Arnold MIA
dave weil
to get a new ISP, I *do* want to go on record as saying that I hope
that there's nothing wrong with him health-wise or family-wise.
George M. Middius
dave weil said:
I hope he doesn't get a new ISP.
Paul D.
Joe Duffy
Joe Duffy
Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:
>dave weil <dw...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Having speculated on the possibility that Arnold is currently trying
>>to get a new ISP, I *do* want to go on record as saying that I hope
>>that there's nothing wrong with him health-wise or family-wise.
>
>I don't mind either way.
Not nice, Dormouse!
You have to be *very* suspicious of those who want to muzzle the
opposition. Personally, I'm more than happy for the Hiddius Stinkh
twins (and the Vile Rodents) to expose their idiocy, and thereby bring
more sensible folks into the fold....................................
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Paul D.
>>>Having speculated on the possibility that Arnold is currently trying
>>>to get a new ISP, I *do* want to go on record as saying that I hope
>>>that there's nothing wrong with him health-wise or family-wise.
>>
>>I don't mind either way.
>
>Not nice, Dormouse!
How long did it take you to dream that one up?
>You have to be *very* suspicious of those who want to muzzle the
>opposition. Personally, I'm more than happy for the Hiddius Stinkh
>twins (and the Vile Rodents) to expose their idiocy, and thereby bring
>more sensible folks into the fold....................................
Do you consider yourself to be one of the "sensible" ones, Stewart?
You can't even seem to work out what side your bread is buttered on.
George M. Middius
Stewart Pinkerton said:
> You have to be *very* suspicious of those who want to muzzle the
> opposition. Personally, I'm more than happy for the Hiddius Stinkh
> twins (and the Vile Rodents) to expose their idiocy, and thereby bring
> more sensible folks into the fold....................................
You know who else boasts about exposing people as idiots? Yes, you're
right -- it's Arnii Krooger, whose mental disease is currently the
subject of a debate as to whether he's merely regressive or neurotic
as opposed to full-blown paranoid or psychotic.
trotsky
Still waiting on those DBT results, shitface.
dave weil
Would that be showing you where you were wrong about Crystal DACs, or
Sony DACs, perchance?
Hell, I'm just a lowly waiter with no degree <chuckle>.
Oh yeah, let's not forget about lumping Denon into the one bit crowd
when you even have one in the kitchen.
sockpuppet Yustabe
"George M. Middius" <Glanb...@KILLipoSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:emh1puo2fueo3uu2n...@4ax.com...
It's been much nicer here the last few days.
Jamie Benchimol
> Having speculated on the possibility that Arnold is currently trying
> to get a new ISP, I *do* want to go on record as saying that I hope
> that there's nothing wrong with him health-wise or family-wise.
While all our hearts are bleeding for poor Arny, who's 2 day absence
nearly moves some of us to tears, I would also like to go on record as
saying I also hope there is nothing wrong with him health-wise. Which
might prevent him from carrying out a full and complete sentence for
posession of and trafficking in child pornography. Although it might
be satisfactory to a few of us, just kicking the bucket from a heart
attack doesn't seem like a fitting end to his 6 year reign of terror
on Usenet. Whereas the psychological torture of up to 14 years in a
prison cell where you are marked a "boy-loving chickenhawk" in the
prison community (yes, even THEY have moral standards, fancy that, and
it don't get much lower than a boy-loving pedophile!) does. He'd have
more time to think about what he's done to people over the years, and
the little boys of Grosse Pointe would breathe a little easier.
I mention this because I resubmitted a pile of evidence against Mr.
Krueger to the MSP very recently, including the recent updates of his
alleged "visit" by an officer (which is yet another obvious lie of
his). So perhaps the reason for his unusual absence (for a lifetime
Usenet troll) has nothing to do with health problems. The MSP may have
decided there was enough evidence to arrest him, and he may be
currently detained in prison, awaiting bail. Of course, if he did make
bail after a few days, he would never admit that he was detained,
would he? So maybe we won't know the truth unless he is found guilty
of obstruction of justice and trafficking in child pornography, by a
court of law.
March Gibbs
I would like to go on record as not giving a rat's ass about Krueger.
Shit happens.
Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:
>pat...@dircon.co.uk (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:
>
>>>>Having speculated on the possibility that Arnold is currently trying
>>>>to get a new ISP, I *do* want to go on record as saying that I hope
>>>>that there's nothing wrong with him health-wise or family-wise.
>>>
>>>I don't mind either way.
>>
>>Not nice, Dormouse!
>
>How long did it take you to dream that one up?
It was your school nickname, wasn't it? It do seem to be appropriate
for one who appears to post while unconscious!
>>You have to be *very* suspicious of those who want to muzzle the
>>opposition. Personally, I'm more than happy for the Hiddius Stinkh
>>twins (and the Vile Rodents) to expose their idiocy, and thereby bring
>>more sensible folks into the fold....................................
>
>Do you consider yourself to be one of the "sensible" ones, Stewart?
Nope, but my audio opinions are.... :-)
>You can't even seem to work out what side your bread is buttered on.
The one that hits the floor when you drop it, of course!
Stewart Pinkerton
Benchimol) wrote:
>I mention this because I resubmitted a pile of evidence against Mr.
>Krueger to the MSP very recently,
You're a sad little stoolie aren't you, Benchimol? Your life must
really suck, when the only way you can express yourself is to go
screaming to 'the authoriities' because you can never actually win a
debate on the issues.
Stewart Pinkerton
>On Tue, 24 Sep 2002 21:51:30 GMT, pat...@dircon.co.uk (Stewart
>Pinkerton) wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 24 Sep 2002 21:25:17 +0100, Paul D. <sig...@lineone.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>dave weil <dw...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Having speculated on the possibility that Arnold is currently trying
>>>>to get a new ISP, I *do* want to go on record as saying that I hope
>>>>that there's nothing wrong with him health-wise or family-wise.
>>>
>>>I don't mind either way.
>>
>>Not nice, Dormouse!
>>
>>You have to be *very* suspicious of those who want to muzzle the
>>opposition. Personally, I'm more than happy for the Hiddius Stinkh
>>twins (and the Vile Rodents) to expose their idiocy, and thereby bring
>>more sensible folks into the fold....................................
>
>Would that be showing you where you were wrong about Crystal DACs, or
>Sony DACs, perchance?
Wrong? When?
>Hell, I'm just a lowly waiter with no degree <chuckle>.
