Paul wrote:


(Bruce J. Richman) wrote:

Notice how forthcoming Middius is with his eBay ID.

Why are you not forthcoming with your mug shots?

They are all coated in smegma?

Could it ber that they've been used for the same purpose that he uses $
100.00
bills?

LOL! Nice one Bruce, I almost choked on my fag :-)


--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t








I think you should perhaps use a different choice of words, Paul..The phrase
"choke on my fag" could be interpreted as another reference to Krueger's
alleged criminal activities.



Bruce J. Richman

"Max Holubitsky" wrote in message
. ca
I generally test the tubes in my amps once every several months, and
replace them every year or two. I've tested my amps for power output
and distortion with really worn out used tubes, just to see the
difference, and power output drops in half. The key is to replace
them before the performance really starts to degrade, and before the
amp really starts to diverge from spec.

I'm not talking about testing tubes, I'm talking about testing amps.
Tubes are just one of several sources of distortion in tubed amps.

Fair enough, but assuming the other components in the amp are fairly
new, the tubes are the only thing that will degrade with use.

That would be what we expect, but exceptions are not uncommong.


Speaking of updating to "modern technology", I am currently
constructing an amplifier based on National Semiconductor literature,
which may replace my tube amps for day to day use, once it's
completed, depending on how I like the sound.

If you want, check out http://www.national.com/an/AN/AN-1192.pdf and
look at the 200W amp. I know it's op amp based, but the specs look
pretty incredible, and I figured it might be fun building a high
powered SS amp, with excellent specs. It will definitely exceed the
frequency response and dynamic range capabilities of my speakers. I
haven't got a dummy load big enough to test it with, but I think
clipping it would blow my speakers, anyhow!

The LM3886 seems to be the IC that *everybody* likes. Search google on
LM3886, gaincard and gainclone...

The 200 watt amp is basically limited to 8 ohm loads which I see as a
possible issue. Too many "8 ohm" speakers that dive down to 4 ohms.

"Lived EHT" wrote in message
n.net
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 17:45:01 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Notice how forthcoming Middius is with his eBay ID.

Why are you not forthcoming with your mug shots?

It seems unfair for you to demand that I provide evidence to support your
delusions.

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 00:56:20 +0100, Thee Signal
wrote:

LOL! Nice one Bruce, I almost choked on my fag :-)

You're taking the ****. And Arnii will think you're trying to eat,
albeit indigestibly, a homosexual.

--
Thine

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 03:31:06 +0100, Thee Signal
wrote:

I'm not convinced Kruegers son existed. What proof have we got?


Beyond a few dents in a baseball bat, who knows?

--
tHINE

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 17:22:48 -0400, George M. Middius
wrote:



Max Holubitsky said to ****-for-Brains:

BTW, my last transaction was somewhat over $200, and was for audio gear as
have been virtually all of my transactions.

My goodness, that's impressive - what is that, over 20,000 pennies?

You think that's desperate? Another time, Turdy tried to pay somebody
with a beat-up old turntable he claimed was worth $300.

Well, it was a lie anyway. His last transaction was a purchase for $86
plus shipment.

Well, it was more than my refigerator magnet, that's fer sure.

Fair enough, but assuming the other components in the amp are fairly
new, the tubes are the only thing that will degrade with use.

That would be what we expect, but exceptions are not uncommong.

Caps deteriorate over time and resistors drift, but if you use modern 1%
metal film resistors, good quality Sprague or Mallory electrolytics, and
plastic film coupling caps, there really should be no problems. Passive
components have come a **long** way since the days of your EICO or Dynaco,
and tube electronics gain as much from modern passive components as SS
electronics do.

Obviously, if you are speaking about 10% carbon composition resistors, cheap
generic electrolytics, and old paper coupling caps, it's a different story.


****


The LM3886 seems to be the IC that *everybody* likes. Search google on
LM3886, gaincard and gainclone...


That's why I'm building it. A couple years ago, I rebuilt an old Yamaha
receiver with LM3886's because I didn't want to bother troubleshooting an
old amp with no circuit diagram. I was pleasently suprised by the results,
and it's currently used as a home theatre left and right amp. The chips are
even free, as engineering samples.

