is not me, neither does he speak for me.

No John, but when it comes to repeated libels and character assignation, he
speaks like you.

I have made no statement about your purported insanity
since 2002, Mr. Krueger.

Well, other than on July 23 of this year, and an
indirect reference on July 4, and...

The reference I made on July 23 was to the same 2002
posting to which I have already referred in this thread.

Doesn't matter, John. Whether you repeat yourself or not, every time you
make a posting like that, you are libeling me.

The July 4 reference to your supposed insanity was
actually by "Sssh," not me.

You both posted in that thread, and your posts were related.

As I said, we are two different people
with different opinions on this matter. I actually
defended you in that July 4 posting, Mr. Krueger, by
conjecturing that a possible reason for your inability to
find a Web page for which you had been given the URL was
not insanity. Instead, it
could just have been your lack of familiarity with browser
programs.

Obviously the true explanation was beyond your ability to correctly surmise,
John. You could have put an end to the whole affair by posting a URL, but
you were stubbornly and childishly refusing to do so. You fell into my trap
and discredited yourself over and over again. Nice Job!

However, that person is not me and his behavior says
nothing about my own feelings. As I have now
repeatedly stated, I [certainly] don't think you are
insane.

I'm sure you [certainly] don't.

In which case, why are you continuing to argue the
opposite, Mr. Krueger?

John every time I troll you, you jump out of the water and bite at my hook.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


I'm admittedly uneducated about the scientific aspects
of audio. I've admitted that all along. But by
definition, I'm highly educated about what sounds like
music to my ears. Obviously, that is far more
important.

I believe the word for the day is solipsism.

Solipsism (Latin: solus, alone + ipse, self) is the
philosophical idea that "My mind is the only thing that
I know exists." Solipsism is an epistemological or
metaphysical position that knowledge of anything
outside the mind is unjustified. The external world
and other minds cannot be known and might not exist.


IOW Jenn lives in a little universe that is known only
to her. In her little universe, she is always right.

In order to persist in this mental state, she has to
admit that she can know nothing that exists outside her
mind. IOW, she is incapable of speaking sensibly to
anybody but herself. Many of us have known this all
along. Thanks for finally admitting this critical fact
to us, Jenn.

Lordy, Arny. What did they do to you yesterday?

???????????????/

My paragraph at the top of this page is clear and
reasonable to the normal reader. Two questions:

1. Does anyone else know more about how music sounds to
you than you?

Possibly.

Please describe how that is possible.

Take a person who is overwhelmed with hysteria, and mouths pre-programmed
sayings from various high end ragazines and authors. Obviously, this person
is out of touch with their real perceptions. A person with insight to the
situation may better understand that person's unhinged perceptions better
than that person themselves.

2. When you listen to music, which is more important,
A. how it sounds to you, or, B. how it sounds to someone
else?

Given that I do so much live sound and recording work,
how things sound to other people is very important to me.

Obviously we're not speaking of the alleged work that
you.

Not obvious and not alleged. But thanks for responding that way Jenn, it
makes your hysterical state of mind even clearer to any neutral observers.

We're speaking of home audio.

So Jenn you are saying that your comments in this thread are totally
irrelevant to your work as a music teacher?

Wow, you really are hysterical! :-(

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


This seems to add substance to the observation that Arny
is on his worst behavior right after church.

Cite an independent source for that observation.

Besides Harry, you don't seem to know when I actually worship, so you can't
know when "right after church" is.

IOW Harry, you're talking out of the back of your neck, again.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 9, 6:35*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in


On Sep 8, 4:45 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in
message

You said that I have "long held" that you are "insane,"
Mr. Krueger...This is not correct.

Are you saying that my intellectual superior doesn't believe that I'm
insane?

He has stated many times that he does. But that has
nothing *to do with me.

Maybe yes, *maybe no.

Or how about a certain "no". My conclusions about your mental health
are my own. I note that many, many others have come to the same
conclusion.

Certainly, your many suggests that I may be insane were part of his mindset
before he started his current campaign of libel and character assassination.

*As I said, he is not me, neither does he speak for me.

No John, but when it comes to repeated libels and character assignation, he
speaks like you.

"In independent tests, GOIA's insanity was proven to a 99.9%
confidence level. This was repeated in dozens of other peer-reviewed
clinical trials."

Character assignation: the act of apportioning GOIA's 'character'.
Currently GOIA's 'character' is apportioned 65% ****ty, 15% hypocrite,
10% paranoid and 10% deluded.

[Clyde Slick]

On 9 Sep, 07:35, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

The July 4 reference to your supposed insanity was
actually *by "Sssh," not me.