>
>Oh yeah, let's not forget about lumping Denon into the one bit crowd
>when you even have one in the kitchen.
Excuse me? I don't recall having done such, and I'm not aware of *any*
Denon CD player which used single-bit DACs. The newer AV stuff may be
different, but since they still can't control jitter properly, it's
not really of any interest to me.
Jamie Benchimol
> On 24 Sep 2002 21:59:48 -0700, falu...@vajraguru.com (Jamie
> Benchimol) wrote:
>
> >I mention this because I resubmitted a pile of evidence against Mr.
> >Krueger to the MSP very recently,
>
> You're a sad little stoolie aren't you, Benchimol?
Now are you asking me or are you telling me, Pinkerton? Au contraire,
I'm actually a BIG stoolie, and quite proud of it. I'm helping to turn
in a child pornographer, and I may have succeeded in having him
arrested and arraigned. Why am I not surprised that a filthy stinking
racist and anti-semite scumbag like yourself would want to protect
your child pornographer buddy from those who would "stool" on him,
like me? Seems that your audio religion is more important to you than
your friend Krueger buggering young boys in his neighborhood. I think
that says a lot about you, Stewie.
> Your life must
> really suck, when the only way you can express yourself is to go
> screaming to 'the authoriities' because you can never actually win a
> debate on the issues.
Well first of all, I've won debates with you and your teamate Krueger,
but the problem is, neither of you pathetic dogmatists will ever admit
to actually having LOST a debate. Much less one against the likes of
me. Second of all, everyone already knows what a foul hypocrite you
are, such as when you make risible demands for evidence that you are
never able to supply when asked. So you're not even an intellectually
honest debater to begin with, and anyone trying to debate you is
wasting their time.
Thirdly, as I have now informed you, you will no longer be allowed to
introduce demands of "evidence, proof, fact" in your "debates". That's
the domain of the rec.audio.tech charter, and as such is in violation
of RAO's. I don't care if you don't like that, that's the way it's
gonna be from here on in. So GOODBYE STEWIE if you have a problem with
RAO's regulations.
But don't go yet, because I'm still not finished with you. Fourthly,
YOUR life must really suck when your standard for a good life is how
well you do on an audio debate on a newsgroup. Aren't you the other
failed audio engineer on the group who is NOT working as an audio
engineer and is relegated to trolling audio newsgroups? Thought so.
You engineering failures sure are a miserable lot, aren't you? You
seem to take out your frustrations of your own ineptness on everyone
who holds a subjective audio opinion and dismisses the relevance of
controlled tests. It's too bad that you will no longer be able to do
that, because of "stoolies" like me. Which reminds me, I have a letter
of complaint to write to your ISP....
We must chat again sometime, when you've found a different ISP to do
your trolling on.
BTW: You might want to look over your ISP's acceptable use policy once
again, in case you think you're bulletproof by trolling RAO in
violation of our charter:
"Responsible Use
You must act as a responsible Internet citizen at all times and follow
all Internet usage guidelines that are generally accepted by the
Internet community. "
Anon E Mouse
On 24 Sep 2002, a long time, well known troll calling himself "Jamie Benchimol" among several other names
wrote:
> [...]
>
> I mention this because I resubmitted a pile of evidence against Mr.
> Krueger to the MSP very recently, including the recent updates of his
> alleged "visit" by an officer (which is yet another obvious lie of
> his). So perhaps the reason for his unusual absence (for a lifetime
> Usenet troll) has nothing to do with health problems. [...]
Don't worry, he's fine. À ta place, je m'inquiéterais pour moi-même...
--
Anon E. Mouse
Anon E Mouse
On 25 Sep 2002, a long time, well known troll calling himself "Jamie Benchimol" among several other names
wrote:
> [...]
>
> BTW: You might want to look over your ISP's acceptable use policy once
> again, in case you think you're bulletproof by trolling RAO in
> violation of our charter:
>
> "Responsible Use
>
> You must act as a responsible Internet citizen at all times and follow
> all Internet usage guidelines that are generally accepted by the
> Internet community. "
Just watch us.
--
Anon E. Mouse
sockpuppet Yustabe
"Anon E Mouse" <a...@mauseloch.de> wrote in message
news:EJUF8IY837524.5224305556@Gilgamesh-frog.org...
Do you always roam the hallways mumbling to yourself?
Howard Ferstler
It's always nice in fantasyland.
Howard Ferstler
dave weil
Pinkerton) wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Sep 2002 22:45:42 GMT, dave weil <dw...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 24 Sep 2002 21:51:30 GMT, pat...@dircon.co.uk (Stewart
>>Pinkerton) wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 24 Sep 2002 21:25:17 +0100, Paul D. <sig...@lineone.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>dave weil <dw...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Having speculated on the possibility that Arnold is currently trying
>>>>>to get a new ISP, I *do* want to go on record as saying that I hope
>>>>>that there's nothing wrong with him health-wise or family-wise.
>>>>
>>>>I don't mind either way.
>>>
>>>Not nice, Dormouse!
>>>
>>>You have to be *very* suspicious of those who want to muzzle the
>>>opposition. Personally, I'm more than happy for the Hiddius Stinkh
>>>twins (and the Vile Rodents) to expose their idiocy, and thereby bring
>>>more sensible folks into the fold....................................
>>
>>Would that be showing you where you were wrong about Crystal DACs, or
>>Sony DACs, perchance?
>
>Wrong? When?
When I showed you that my Sony had a hybrid converter, that's when.
The jury's still out on the Santa Cruz, until you can show me
otherwise.
>>Hell, I'm just a lowly waiter with no degree <chuckle>.
>>
>>Oh yeah, let's not forget about lumping Denon into the one bit crowd
>>when you even have one in the kitchen.
>
>Excuse me? I don't recall having done such, and I'm not aware of *any*
>Denon CD player which used single-bit DACs.
Ohhhh, now we're backpedaling are we?
You claimed that a CD player was better than the Denon because it was
a multi-bit oversampling machine. Let us refresh our memories, shall
we?
>So why don't you give me a technical explanation of how the Rotel
>sounds different than the Denon or the Cambridge.
It is a multi-bit player with virtually zero output above 22kHz, so
may react quite differently from 'bitstream' players, with amps which
are sensitive to RF noise.
-------------------
Then, only when I said:
>That's kind of funny since Denons have always to my knowledge been
>multi-bit players. They never subscribed to the single-bit philosophy.
>And isn't the delta-sigma converter of the Cambridge Audio a multi-bit
>system?