The 200 watt amp is basically limited to 8 ohm loads which I see as a
possible issue. Too many "8 ohm" speakers that dive down to 4 ohms.



I think it's the 100W BTL amp that is limited to 8 ohms, the 200W amp will
do 4 ohm just fine, as it used 4 ICs in series parallel.
I've got the power supply assembled already, and am just finishing the PCB
design for the amp. I got a huge torrid power transformer for it, a robust
rectifier, and lots of filter capacitance. My Tannoy Saturn S6's are rated
at 6 ohms, and 90dB at one meter - I can't possibly see ever getting near
to clipping this amp, in practice.

Arny "CLK" Krueger exhibits his ignorance re. his neologistic use of strange
language:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message


On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 17:22:48 -0400, George M. Middius
wrote:

Max Holubitsky said to ****-for-Brains:

BTW, my last transaction was somewhat over $200, and was for
audio gear as have been virtually all of my transactions.

My goodness, that's impressive - what is that, over 20,000
pennies?

You think that's desperate? Another time, Turdy tried to pay
somebody with a beat-up old turntable he claimed was worth $300.

Just when I thought I'd seen the ultimate in delusional claims from
the Middiot.

Well, it was a lie anyway. His last transaction was a purchase for
$86 plus shipment.

Weil, I've thoroughly debunked this claim but yet you persist in it.
Why is that Weil? Need more public ridicule?

Does anybody understand what C-L-K is referring to? One just can't
get enough of that ridicule!

Let's see if I can explain it to you at a level that you can understand,
Richman.


deletion of Krueger's simplistic attempt to deny taking responsibility fo his
moronic spelling error

IOW, you refuse, as usual to acknowledge that you make spelling errors on a
regular basis on RAO. The only reason I even condescended to call you on it is
because you do so to others.

Thanks for once again demonstrating your hypocrisy.

Now, I'll let you get back to your compulsive fabrications.

Just keep trying to tell everybody about redicule. Maybe you can make up some
more incoherent words to go with this one.

LOL!




Bruce J. Richman

On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 01:21:58 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message


On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 17:22:48 -0400, George M. Middius
wrote:

Max Holubitsky said to ****-for-Brains:

BTW, my last transaction was somewhat over $200, and was for
audio gear as have been virtually all of my transactions.

My goodness, that's impressive - what is that, over 20,000
pennies?

You think that's desperate? Another time, Turdy tried to pay
somebody with a beat-up old turntable he claimed was worth $300.

Just when I thought I'd seen the ultimate in delusional claims from
the Middiot.

Well, it was a lie anyway. His last transaction was a purchase for
$86 plus shipment.

Weil, I've thoroughly debunked this claim but yet you persist in it.
Why is that Weil? Need more public ridicule?

Does anybody understand what C-L-K is referring to? One just can't
get enough of that ridicule!

Let's see if I can explain it to you at a level that you can understand,
Richman.

Dave Weil went up the hill.

Dave Weil shouted: Arny, your last eBay transaction was $86 and you're a
liar to say otherwise.

Arny went up the hill.

Arny proved conclusively that his last eBay transaction was actually
$232.50.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tegory=15 058

Actually, I think this is the first time that you actually posted a
link to the item. You were previously afraid to post it. But, of
course, I conceded the point without even going there anyway.

I *did* point out as well that you don't seem to be a very good eBay
citizen because you don't seem to be very adept at posting feedback
either.

Arny pushed on Weil, and Weil tumbled down the hill and hurt his head
(again).

From the bottom of the hill, Weil again said Arny, your last eBay
transaction was $86 and you're a liar to say otherwise.

Arny stood on the top of the hill and laughed. Everybody laughed because it
is obvious that there is something wrong with Weil's head.

See Weil's head bleed.

See Weil's head bleed some more.

Bleed Weil, Bleed!

Boy, that was funny.

Yes, I admitted that I was wrong about that.

However, I don't see *you* admitting that you were wrong when you
claimed that I was the first to mention your eBay ID on the group,
when I showed that you posted a link to your closed transaction with
your turntable, a link that *clearly* showed your eBay ID.