You both posted in that thread, and your posts were related.


Arnie, you are an asshole and a mother ****er.
Now, we both posted in the same thread, and
our posts are related. You now bear responsibility
for what I said; in essence,
you callled yourself an asshole and a mother ****er.
the miracles of Kroologic!!!!

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


I'm admittedly uneducated about the scientific aspects
of audio. I've admitted that all along. But by
definition, I'm highly educated about what sounds like
music to my ears. Obviously, that is far more
important.

I believe the word for the day is solipsism.

Solipsism (Latin: solus, alone + ipse, self) is the
philosophical idea that "My mind is the only thing that
I know exists." Solipsism is an epistemological or
metaphysical position that knowledge of anything
outside the mind is unjustified. The external world
and other minds cannot be known and might not exist.


IOW Jenn lives in a little universe that is known only
to her. In her little universe, she is always right.

In order to persist in this mental state, she has to
admit that she can know nothing that exists outside her
mind. IOW, she is incapable of speaking sensibly to
anybody but herself. Many of us have known this all
along. Thanks for finally admitting this critical fact
to us, Jenn.

Lordy, Arny. What did they do to you yesterday?

???????????????/

My paragraph at the top of this page is clear and
reasonable to the normal reader. Two questions:

1. Does anyone else know more about how music sounds to
you than you?

Possibly.

Please describe how that is possible.

Take a person who is overwhelmed with hysteria, and mouths pre-programmed
sayings from various high end ragazines and authors. Obviously, this person
is out of touch with their real perceptions. A person with insight to the
situation may better understand that person's unhinged perceptions better
than that person themselves.

Here you show a lack of even basic understanding of perception. A
person can't be "out of touch with their real perceptions". Their
perception is their perception. Their perception may be misguided,
against the norm, influenced by confounding factors, etc. but it is
STILL their perception. In the case of listening to music, they still
hear it as they hear it, as in your example above concerning CD bigots.
I suggest some basic study in psychology, and specifically some reading
of the very excellent "Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal".


2. When you listen to music, which is more important,
A. how it sounds to you, or, B. how it sounds to someone
else?

Given that I do so much live sound and recording work,
how things sound to other people is very important to me.

Obviously we're not speaking of the alleged work that
you (do).

Not obvious and not alleged. But thanks for responding that way Jenn, it
makes your hysterical state of mind even clearer to any neutral observers.

Of course it's alleged. You've claimed that you do it, but no one here
knows for sure.


We're speaking of home audio.

So Jenn you are saying that your comments in this thread are totally
irrelevant to your work as a music teacher?

In this thread, yes.

[Vinylanach]

On Sep 9, 4:56�am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Sep 9, 6:35�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:





"John Atkinson" wrote in


On Sep 8, 4:45 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in
message

You said that I have "long held" that you are "insane,"
Mr. Krueger...This is not correct.

Are you saying that my intellectual superior doesn't believe that I'm
insane?

He has stated many times that he does. But that has
nothing �to do with me.

Maybe yes, �maybe no.

Or how about a certain "no". My conclusions about your mental health
are my own. I note that many, many others have come to the same
conclusion.

Certainly, your many suggests that I may be insane were part of his mindset
before he started his current campaign of libel and character assassination.

�As I said, he is not me, neither does he speak for me.

No John, but when it comes to repeated libels and character assignation, he
speaks like you.

"In independent tests, GOIA's insanity was proven to a 99.9%
confidence level. This was repeated in dozens of other peer-reviewed
clinical trials."

Character assignation: the act of apportioning GOIA's 'character'.
Currently GOIA's 'character' is apportioned 65% ****ty, 15% hypocrite,
10% paranoid and 10% deluded.-

For the record, I think he's a 'tard.

Boon

[Vinylanach]

On Sep 9, 4:35�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in


On Sep 8, 4:45 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in
message

You said that I have "long held" that you are "insane,"
Mr. Krueger...This is not correct.

Are you saying that ****R doesn't believe that I'm
insane?

He has stated many times that he does. But that has
nothing �to do with me.

Maybe yes, �maybe no.

Certainly, your many suggests that I may be insane were part of his mindset
before he started his current campaign of libel and character assassination.

�As I said, he is not me, neither does he speak for me.

No John, but when it comes to repeated libels and character assignation, he
speaks like you.

I have made no statement about your purported insanity
since 2002, Mr. Krueger.

Well, other than on July 23 of this year, and an
indirect reference on July 4, and...
The reference I made on July 23 was to the same 2002
posting to which I have already referred in this thread.

Doesn't matter, John. Whether you repeat yourself or not, every time you
make a posting like that, you are libeling me.