You said:
Can't swear to the DAC in the DN-600F, but indeed Denon did previously
favour multi-bit DACs, so you might be right. OTOH, delta-sigma
converters are by definition single-bit.
--------------------------
Then of course, it turns out that delta-sigma converters are by
definition single-bt, except when they're not.
>The newer AV stuff may be
>different, but since they still can't control jitter properly, it's
>not really of any interest to me.
I have no idea what you're talking about here.
dave weil
I can understand your attitude considering how shitty he was to you
and your family on the day of your daughter's birth.
That was low, even by *his* standards.
BTW, got any cheap shopping centers for $100 down? I've decided I want
to be a millionaire by year's end.
Arny Krüger
> Having speculated on the possibility that Arnold is currently
Why in heaven's name would I need a new ISP?
What really happened is that Comcast's Grosse Pointe cable system
experienced a hardware failure that has affected my neighbor and I
since around 10 am on Thursday Sept 19. Since its just 2 customers,
we've gotten very low priority for our problem. We have very poor
cable TV particularly on the lower channels, and no cable internet.
If you know how cable modems work, the connection is obvious.
I've been lurking in RAO a bit, but frankly there has been so few
signs of intelligent life that I've not been stimulated to make a
reply at dial-up speeds.
Thanks for the crocodile tears, though Mr. Weil.
Arny Krüger
> I can understand your attitude considering how shitty he was to you
> and your family on the day of your daughter's birth.
Weil, let's not remember sockpuppet "Gibb's" reprehensible comments
attacking me before that. That would break your sworn code of
hypocrisy, wouldn't it?
dave weil
Well joe, see how even the best-intentioned comments are taken by
Arnold?
Turns out I was right about him getting a new ISP, even if it is short
term <chuckle> (*if* we are to take his story at face value). I'm
wondering how long it will be before he claims to drop Comcast because
of their"poor service" and pick up, say Direct TV or DSL. Will he be
able to wait the requisite time to make his story plausible, or will
he be driven by his need to post to tip his hand within a few days?
Only time will tell.
PS, I'm betting on the Direct TV because he'll be able to go tinker
with it on a snow-covered roof, thereby bringing back his glory days
in Bavaria.
Of course, this *could* be an Arnold fake, since he's used an umlaut
in his name for this particular posting. If it is, it's a darn good
one.
dave weil
wrote:
Did he attack you on one of the most special days of your life? aren't
the family-oriented posts the ones that you find the most aggregious?
I know that you've certainly received your share of nasty comments as
well. But, let's face it, you're not blameless. In fact, some of those
comments might be responsible for you working off of a dial-up account
at the moment.
George M. Middius
dave weil said to Shit-for-Brains:
> In fact, some of those comments might be responsible for you working off
> of a dial-up account at the moment.
Looks like Mr. Shit's ballistic rants and wanton accusations of
felonious behavior have come home to roost.
Arny Krueger
> >dave weil <dw...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:45c3pug0e9k0p5j6t...@4ax.com...
> >> I can understand your attitude considering how shitty he was to
you
> >> and your family on the day of your daughter's birth.
> >Weil, let's not remember sockpuppet "Gibb's" reprehensible
comments
> >attacking me before that. That would break your sworn code of
> >hypocrisy, wouldn't it?
> But, let's face it, you're not blameless.
Weil, your sworn oath of hypocrisy obviously won't let the truth slip
from your lips. Gibbs isn't blameless, and you aren't blameless,
either. You and Gibbs live in the same self-righteous bubble - you
can get as down and dirty as you want, but God help anybody who goes
hand to hand with you on your own filthy ground.
>In fact, some of those
> comments might be responsible for you working off of a dial-up
account
> at the moment.
Weil, as usual not only are you playing the role of the consummate
hypocrite, you're delusional.
The reason why I'm working off dialup has a lot to do with some windy
weather in SE Michigan last Thursday.
Read my lips - *ALL* cable service to my house is down - modem, TV,
the whole enchilada. And its down for my neighbor as well.
Fact of the matter - anybody with a brain (sorry to discriminate
against you gain, Weil) can see from the properties of this post that
I'm posting via the same path right now as I was using last week,
last month, and probably even last year.
Weil here's a word to the *wise*: Your lies would be more believable
if you at least occasionally told a believable story!
Arny Krueger
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 13:21:15 GMT, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:
>
> >
> >dave weil <dw...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:n4h1puc3ig3gsu7oe...@4ax.com...
> >
> >> Having speculated on the possibility that Arnold is currently
> >trying
> >> to get a new ISP, I *do* want to go on record as saying that I
hope
> >> that there's nothing wrong with him health-wise or family-wise.
> >
> >Why in heaven's name would I need a new ISP?
> >
> >What really happened is that Comcast's Grosse Pointe cable system
> >experienced a hardware failure that has affected my neighbor and I
> >since around 10 am on Thursday Sept 19. Since its just 2
customers,
> >we've gotten very low priority for our problem. We have very poor
> >cable TV particularly on the lower channels, and no cable
internet.
> >If you know how cable modems work, the connection is obvious.
> >
> >I've been lurking in RAO a bit, but frankly there has been so few
> >signs of intelligent life that I've not been stimulated to make a
> >reply at dial-up speeds.
> >
> >Thanks for the crocodile tears, though Mr. Weil.
> Well joe, see how even the best-intentioned comments are taken by
> Arnold?
Your crocodile tears are obviously just window-dressing to candy-coat
your lies.
> Turns out I was right about him getting a new ISP, even if it is
short
> term <chuckle>
Wrong Weil-liar! Anybody who wants to can compare the name of the ISP
I'm posting through today with the name of the ISP I posted through
last week, and see that they are one and the same. You've got me
confused with someone who doesn't have a few resources at his
disposal.
>(*if* we are to take his story at face value). I'm
> wondering how long it will be before he claims to drop Comcast
because
> of their"poor service" and pick up, say Direct TV or DSL.
Weil, you've obviously got me confused with someone who is has as few
technical resources as you do.
> Will he be
> able to wait the requisite time to make his story plausible, or
will
> he be driven by his need to post to tip his hand within a few days?
There's no hand to tip. My cards are on top of the table as usual.
> Only time will tell.
> PS, I'm betting on the Direct TV because he'll be able to go tinker
> with it on a snow-covered roof, thereby bringing back his glory
days
> in Bavaria.