Are you going to be man enough to admit that you were wrong, or is
your "head going to bleed"?

Just curious.

"Thee Signal" wrote in message
...
"Trevor Wilson" wrote:

**Smart move. These things are absolute crap. It reached a point where
the
Australian distributor was supplying entire modules, because none of the
warranty agents wanted to desolder the damned tubes, or fault find the
output stages. There's a bunch of solid state stuff, associated with each
tube, you know. It fails, when the tubes fail. There are better, more
reliable tube amps to be had, if that is your preference. They're a whole
bunch easier to repair too.

In the final analysis, you should ask yourself this: "Why are these
things
so common in the second hand market-place?"

So why do they solder them? Is it to tie the buyer to AMC for future
repairs?

**You would need to ask the morons who built them. The tubes are arranged
horizontally. Perhaps it has something to do with that. Whatever it is, if
you plan on installing tube sockets, you'll be in for a rude shock. The job
would be a complete nightmare, if it is do-able at all. In fact, you do what
I have suggested to more than one owner of these shtiboxes: Go buy a nice,
second hand Rotel RA971. It should cost about the same money and will
deliver fabulous reliability, ease of service (if ever required), adequate
power, excellent load tolerance and stunning sound quality (far, far better
than any AMC).


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message


* There is no technical impediment to building SS amps, which use
lots of local NFB and minimal Global NFB. Some specialist amplifier
manufacturers do just that. Guess what? They offer some of the
benefits commonly attributable to tube amps and most of the benefits
attributable to SS amps. Best of both worlds, if you ask me.

One little problem. AFAIK tube amps have zero benefits as compared to SS
amps. Tell me just one!

"dave weil" wrote in message
news
However, I don't see *you* admitting that you were wrong when you
claimed that I was the first to mention your eBay ID on the group,
when I showed that you posted a link to your closed transaction with
your turntable, a link that *clearly* showed your eBay ID.

I didn't say you were the first to mention it, Weil.

I never denied that I posted the information that led to the discovery of my
eBay id on RAO. Indeed I said as much last night.

Are you going to be man enough to admit that you were wrong, or is
your "head going to bleed"?

I make a policy of not honoring straw man arguments.

On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 06:37:50 -0400, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
news
However, I don't see *you* admitting that you were wrong when you
claimed that I was the first to mention your eBay ID on the group,
when I showed that you posted a link to your closed transaction with
your turntable, a link that *clearly* showed your eBay ID.

I didn't say you were the first to mention it, Weil.

You claimed that I mentioned it and you didn't. Isn't that the same
thing?

"So I didn't reveal my ID on RAO. I merely mentioned that I had
recently won something in an auction. That's how I found out your ebay
ID, Weil. In short, you've been caught in hypocrisy again, Weil.

Weil is again to be a hypocrite twice on this very issue

Weil is a hypocrite once since he thinks that revealing eBay IDs are
a bad idea but he did it essentially the same way I did - by
discussing something he won in the recent past.

Weil is a hypocrite twice since he thinks that revealing eBay IDs is
a bad idea but he revealed mine."

You say that you didn't reveal your ID on RAO (which isn't true,
because you *did* do just that, by posting a link to the closed
auction). Then you say that I revealed yours. Unless you can find
someone else who "revealed your ID", then I must have been the first
to mention your ID on the group, including you, according to your
statement.

So, I'd like to see a retraction of your false statements. First, I
you *did* reveal your ID on the group, and second, that I "revealed"
your ID on the group. I didn't "reveal" it, because you already had.

I'm not expecting you to be the man that I was though.

I never denied that I posted the information that led to the discovery of my
eBay id on RAO. Indeed I said as much last night.

"So I didn't reveal my ID on RAO. I merely mentioned that I had
recently won something in an auction".

You didn't "merely mention" that you recently won something in an
auction. You posted the link. And, as you have pointed out in the
past, posting a link to something communicates the information.

Are you going to be man enough to admit that you were wrong, or is
your "head going to bleed"?

I make a policy of not honoring straw man arguments.

Yep, just as I thought. You don't have the courage to admit that
you're wrong.