The July 4 reference to your supposed insanity was
actually �by "Sssh," not me.

You both posted in that thread, and your posts were related.

As I said, we are two different people
with different opinions on this matter. I actually
defended you in that July 4 posting, Mr. Krueger, by
conjecturing that a possible reason for your inability to
find a Web page for which you had been given the URL was
not insanity. Instead, it
could just have been your lack of familiarity with browser
programs.

Obviously the true explanation was beyond your ability to correctly surmise,
John. You could have put an end to the whole affair by posting a URL, but
you were stubbornly and childishly refusing to do so. You fell into my trap
and discredited yourself over and over again. Nice Job!

However, that person is not me and his behavior says
nothing about my own feelings. As I have now
repeatedly stated, I [certainly] don't think you are
insane.
I'm sure you [certainly] don't.
In which case, why are you continuing to argue the
opposite, Mr. Krueger?

John every time I troll you, you jump out of the water and bite at my hook.

Then he thrashes around the deck and tears your boat to shreds. When
it sinks, you swim to shore, buy an even ****tier boat, and try your
luck again. That's a more realistic analogy.

Boon

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,

"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Take a person who is overwhelmed with hysteria, and
mouths pre-programmed sayings from various high end
ragazines and authors. Obviously, this person is out of
touch with their real perceptions. A person with insight
to the situation may better understand that person's
unhinged perceptions better than that person themselves.

Here you show a lack of even basic understanding of
perception. A person can't be "out of touch with their
real perceptions".

Here Jenn denies the existence of illusions.

Their perception is their perception.

Here Jenn asserts that a given set of stimuli can cause only one response.

Then, it seems that a light dawns, and she admits that other, better founded
perceptions might be possible.

Their perception may be misguided, against the norm,
influenced by confounding factors, etc. but it is STILL
their perception.

I never said it wasn't. What I was trying to communicate is that were the
poor guidance and confounding factors removed, that different perceptions
would result. I called those unconfounded, properly guided perceptions "true
perceptions".

But Jenn, in her typical hysterical rush to judgment, starts mouthing off
with cheap accusations like:

"Here you show a lack of even basic understanding of perception."

Kind of you Jenn to so quickly contradict yourself.

Your post nets out to a logical zero, so there's no need to address its
content, other than to observe that it cancelled itself out.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 9, 3:11*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message



In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:
Take a person who is overwhelmed with hysteria, and
mouths pre-programmed sayings from various high end
ragazines and authors. *Obviously, this person is out of
touch with their real perceptions. A person with insight
to the situation may better understand that person's
unhinged perceptions better than that person themselves.
Here you show a lack of even basic understanding of
perception. *A person can't be "out of touch with their
real perceptions".

Here Jenn denies the existence of illusions.

No, GOIA, here Jenn states that a person who sees an oasis in the
desert sees an oasis in the desert.

Are you really this dense, or is your insanity at work again?

Their perception is their perception.

Here Jenn asserts that a given set of stimuli can cause only one response..

The Debating Trade. Don't try this at home, kids! GOIA is a trained
perfeshunnel!

Then, it seems that a light dawns, and she admits that other, better founded
perceptions might be possible.

GOIA is getting a woody.

Their perception may be misguided, against the norm,
influenced by confounding factors, etc. but it is STILL
their perception.

I never said it wasn't. What I was trying to communicate is that were the
poor guidance and confounding factors removed, that different perceptions
would result. I called those unconfounded, properly guided perceptions "true
perceptions".

They are no more true than any other perception, GOIA. Jenn's point
that a perception is a perception is valid. It's axiomatic, in fact.

But Jenn, in her typical hysterical rush to judgment, *starts mouthing off
with cheap accusations like:

"Here you show a lack of even basic understanding of perception."

Kind of you Jenn to so quickly contradict yourself.

Your post nets out to a logical zero, so there's no need to address its
content, other than to observe that it cancelled itself out.

Your wiring requires rerouting, GOIA.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,

"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Take a person who is overwhelmed with hysteria, and
mouths pre-programmed sayings from various high end
ragazines and authors. Obviously, this person is out of
touch with their real perceptions. A person with insight
to the situation may better understand that person's
unhinged perceptions better than that person themselves.

Here you show a lack of even basic understanding of
perception. A person can't be "out of touch with their
real perceptions".

Here Jenn denies the existence of illusions.

Incorrect, Arny. Whether or not one's perception is an illusion, it is
still their perception.


Their perception is their perception.

Here Jenn asserts that a given set of stimuli can cause only one response.

Incorrect, Arny. A person's response to a given stimulus at any given
moment IS that person's perception.