Weil, you're clearly even more delusional than I thought.
dave weil
>
>dave weil <dw...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:48f3pukc64jk3dkeg...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 13:23:52 GMT, "Arny Krüger" <ar...@hotpop.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> >dave weil <dw...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> >news:45c3pug0e9k0p5j6t...@4ax.com...
>
>> >> I can understand your attitude considering how shitty he was to
>you
>> >> and your family on the day of your daughter's birth.
>
>> >Weil, let's not remember sockpuppet "Gibb's" reprehensible
>comments
>> >attacking me before that. That would break your sworn code of
>> >hypocrisy, wouldn't it?
>
>> But, let's face it, you're not blameless.
>
>Weil, your sworn oath of hypocrisy obviously won't let the truth slip
>from your lips. Gibbs isn't blameless, and you aren't blameless,
>either. You and Gibbs live in the same self-righteous bubble - you
>can get as down and dirty as you want, but God help anybody who goes
>hand to hand with you on your own filthy ground.
You know Arnold, even on the day of your son's funeral, your sworn
enemies were kind.
I don't claim to be 'blameless", but god knows you've provoked me
enough times yourself.
Still, I never stooped to claiming animal sex or anything so depraved.
I certainly ddidn't ever taunt you like you taunted March,
gratuitiously I might add, at the time of a blessed event, the birth
of his first child.
>>In fact, some of those
>> comments might be responsible for you working off of a dial-up
>account
>> at the moment.
>
>Weil, as usual not only are you playing the role of the consummate
>hypocrite, you're delusional.
Perhaps. Only time will tell, won't it?
>The reason why I'm working off dialup has a lot to do with some windy
>weather in SE Michigan last Thursday.
I see. That's how you were able to post on the Comcast account on
Friday morning at 8:22am, right? You'd better tighten up your story.
>Read my lips - *ALL* cable service to my house is down - modem, TV,
>the whole enchilada. And its down for my neighbor as well.
Well, we'll see, won't we?
As for now, we'll just have to take your word for it.
If that's the case, then I hope that Comcast can get your services up
before a whole week goes by. At least you'll be able to get some
credit for it.
>Fact of the matter - anybody with a brain (sorry to discriminate
>against you gain, Weil) can see from the properties of this post that
>I'm posting via the same path right now as I was using last week,
>last month, and probably even last year.
Ahhhh, except that your name *had* changed, indicating that you set up
a new account with a dialup. Now that you've realized your mistake,
you've gone back and changed it back. You can't change the ISP though.
Also, the ISP *has* changed with your previous posts, now hasn't it?
68.42.253.252 (your normal Grosse Pointe ISP) is a bit different than
67.37.78.3, or 67.38.92.142, right? Right now, for instance, you're
using Ameritech dialup. Is that what you were using last week, last
month, and probably last year? The first ISP I mentioned other than
your Comcast ISP was *also* Ameritech as well.
>Weil here's a word to the *wise*: Your lies would be more believable
>if you at least occasionally told a believable story!
Well, maybe you should look at *your* story and make it more
plausable.
dave weil
wrote:
If that's how you see it, then I can't change that.
>> Turns out I was right about him getting a new ISP, even if it is
>short
>> term <chuckle>
>
>Wrong Weil-liar! Anybody who wants to can compare the name of the ISP
>I'm posting through today with the name of the ISP I posted through
>last week, and see that they are one and the same. You've got me
>confused with someone who doesn't have a few resources at his
>disposal.
I just did. americitech and Comcast are different ISPs. One is a
dial-up and the other a cable connection.
>>(*if* we are to take his story at face value). I'm
>> wondering how long it will be before he claims to drop Comcast
>because
>> of their"poor service" and pick up, say Direct TV or DSL.
>
>Weil, you've obviously got me confused with someone who is has as few
>technical resources as you do.
>
>> Will he be
>> able to wait the requisite time to make his story plausible, or
>will
>> he be driven by his need to post to tip his hand within a few days?
>
>There's no hand to tip. My cards are on top of the table as usual.
BTW, your formatting program is hiccupping again...
Stewart Pinkerton
Benchimol) wrote:
> Which reminds me, I have a letter
>of complaint to write to your ISP....
Which one, dimbulb?
>We must chat again sometime, when you've found a different ISP to do
>your trolling on.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
>BTW: You might want to look over your ISP's acceptable use policy once
>again, in case you think you're bulletproof by trolling RAO in
>violation of our charter:
>
>"Responsible Use
>
>You must act as a responsible Internet citizen at all times and follow
>all Internet usage guidelines that are generally accepted by the
>Internet community. "
That's right, and you're the only brain-dead troll who's whining about
the discussion of DBTs on r.a.o, so why don't you just go back to
jerking off in front of all your kiddy-porn?
George M. Middius
Stewart Pinkerton said:
> > Which reminds me, I have a letter
> >of complaint to write to your ISP....
> Which one, dimbulb?
Now Pukey, don't you think you should cover your tracks before
pretending you're invulnerable? Let's try planet.net.uk and
freeserve.co.uk.
> >"Responsible Use
> >
> >You must act as a responsible Internet citizen at all times and follow
> >all Internet usage guidelines that are generally accepted by the
> >Internet community. "
>
> That's right, and you're the only brain-dead troll who's whining about
> the discussion of DBTs on r.a.o, so why don't you just go back to
Actually, Your Nerdship, there are only a few of you brain-damaged
ideologues who insist that "tests" are a fit subject for discussion
in an opinion forum. Maybe you can stretch your pickled brain a
little further and explain which of the example opinions given in
the RAO charter relies on "tests".
> jerking off in front of all your kiddy-porn?
Oh, I see the problem -- Pukey has Jamie confused with the Krooborg.
BTW, did you see the happy news that Krooger got booted off his
cable access by Comcast? The betting is now backing him showing up
with a DSL account in a week or two. After that, we'll have a pool
on whether he learned his lesson. ;-) At some point, though, if we
get rid of Krooger one way or another, you'll regret that, won't
you? Because Krooger is one of the two or three "testing" ideologues
who are even less sociable than you are. ;-(
Jamie Benchimol
>
> dave weil <dw...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:n4h1puc3ig3gsu7oe...@4ax.com...
>
> > Having speculated on the possibility that Arnold is currently
> trying
> > to get a new ISP, I *do* want to go on record as saying that I hope
> > that there's nothing wrong with him health-wise or family-wise.
>
> Why in heaven's name would I need a new ISP?