"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 06:37:50 -0400, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
news
However, I don't see *you* admitting that you were wrong when you
claimed that I was the first to mention your eBay ID on the group,
when I showed that you posted a link to your closed transaction with
your turntable, a link that *clearly* showed your eBay ID.

I didn't say you were the first to mention it, Weil.

You claimed that I mentioned it and you didn't. Isn't that the same
thing?

Not at all, since we were talking about two different things, i.e., your
eBay id versus mine.


"So I didn't reveal my ID on RAO. I merely mentioned that I had
recently won something in an auction. That's how I found out your ebay
ID, Weil. In short, you've been caught in hypocrisy again, Weil.

Weil is again to be a hypocrite twice on this very issue

Weil is a hypocrite once since he thinks that revealing eBay IDs are
a bad idea but he did it essentially the same way I did - by
discussing something he won in the recent past.

Weil is a hypocrite twice since he thinks that revealing eBay IDs is
a bad idea but he revealed mine."

You say that you didn't reveal your ID on RAO (which isn't true,
because you *did* do just that, by posting a link to the closed
auction).

I properly explained my claim that I didn't reveal my id on RAO, so there
was no lie.

Then you say that I revealed yours.

With great flourish Weil, I might add. The objective was to embarrass and
humiliate me, but unfortunately you made yourself look pretty silly.

Unless you can find
someone else who "revealed your ID", then I must have been the first
to mention your ID on the group, including you, according to your
statement.

That would be your claim Weil, not mine.

So, I'd like to see a retraction of your false statements.

The alleged false statement is a creation of your twisted mind, Weil.
However, I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to the group for
the humiliating behavior of Dave Weil.

First, I you *did* reveal your ID on the group, and second, that I
"revealed"
your ID on the group. I didn't "reveal" it, because you already had.

"First, I you did..."????

In English, please!

I'm not expecting you to be the man that I was though.

I decline to sexually mutilate myself to be like you, Weil.

I never denied that I posted the information that led to the
discovery of my eBay id on RAO. Indeed I said as much last night.

"So I didn't reveal my ID on RAO. I merely mentioned that I had
recently won something in an auction".

That's true.

You didn't "merely mention" that you recently won something in an
auction. You posted the link.

And posting a link to a closed auction isn't mentioning it?

LOL!

And, as you have pointed out in the
past, posting a link to something communicates the information.

Not exactly, it provides a link to that communication. The information is
not communicated until the link is followed. In this case the link takes the
reader off of RAO, so the information in question was not posted on RAO.

Are you going to be man enough to admit that you were wrong, or is
your "head going to bleed"?

I make a policy of not honoring straw man arguments.

Yep, just as I thought. You don't have the courage to admit that you're
wrong.

There's a key element here that you're missing Weil. You have to show where
I was wrong. You ain't done that.

**You would need to ask the morons who built them. The tubes are arranged
horizontally. Perhaps it has something to do with that. Whatever it is, if
you plan on installing tube sockets, you'll be in for a rude shock. The
job
would be a complete nightmare, if it is do-able at all. In fact, you do
what
I have suggested to more than one owner of these shtiboxes: Go buy a nice,
second hand Rotel RA971. It should cost about the same money and will
deliver fabulous reliability, ease of service (if ever required), adequate
power, excellent load tolerance and stunning sound quality (far, far
better
than any AMC).


Wow - who would have thought? I never did get why someone would actually
solder in the output tubes. I noticed that on their website, all the new
products have tube sockets - this is not much of a suprise!

On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 14:36:49 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 06:37:50 -0400, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
news
However, I don't see *you* admitting that you were wrong when you
claimed that I was the first to mention your eBay ID on the group,
when I showed that you posted a link to your closed transaction with
your turntable, a link that *clearly* showed your eBay ID.

I didn't say you were the first to mention it, Weil.

You claimed that I mentioned it and you didn't. Isn't that the same
thing?

Not at all, since we were talking about two different things, i.e., your
eBay id versus mine.


"So I didn't reveal my ID on RAO. I merely mentioned that I had
recently won something in an auction. That's how I found out your ebay
ID, Weil. In short, you've been caught in hypocrisy again, Weil.