Then, it seems that a light dawns, and she admits that other, better founded
perceptions might be possible.

Incorrect, Arny.

Their perception may be misguided, against the norm,
influenced by confounding factors, etc. but it is STILL
their perception.

I never said it wasn't. What I was trying to communicate is that were the
poor guidance and confounding factors removed, that different perceptions
would result. I called those unconfounded, properly guided perceptions "true
perceptions".

Incorrect, Arny. It has NOTHING to do with correct or incorrect. If
you look across your living room and see a pink elephant, that IS your
perception, whether the elephant is there or not.


But Jenn, in her typical hysterical rush to judgment, starts mouthing off
with cheap accusations like:

"Here you show a lack of even basic understanding of perception."

That's because you do, clearly.


Kind of you Jenn to so quickly contradict yourself.

Your post nets out to a logical zero, so there's no need to address its
content, other than to observe that it cancelled itself out.

Finally, you are correct: there is no need for you to address the
content because you are incorrect on each count. One can't be "out of
touch with their real perceptions".

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Sep 9, 3:01*pm, Jenn wrote:

Finally, you are correct: there is no need for you to address the
content because you are incorrect on each count. *One can't be "out of
touch with their real perceptions".

Most people can't, at least not without drinking a lot.
Sssshhhh and George may be exceptions.
But a person's perception can be out of touch with reality.
It's called delusional.

ScottW

Of course.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Sep 9, 3:13*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW wrote:
On Sep 9, 3:01*pm, Jenn wrote:

Finally, you are correct: there is no need for you to address the
content because you are incorrect on each count. *One can't be "out of
touch with their real perceptions".

Most people can't, at least not without drinking a lot.
Sssshhhh and George may be exceptions.
But a person's perception can be out of touch with reality.
It's called delusional.

ScottW

Of course.

So would you rather be drunk or delusional?

ScottW

C.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Sep 9, 3:16*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,





*ScottW wrote:
On Sep 9, 3:13*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW wrote:
On Sep 9, 3:01*pm, Jenn wrote:

Finally, you are correct: there is no need for you to address the
content because you are incorrect on each count. *One can't be "out
of
touch with their real perceptions".

Most people can't, at least not without drinking a lot.
Sssshhhh and George may be exceptions.
But a person's perception can be out of touch with reality.
It's called delusional.

ScottW

Of course.

So would you rather be drunk or delusional?

ScottW

C.

Try sleeping that one off.

ScottW

There's no "none of the above"?

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Sep 9, 3:27*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,





*ScottW wrote:
On Sep 9, 3:16*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW wrote:
On Sep 9, 3:13*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW wrote:
On Sep 9, 3:01*pm, Jenn wrote:

Finally, you are correct: there is no need for you to address
the
content because you are incorrect on each count. *One can't be
"out
of
touch with their real perceptions".

Most people can't, at least not without drinking a lot.
Sssshhhh and George may be exceptions.
But a person's perception can be out of touch with reality.
It's called delusional.

ScottW

Of course.

So would you rather be drunk or delusional?

ScottW

C.

* Try sleeping that one off.

ScottW

There's no "none of the above"?

Sure, if you're a corpse, otherwise you must have
a preference.

ScottW

Lack of experience is the problem. As far as I know, I'm not
delusional, and I haven't been drunk since 1990.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Jenn said:

Lack of experience is the problem. As far as I know, I'm not
delusional, and I haven't been drunk since 1990.

Not even a little? That must have been a hell of a bender.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 9, 5:11*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Sep 9, 3:01*pm, Jenn wrote:



Finally, you are correct: there is no need for you to address the
content because you are incorrect on each count. *One can't be "out of
touch with their real perceptions".

Most people can't, at least not without drinking a lot.
Sssshhhh and George may be exceptions.

Nice one, 2pid! Who says you don't have a sense of humor?

LoL.

But a person's perception can be out of touch with reality.
It's called delusional.

Even if deluded, their perception is still their perception.

For example, you claim to "not be a christian" yet you defend that
religion frequently. Maybe that's because of all the "love" you get at
christmas.

You also appear to think that you're smart.

Both are delusions. LoL.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Sep 9, 3:57*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,





*ScottW wrote:
On Sep 9, 3:27*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW wrote:
On Sep 9, 3:16*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW wrote:
On Sep 9, 3:13*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article

om,

*ScottW wrote:
On Sep 9, 3:01*pm, Jenn
wrote:

Finally, you are correct: there is no need for you to
address
the
content because you are incorrect on each count. *One can't
be
"out
of
touch with their real perceptions".