Gee... what an interesting question. Could it be because you have
repeatedly violated the terms of service of most of the ISP's out
there? Could it be because you have continually abused Usenet citizens
for years, posted 150 pieces of SPAM to Usenet, falsely accused half
the regulars on a Usenet newsgroup of trafficking in child
pornography, stalked and harassed other members, and violated RAO's
charter by incessantly posting objective opinions on audio? Could it
be because I complained to Comcast last week about you? Yep, I think
that much is obvious. Score one for the subjectivists again. Of
course, I'm not content to rest on my laurels, knowing that my efforts
have gotten you booted off your ISP. I won't be satisfied until you
are rotting in a prison in Michigan somewhere, and the inmates are
taking turns beating the living crap out of you, pedophile. You being
held in detention for several days is not gonna cut it, either.
> What really happened is that Comcast's Grosse Pointe cable system
> experienced a hardware failure that has affected my neighbor and I
> since around 10 am on Thursday Sept 19. Since its just 2 customers,
> we've gotten very low priority for our problem. We have very poor
> cable TV particularly on the lower channels, and no cable internet.
> If you know how cable modems work, the connection is obvious.
I'm afraid not, liar. The cable is mostly underground. Hardly going to
be affected by "wind". You had several days to think about, you
couldn't come up with a better lie than this? Here's another blow to
your LIE: You posted several times on Friday morning! First thing you
do when you come back is lie your arse off to everyone! That's how we
know you're not a forger.
And you know, maybe I was also right about you having been arrested by
the MSP and detained. Because something else doesn't seem right. You
have an AOL account, and you bragged about having several other ISP
accounts, in case I got you booted off for illicit and illegal
activities. We know that "Prodigy" isn't one of them, because you also
LIE about Prodigy being your ISP, by falsely writing the name of its
abuse address in the X-Complaints linen of your posts, in order to
HIDE the fact that you're posting from a Comcast account!!
So then. Why didn't you use one of those other accounts if your
Comcast was down? Could it be because you were in ****JAIL*****???!!
Could be. Since I resubmitted all of the evidence against you to
several dept's in the MSP, including the update about you lying about
having an MSP officer over at your home who you alleged closed the
child pornography investigation.
I see you've also changed your name again. But you're also still
posting under the OLD name! So is it "sockpuppet "Kruger" or
"Sockpuppet Krueger"? (sorry, NOT going to type an umlaut just for a
scum like you). What's the matter sockpuppet Arnold/Arny, is it that
"time" again, when you try to circumvent people's killfiles, that you
have to change your name once more? How many times would that be, over
half a dozen? It certainly has nothing to do with your new Ameritech
account, since you deliberately changed it in your HOTPOP account. You
realize of course that the fact that you change your name all the time
makes you, by definition, a "SOCKPUPPET". Any attempt to call anyone
else a "sockpuppet", especially someone who isn't, makes you, by
definition, a HYPOCRITE.
> I've been lurking in RAO a bit, but frankly there has been so few
> signs of intelligent life that I've not been stimulated to make a
> reply at dial-up speeds.
Yeah right again! Sockpuppet Arny/Arnold Kruger/Krueger doesn't "lurk"
on RAO. Someone who's such a pathetic loser that he even trolled RAO
while his own son was dying, would not "lurk". If you were within 50
miles of a computer, you'd be posting to this newsgroup, because you
can't stand the fact that people are talking about you, without you
being able to respond.
> Thanks for the crocodile tears, though Mr. Weil.
And to think that I was nice enough to say I wish you WEREN'T dead
from a heart attack. Just for that crack against David, I take it all
back. I hope that when you need to reach for your heart medication in
the throes of an attack, it's someplace where you will never be able
to get at it. Like the inside of a police station. Or maybe a health
food store.
Jamie Benchimol
> > On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 13:23:52 GMT, "Arny Krüger" <ar...@hotpop.com>
> > wrote:
>
> Weil, your sworn oath of hypocrisy obviously won't let the truth slip
> from your lips. Gibbs isn't blameless, and you aren't blameless,
> either. You and Gibbs live in the same self-righteous bubble - you
> can get as down and dirty as you want, but God help anybody who goes
> hand to hand with you on your own filthy ground.
When did either of these two men spit upon you after hearing the
announcement of your new born baby? Which you did to Mr. Gibbs? Ain't
no one dirtier on Usenet than YOU sockpuppet "Krueger/Kruger".
> Weil, as usual not only are you playing the role of the consummate
> hypocrite, you're delusional.
Arny, as usual not only are you playing the role of the consummate
hypocrite, you're delusional.
> The reason why I'm working off dialup has a lot to do with some windy
> weather in SE Michigan last Thursday.
Yeah right! So you're saying to us that it was a FORGER who posted
from YOUR Comcast ISP several times on Friday, ie. at 10:55 shown
here?:
From: "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com>
Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
Subject: Re: Any opinions on new KEF Q-Series speakers?
Organization: www.pcavtech.com & www.pcabx.com
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2479.0006
Message-ID: <DFGi9.3$0S6.2...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.42.253.252
DON'T THINK SO, LIAR! What does sockpuppet "Kruger" do on the first
day he's back? LIE his arse off to the entire group! Who is surprised?
> Read my lips - *ALL* cable service to my house is down - modem, TV,
> the whole enchilada. And its down for my neighbor as well.
Arny Codebreaker says: "Read my lips" is the exact equivalent of "The
fact of the matter is...". It ALWAYS precedes a LIE!
> Fact of the matter - anybody with a brain (sorry to discriminate
> against you gain, Weil) can see from the properties of this post that
> I'm posting via the same path right now as I was using last week,
> last month, and probably even last year.
Ah... the famous "fact of the matter" line. Which ALWAYS precedes one
of Arny's lies! Arny, anybody with a brain already realizes that you
wouldn't be "alluding" to some path in the properties of your post as
an excuse to explain why you haven't changed ISP's (which is a BLATANT
LIE). You'd be showing it in your post, so that we know what you're
referring to. But not you, no. YOU have to hide with your lies in the
darkness, bringing the lies out into the light only for a "fleeting
glimpse", lest people actually find out that you're showing us yet
another lie of yours.
Don't be scared Arny, what I'm showing below is a FACT. It won't kill
you, I promise. (Although it will beat the holy heck out of your lie
here).