Weil is again to be a hypocrite twice on this very issue

Weil is a hypocrite once since he thinks that revealing eBay IDs are
a bad idea but he did it essentially the same way I did - by
discussing something he won in the recent past.

Weil is a hypocrite twice since he thinks that revealing eBay IDs is
a bad idea but he revealed mine."

You say that you didn't reveal your ID on RAO (which isn't true,
because you *did* do just that, by posting a link to the closed
auction).

I properly explained my claim that I didn't reveal my id on RAO, so there
was no lie.

But you *did* reveal your id on RAO by posting the link to the closed
auction that you won.

Then you say that I revealed yours.

With great flourish Weil, I might add. The objective was to embarrass and
humiliate me, but unfortunately you made yourself look pretty silly.

Nope. I didn't reveal it because you had already done that yourself.
You can only reveal it once. And you did it.

Unless you can find
someone else who "revealed your ID", then I must have been the first
to mention your ID on the group, including you, according to your
statement.

That would be your claim Weil, not mine.

So, I'd like to see a retraction of your false statements.

The alleged false statement is a creation of your twisted mind, Weil.
However, I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to the group for
the humiliating behavior of Dave Weil.

I see. YOu can't admit your mistake. Thank you for showing the group.

I love it when you spin like this. It really shows the group your true
colors.

First, I you *did* reveal your ID on the group, and second, that I
"revealed"
your ID on the group. I didn't "reveal" it, because you already had.

"First, I you did..."????

In English, please!

First, you *did*...

I'm not expecting you to be the man that I was though.

I decline to sexually mutilate myself to be like you, Weil.

Oh, you don't want to grow a set, eh?

I never denied that I posted the information that led to the
discovery of my eBay id on RAO. Indeed I said as much last night.

"So I didn't reveal my ID on RAO. I merely mentioned that I had
recently won something in an auction".

That's true.

It's *NOT* true. You posted a link to eBay that revealed your ID. Is
this true or not? Be a man and answer this direct question.

You didn't "merely mention" that you recently won something in an
auction. You posted the link.

And posting a link to a closed auction isn't mentioning it?

Nope, not when you're talking about revealing your ID. Does posting
the link allow everyone on the group to see your ID or not?

LOL!

And, as you have pointed out in the
past, posting a link to something communicates the information.

Not exactly, it provides a link to that communication. The information is
not communicated until the link is followed. In this case the link takes the
reader off of RAO, so the information in question was not posted on RAO.

You once claimed that posting a link on your site that referred to
other information revealed that information. Now you're claiming that
it isn't true.

Spin little man, spin.

Are you going to be man enough to admit that you were wrong, or is
your "head going to bleed"?

I make a policy of not honoring straw man arguments.

Yep, just as I thought. You don't have the courage to admit that you're
wrong.

There's a key element here that you're missing Weil. You have to show where
I was wrong. You ain't done that.

I have indeed shown that you were wrong.

You revealed the name arnyk as your ID by posting the link that showed
arnyk as the winner of the auction that you claimed you had won.

You lose.

Again.

dave weil said to ****-for-Brains:

"So I didn't reveal my ID on RAO. I merely mentioned that I had
recently won something in an auction".

That's true.

It's *NOT* true. You posted a link to eBay that revealed your ID. Is
this true or not? Be a man and answer this direct question.

In case anybody has forgotten, a certain RAOer of long ago posted
an offer of a substantial cash award ($10,000) for anybody who can
get Mr. **** to answer a question he has previously ducked.

Good luck, dave.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message


* There is no technical impediment to building SS amps, which use
lots of local NFB and minimal Global NFB. Some specialist amplifier
manufacturers do just that. Guess what? They offer some of the
benefits commonly attributable to tube amps and most of the benefits
attributable to SS amps. Best of both worlds, if you ask me.

One little problem. AFAIK tube amps have zero benefits as compared to SS
amps. Tell me just one!

**Tube amps, per se, have none. SOME tube amps have SOME advantages, over
SOME SS amps. Depends on the implementation.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"dave weil" wrote in message


You revealed the name arnyk as your ID by posting the link that showed
arnyk as the winner of the auction that you claimed you had won.