Most people can't, at least not without drinking a lot.
Sssshhhh and George may be exceptions.
But a person's perception can be out of touch with reality.
It's called delusional.

ScottW

Of course.

So would you rather be drunk or delusional?

ScottW

C.

* Try sleeping that one off.

ScottW

There's no "none of the above"?

*Sure, if you're a corpse, otherwise you must have
a preference.

ScottW

Lack of experience is the problem. *As far as I know, I'm not
delusional,

Delusional people are always the last to know.

Of course.


and I haven't been drunk since 1990.

What was the occasion?

Lost track of how much wine I was drinking at a fund raiser for the
Oregon Symphony.

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Sep 9, 7:35 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in message

On Sep 8, 4:45 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in message

You said that I have "long held" that you are "insane,"
Mr. Krueger...This is not correct.

Are you saying that ****R doesn't believe that I'm
insane?

He has stated many times that he does. But that has
nothing to do with me.

Maybe yes, maybe no.

Definitely no. You do yourself no favors when you
start hinting at conspiracies, Mr. Krueger.

Certainly, your many suggests that I may be insane...

There were not "many." As you are well aware, Mr.
Krueger, having apparently stored it on your hard
drive,there was a post back in July 2002 in which
I conjectured that you were insane. This post
didn't come out of a vacuum; the disconnect
between what you were saying and reaiity was
so large that your being insane was a possible
explanation.

... were part of his mindset before he started his
current campaign of libel and character assassination.

Except that "Sssh" wasn't posting to r.a.o. back in
2002.

As I said, he is not me, neither does he speak for me.

No John...

At least you now admit the obvious, Mr. Krueger, whereas
yesterday you seemed to be implying the opposite. :-)

but when it comes to repeated libels and character
assignation, he speaks like you.

Perhaps to a non-native English speaker like yourself,
Mr. Krueger.

I have made no statement about your purported insanity
since 2002, Mr. Krueger.

Well, other than on July 23 of this year, and an
indirect reference on July 4, and...

The reference I made on July 23 was to the same 2002
posting to which I have already referred in this thread.

Doesn't matter, John. Whether you repeat yourself or not,
every time you make a posting like that, you are libeling me.

I was asked a direct question about the subject, Mr.
Krueger. And in the context of your misleading statement,
that I have "long held" that you are "insane," my referring
to that July 2002 post in response to a question does not
support your case, Mr. Krueger. And nor have I "libeled"
you, please note.

The July 4 reference to your supposed insanity was
actually by "Sssh," not me.

You both posted in that thread, and your posts were related.

Right, He said you were insane; in response I offered
an alternative explanation for your behavior. By doing so,
it should be clear that I therefore disagreed with him
regarding your purported insanity.

As I said, we are two different people with different
opinions on this matter. I actually defended you in that
July 4 posting, Mr. Krueger, by conjecturing that a
possible reason for your inability to find a Web page for
which you had been given the URL was not insanity.
Instead, it could just have been your lack of familiarity
with browser programs.

Obviously the true explanation was beyond your ability to
correctly surmise, John.

Huh? Are you now saying that I was wrong, that you _are_
insane, Mr. Krueger?

You could have put an end to the whole affair by posting a URL...

I did. I also gave clear instructions on how to find the webpage
in question. Everyone else on this newsgroup had no problem
visiting the page yet you _still_ couldn't find it, even with the
URL. Hence my conjecture that you were not familiar with how
to use a Web browser. After all, you had already admitted
having problems using search engines.

John every time I troll you, you jump out of the water and bite at my hook.

Just put it down to my being an editor, wanting to correct
gross misstatements of the sort you post, Mr. Krueger. But
if you wish to be a self-admitted troll, I am certainly not
going to stop you.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 9, 10:03*am, Vinylanach wrote:
On Sep 9, 4:56 am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

Character assignation: the act of apportioning GOIA's 'character'.
Currently GOIA's 'character' is apportioned 65% ****ty, 15% hypocrite,
10% paranoid and 10% deluded.-

For the record, I think he's a 'tard.

I accept and embrace your differing POV and I promise not to oppress
it.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 9, 5:54*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Sep 9, 3:27*pm, Jenn wrote:

There's no "none of the above"?

*Sure, if you're a corpse, otherwise you must have
a preference.

There's that binary 'thinking' again.

Watch out, Clyde. It appears to be contagious.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 9, 7:04*pm, John Atkinson wrote:
On Sep 9, 7:35 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

... were part of his mindset before he started his
current campaign of libel and character assassination.

Except that "Sssh" wasn't posting to r.a.o. back in
2002.

When did you invent me again? I forget.