This is the IP address you're sending this lie from: 67.37.78.3
This is the ISP the machine belongs to. It's NEW. You've NEVER posted
from it before:
Search results for: 67.37.78.3
OrgName: Ameritech Electronic Commerce
OrgID: AMER
NetRange: 67.36.0.0 - 67.39.255.255
CIDR: 67.36.0.0/14
NetName: AIT-ADSL4
NetHandle: NET-67-36-0-0-1
Parent: NET-67-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
NameServer: NS1.AMERITECH.NET
NameServer: NS2.AMERITECH.NET
Comment: ADDRESSES WITHIN THIS BLOCK ARE NON-PORTABLE
RegDate: 2001-08-30
Updated: 2002-03-18
> Weil here's a word to the *wise*: Your lies would be more believable
> if you at least occasionally told a believable story!
You mean the story you told about me having repeatedly asked you for a
$45,000 extortion for keeping quiet on your child pornography
collection was a "believable story"? You mean the story about you
claiming half the members of this newsgroup sent you child pornography
was a "believable story"? You mean the story about a "friendly old
man" who pays people in headphones to write critical things about you
was a "believable story"? You mean the story about you claiming to
have called the MSP to report your child pornography and only being
able to speak to an answering machine was a "believable story"? Even
though you changed the story later on and said that you DID speak to
them?
A word to the *wise* sockpuppet Krueger/Kruger (or whatever your real
name is): if you eliminate all the posts containing your hypocrisy and
LIES, you'd have nothing more to say.
Jamie Benchimol
> On 25 Sep 2002 00:30:56 -0700, falu...@vajraguru.com (Jamie
> Benchimol) wrote:
>
> > Which reminds me, I have a letter
> >of complaint to write to your ISP....
>
> Which one, dimbulb?
Whichever one you posted the message I'm complaining about, you
clueless retard. Do you have ANY idea how this works? Apparently not!
> >We must chat again sometime, when you've found a different ISP to do
> >your trolling on.
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
Funny, that sounds like what your partner Krueger said before I got
him kicked off his Comcast account recently. And your teamate ff123
got his wrists slapped recently as well, by his ISP. SEE what a good
little stoolie I am? Still think you're bulletproof Stewie? Think
again! ;-) Your days of trolling RAO with your objectivist bile are
OVER, my alcoholic friend.
> >You must act as a responsible Internet citizen at all times and follow
> >all Internet usage guidelines that are generally accepted by the
> >Internet community. "
>
> That's right, and you're the only brain-dead troll who's whining about
> the discussion of DBTs on r.a.o, so why don't you just go back to
> jerking off in front of all your kiddy-porn?
Oh my, such an angry, ballistic rant from the self-professed Master of
Rationality. Really my dear Pinkerton, isn't it a little early for you
to be this drunk? Well, I guess it never is. ;-)
Arny Krueger
It didn't take them very long to recover from a brief respite of
sane, decent behavior and descend into the bowels of darkness.
> I don't claim to be 'blameless", but god knows you've provoked me
> enough times yourself.
Weil, of course I've provoked you. Who wants to be proven to be a
liar and hypocrite as often as I've done it to you? A saner man would
have stopped trying, but not you!
> Still, I never stooped to claiming animal sex or anything so
depraved.
Weil, you've stooped in your own way. Gibbs stooped in his own way.
Is there a universal scorecard for ranking insults?
> I certainly didn't ever taunt you like you taunted March,
> gratuitously I might add.
Weil, given how many Gibbs attacked me previously, how can you claim
that it was gratuitous?
> >>In fact, some of those
> >> comments might be responsible for you working off of a dial-up
> >account
> >> at the moment.
> >Weil, as usual not only are you playing the role of the consummate
> >hypocrite, you're delusional.
> Perhaps. Only time will tell, won't it?
What's to tell?
> >The reason why I'm working off dialup has a lot to do with some
windy
> >weather in SE Michigan last Thursday.
> I see. That's how you were able to post on the Comcast account on
> Friday morning at 8:22am, right? You'd better tighten up your
story.
It was still windy on Friday.
> >Read my lips - *ALL* cable service to my house is down - modem,
TV,
> >the whole enchilada. And its down for my neighbor as well.
> Well, we'll see, won't we?
Weil I seriously doubt that you'll have the honesty it takes to admit
that you've been wrong. If you do, it will be a first in recent
remembrance.
> As for now, we'll just have to take your word for it.
Why bother, Weil? You've already started a rumor that Comcast gave me
the boot.
> If that's the case, then I hope that Comcast can get your services
up
> before a whole week goes by. At least you'll be able to get some
> credit for it.
I won't get credit, I'll just be afforded the privilege of not paying
for service they didn't provide. IOW, they won't try to defraud me.
> >Fact of the matter - anybody with a brain (sorry to discriminate
> >against you gain, Weil) can see from the properties of this post
that
> >I'm posting via the same path right now as I was using last week,
> >last month, and probably even last year.
> Ahhhh, except that your name *had* changed, indicating that you set
up
> a new account with a dialup.
Actually Weil, I just started using the dialup account I used before
I got a cable modem. I've maintained it because they provided better
newsgroup service than @home. What I said is that the posting path is
unchanged, and folks with Outlook Express and other NG software that
displays this information can verify it. Obviously, I'm now posting
via an Ameritech/SBC/Prodigy dialup POP in Detroit instead of a
Comcast IP address. But, I'm posting with the identical same email
address and Newsgroup server pool as before.
>Now that you've realized your mistake,
> you've gone back and changed it back. You can't change the ISP
though.
There was no mistake. The old dialup account simply had the
parameters that it had always had dating back to the late 1990's. I
noticed the variation in the spelling of my last name, knew from
experience that certain RAO regulars are highly obsessive and would
make a fuss if I changed even two letters, and updated the parameters
on this computer to match the ones on the computer that I usually use
to access Comcast.
BTW, I've been using this computer to lurk in newsgroups all along,
as its on the household network and has Comcast access when Comcast
access is working.
> Also, the ISP *has* changed with your previous posts, now hasn't
it?
Weil, why belabor of the obvious fact that dialup and cable modem are
two different services? The posting path has remained the same, which
is what I claimed.
2.253.252 (your normal Grosse Pointe ISP) is a bit different than
> 67.37.78.3, or 67.38.92.142, right?
Weil, since you are a Comcast customer, you should know that Comcast
issues IP addresses that are far more stable and also quite different
from what one gets when they dial into a dialup POP.
>Right now, for instance, you're using Ameritech dialup.