Weil, tou reveled your ID by bragging that you just won an AR turntable, I
believe for a certain price.. Since the link to eBay is well known, and
searching closed auctions is well-understood, it was as good as a link to
the closed auction. I determined your ID in a few seconds.

Note this all happened months ago, and the evidence mentioned has scrolled
off eBay. Therefore, what I just did is not the same as revealing Dave's ID

Note that Dave has again played the hypocrite, because he thinks that
safeguarding eBay IDs is important, but he went out of his way to again
reveal mine.

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 06:45:40 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message


You revealed the name arnyk as your ID by posting the link that showed
arnyk as the winner of the auction that you claimed you had won.

Weil, tou reveled your ID by bragging that you just won an AR turntable, I
believe for a certain price.. Since the link to eBay is well known, and
searching closed auctions is well-understood, it was as good as a link to
the closed auction. I determined your ID in a few seconds.

And yet, that's not the same thing as posting a direct link. After
all, you had no proof that that ID was me. It didn't bother me to
confirm it by talking positively about certain recent purchases. But,
until I did that, I could have denied that the ID was mine and you
wouldn't have been able to prove that it was me, short of purchasing
something from me.

Note this all happened months ago, and the evidence mentioned has scrolled
off eBay. Therefore, what I just did is not the same as revealing Dave's ID

Actually, you haven't revealed my ID. If you do, then you are doing a
wrong thing because I haven't authorized you to do it.

Note that Dave has again played the hypocrite, because he thinks that
safeguarding eBay IDs is important, but he went out of his way to again
reveal mine.

I think that safeguarding ones ID is important if someone thinks it's
important, which you obviously didn't because you posted a direct link
to it (like you don't think it's important to safeguard your wife's
work phone number).

I, on the other hand, have never done that. You could have never
confirmed my ID without my assent during this exchange and I only did
that *because* you haven't revealed the ID.

I find it funny that you would go through the trouble of stalking me
on eBay, but I guess that goes with the territory.

dave weil wrote in message :

On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 06:37:50 -0400, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
news
However, I don't see *you* admitting that you were wrong when you
claimed that I was the first to mention your eBay ID on the group,
when I showed that you posted a link to your closed transaction with
your turntable, a link that *clearly* showed your eBay ID.

I didn't say you were the first to mention it, Weil.

You claimed that I mentioned it and you didn't. Isn't that the same
thing?

"So I didn't reveal my ID on RAO. I merely mentioned that I had
recently won something in an auction. That's how I found out your ebay
ID, Weil. In short, you've been caught in hypocrisy again, Weil.

Weil is again to be a hypocrite twice on this very issue

Weil is a hypocrite once since he thinks that revealing eBay IDs are
a bad idea but he did it essentially the same way I did - by
discussing something he won in the recent past.

Weil is a hypocrite twice since he thinks that revealing eBay IDs is
a bad idea but he revealed mine."

You say that you didn't reveal your ID on RAO (which isn't true,
because you *did* do just that, by posting a link to the closed
auction). Then you say that I revealed yours. Unless you can find
someone else who "revealed your ID", then I must have been the first
to mention your ID on the group, including you, according to your
statement.

So, I'd like to see a retraction of your false statements. First, I
you *did* reveal your ID on the group, and second, that I "revealed"
your ID on the group. I didn't "reveal" it, because you already had.

I'm not expecting you to be the man that I was though.

I never denied that I posted the information that led to the discovery of my
eBay id on RAO. Indeed I said as much last night.

"So I didn't reveal my ID on RAO. I merely mentioned that I had
recently won something in an auction".

You didn't "merely mention" that you recently won something in an
auction. You posted the link. And, as you have pointed out in the
past, posting a link to something communicates the information.

Are you going to be man enough to admit that you were wrong, or is
your "head going to bleed"?

I make a policy of not honoring straw man arguments.

Yep, just as I thought. You don't have the courage to admit that
you're wrong.

Why should Arny admit anything to you when he just proved you're a
pedophile, you ****ing drug addict? Go ahead and deny what we all know,
it makes good theatre.




Stop picking on Arny Krueger!