Weil, since you like to obsess over details, you should know that
Prodigy bought Flashnet some months (over a year?) ago and
Ameritech/SBC bought Prodigy. Thus this account is the logical and
continuously-maintained successor to my old Flashnet posting account.
>Is that what you were using last week, last
> month, and probably last year?
I've used this POP dialup account from time to time. I used it to
lurk in newsgroups, but rarely if ever posted from it. It's good for
testing modems, and the like. I've continuously used Prodigy's
newsgroup server constantly via @home (r.i.p.) and now Comcast.
Originally, I used Prodigy's newsgroup server just to maintain
continuity with my old Flashnet (r.i.p) account.
>The first ISP I mentioned other than
> your Comcast ISP was *also* Ameritech as well.
That's because it's all part of the same account I've been using
since the late 1990's.
> >Weil here's a word to the *wise*: Your lies would be more
believable
> >if you at least occasionally told a believable story!
> Well, maybe you should look at *your* story and make it more
> plausible.
Weil, just because you are too ignorant to see the continuity of this
account with my old Arnyk Flashnet account, as well as the connection
between it and how I've been posting to newsgroups via Comcast for
the past several years, that doesn't mean that the continuity isn't
there.
What's changed is that part of Comcast's network is down, and it has
temporarily impacted cable TV & modem service for my neighbor and I.
What hasn't changed is that rarity of intelligent life on R
AO.
dave weil
wrote:
So? That doesn't mitigate *your* nastiness.
Besides, I'm sure you had your hand and provoking them.
>> I don't claim to be 'blameless", but god knows you've provoked me
>> enough times yourself.
>
>Weil, of course I've provoked you.
Thank you.
>Who wants to be proven to be a liar and hypocrite as often as I've done it to you?
Well, you'd have to do it at least once, which you haven't done. In
fact, your last attempts *might* have just gotten you booted off of
your ISP.
> A saner man would have stopped trying, but not you!
>
>> Still, I never stooped to claiming animal sex or anything so
>depraved.
>
>Weil, you've stooped in your own way. Gibbs stooped in his own way.
>Is there a universal scorecard for ranking insults?
And you've stooped in your own *intimitable* way.
>> I certainly didn't ever taunt you like you taunted March,
>> gratuitously I might add.
>
>Weil, given how many Gibbs attacked me previously, how can you claim
>that it was gratuitous?
Because it was in reference to a post where I was congratulating him,
and it didn't have *anything* to do with you, or audio for that
matter. Maybe I should be busted for posting an off-topic post, but I
think that that sort of good-will type post only helps the atmosphere.
Of course, you had to screw it up.
>> >>In fact, some of those
>> >> comments might be responsible for you working off of a dial-up
>> >account
>> >> at the moment.
>
>> >Weil, as usual not only are you playing the role of the consummate
>> >hypocrite, you're delusional.
>
>> Perhaps. Only time will tell, won't it?
>
>What's to tell?
Whether or not you've been booted from Comcast. The timing of this
wildly odd incident is certainly suspicious.
>> >The reason why I'm working off dialup has a lot to do with some
>windy
>> >weather in SE Michigan last Thursday.
>
>> I see. That's how you were able to post on the Comcast account on
>> Friday morning at 8:22am, right? You'd better tighten up your
>story.
>
>It was still windy on Friday.
Ahhhh, but you specified Thursday, didn't you? Nice try though.
>> >Read my lips - *ALL* cable service to my house is down - modem,
>TV,
>> >the whole enchilada. And its down for my neighbor as well.
>
>> Well, we'll see, won't we?
>
>Weil I seriously doubt that you'll have the honesty it takes to admit
>that you've been wrong. If you do, it will be a first in recent
>remembrance.
When you come back on with a Comcast ISP, I'll be happy to
congratulate you. However, I wouldn't think I was out of the clear
yet, if I were you.
>> As for now, we'll just have to take your word for it.
>
>Why bother, Weil? You've already started a rumor that Comcast gave me
>the boot.
I simply speculated that you might have been booted. You didn't
announce a vacation as you usually did. You have pending complaints
against you. I thought (and still think) that it was a definite
possibility. Upon further reflection, I thought that it might be a
health or family issue, which is why I made my additional comment. I'm
glad that it wasn't.
>> If that's the case, then I hope that Comcast can get your services
>up
>> before a whole week goes by. At least you'll be able to get some
>> credit for it.
>
>I won't get credit, I'll just be afforded the privilege of not paying
>for service they didn't provide. IOW, they won't try to defraud me.
Well, that's done in the form of a credit.
>> >Fact of the matter - anybody with a brain (sorry to discriminate
>> >against you gain, Weil) can see from the properties of this post
>that
>> >I'm posting via the same path right now as I was using last week,
>> >last month, and probably even last year.
>
>> Ahhhh, except that your name *had* changed, indicating that you set
>up
>> a new account with a dialup.
>
>Actually Weil, I just started using the dialup account I used before
>I got a cable modem. I've maintained it because they provided better
>newsgroup service than @home. What I said is that the posting path is
>unchanged, and folks with Outlook Express and other NG software that
>displays this information can verify it. Obviously, I'm now posting
>via an Ameritech/SBC/Prodigy dialup POP in Detroit instead of a
>Comcast IP address. But, I'm posting with the identical same email
>address and Newsgroup server pool as before.
And I can post with your email address as well, as you've pointed out,
so it doesn't really matter. It's the ISP that's the issue, not some
easily mainuplated email address.
>>Now that you've realized your mistake,
>> you've gone back and changed it back. You can't change the ISP
>though.
>
>There was no mistake. The old dialup account simply had the
>parameters that it had always had dating back to the late 1990's. I
>noticed the variation in the spelling of my last name, knew from
>experience that certain RAO regulars are highly obsessive and would
>make a fuss if I changed even two letters, and updated the parameters
>on this computer to match the ones on the computer that I usually use
>to access Comcast.
In other words, you were busted.
>BTW, I've been using this computer to lurk in newsgroups all along,
>as its on the household network and has Comcast access when Comcast
>access is working.
>
>> Also, the ISP *has* changed with your previous posts, now hasn't
>it?
>
>Weil, why belabor of the obvious fact that dialup and cable modem are
>two different services? The posting path has remained the same, which
>is what I claimed.
What difference does *that* make with the issue that you aren't able
to use your Comcast account?
>2.253.252 (your normal Grosse Pointe ISP) is a bit different than
>> 67.37.78.3, or 67.38.92.142, right?
>
>Weil, since you are a Comcast customer, you should know that Comcast
>issues IP addresses that are far more stable and also quite different
>from what one gets when they dial into a dialup POP.
Yep.
>>Right now, for instance, you're using Ameritech dialup.
>
>Weil, since you like to obsess over details, you should know that
>Prodigy bought Flashnet some months (over a year?) ago and
>Ameritech/SBC bought Prodigy. Thus this account is the logical and
>continuously-maintained successor to my old Flashnet posting account.
So? If you've lost your Comcast account (which is a definite
possibility), then you'll be picking up another ISP soon anyway.
>>Is that what you were using last week, last
>> month, and probably last year?
>
>I've used this POP dialup account from time to time.
But not last week, right?
> I used it to lurk in newsgroups, but rarely if ever posted from it.
Well, you can't prove that you used it unless you posted from it.
> It's good for testing modems, and the like. I've continuously used Prodigy's
>newsgroup server constantly via @home (r.i.p.) and now Comcast.
>Originally, I used Prodigy's newsgroup server just to maintain
>continuity with my old Flashnet (r.i.p) account.
>
>>The first ISP I mentioned other than
>> your Comcast ISP was *also* Ameritech as well.
>
>That's because it's all part of the same account I've been using
>since the late 1990's.
So? It's irrelevant.
>> >Weil here's a word to the *wise*: Your lies would be more
>believable
>> >if you at least occasionally told a believable story!
>
>> Well, maybe you should look at *your* story and make it more
>> plausible.
>
>Weil, just because you are too ignorant to see the continuity of this
>account with my old Arnyk Flashnet account, as well as the connection
>between it and how I've been posting to newsgroups via Comcast for
>the past several years, that doesn't mean that the continuity isn't
>there.
Nor does it prove that the continuity *is* there. But that's besides
the point anyway. The issue is whether or not you've lost your Comcast
internet account.
I could care less what other options you have. After all, you still
have your AOL as well.
>What's changed is that part of Comcast's network is down, and it has
>temporarily impacted cable TV & modem service for my neighbor and I.
Here's the scenario that I see as a possibility - you claim that you
can't get them to help you in a timely manner so you switch ISPs.
Well, it's no big deal until you start your false claims again about
itentity theft and comments about animal sex. Then you'll be bouncing
yet again.
>What hasn't changed is that rarity of intelligent life on R
>AO.
Well, now that you've returned, that's certainly true...
Nomen Nescio
On 25 Sep 2002, a long time, well known troll calling himself "Jamie Benchimol" among several other names wrote:
> [...]
>
> This is the IP address you're sending this lie from: 67.37.78.3
> This is the ISP the machine belongs to. It's NEW. You've NEVER posted
> from it before:
[soupir] Pôôôôvre ti-pit...
--
Anon E. Mouse
sockpuppet Yustabe
"Jamie Benchimol" <falu...@vajraguru.com> wrote in message
news:c1bb3f4.02092...@posting.google.com...
> > Having speculated on the possibility that Arnold is currently
trying
> > to get a new ISP, I *do* want to go on record as saying that I
hope
> > that there's nothing wrong with him health-wise or family-wise.
>
> nearly moves some of us to tears, I would also like to go on record
as
> saying I also hope there is nothing wrong with him health-wise.
Which
> might prevent him from carrying out a full and complete sentence for
> posession of and trafficking in child pornography. Although it might
> be satisfactory to a few of us, just kicking the bucket from a heart
> attack doesn't seem like a fitting end to his 6 year reign of terror
> on Usenet. Whereas the psychological torture of up to 14 years in a
> prison cell where you are marked a "boy-loving chickenhawk" in the
> prison community (yes, even THEY have moral standards, fancy that,
and
> it don't get much lower than a boy-loving pedophile!) does. He'd
have
> more time to think about what he's done to people over the years,
and
> the little boys of Grosse Pointe would breathe a little easier.
>
> I mention this because I resubmitted a pile of evidence against Mr.
> Krueger to the MSP very recently, including the recent updates of
his
> alleged "visit" by an officer (which is yet another obvious lie of
> his). So perhaps the reason for his unusual absence (for a lifetime
have
> decided there was enough evidence to arrest him, and he may be
> currently detained in prison, awaiting bail. Of course, if he did
make
> bail after a few days, he would never admit that he was detained,
> would he? So maybe we won't know the truth unless he is found guilty
> of obstruction of justice and trafficking in child pornography, by a
> court of law.
We can only hope that they don't allow prisoners access
to Usenet.
sockpuppet Yustabe
"Howard Ferstler" <fer...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:d3d78e0.02092...@posting.google.com...
I'm glad the my reality is a whole lot nicer than your sorry reality.
Have misery!
Anon E Mouse
On 25 Sep 2002, a long time, well known troll calling himself "Jamie Benchimol" among several other names wrote:
> [...]
>
> Funny, that sounds like what your partner Krueger said before I got
> him kicked off his Comcast account recently. And your teamate ff123
> got his wrists slapped recently as well, by his ISP. SEE what a good
> little stoolie I am? [...]
Et tu vas faire quoi avec moi, mon ti-pit? Tu ne sais pas? Sais-tu ce qu'on
va faire avec toi? Correct, in progress... Tu vas aimer. >>>8->
--
Anon E. Mouse
[Playing] "You Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet" - BTO
sockpuppet Yustabe
"Jamie Benchimol" <falu...@vajraguru.com> wrote in message
news:c1bb3f4.02092...@posting.google.com...
>
of
> Rationality. Really my dear Pinkerton, isn't it a little early for
you
> to be this drunk? Well, I guess it never is. ;-)
cut him some slack.
he's five hours ahead of us and has had plenty
of time to get sloshed.
Jamie Benchimol
>
> dave weil <dw...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:dgn3pukjh4v7u83eu...@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 15:24:33 GMT, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >dave weil <dw...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > >news:48f3pukc64jk3dkeg...@4ax.com...
> > >> On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 13:23:52 GMT, "Arny Krüger"
> <ar...@hotpop.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >
> > >> >dave weil <dw...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > >> >news:45c3pug0e9k0p5j6t...@4ax.com...
> > >
> Weil, of course I've provoked you. Who wants to be proven to be a
> liar and hypocrite as often as I've done it to you? A saner man would
> have stopped trying, but not you!
Hi Arny. Jamie here. Remember me? I missed you.... Where've you been?
;-) Say "hi" to the nice folks in the abuse dept. at Comcast for me,
would ya? Anyway. I'm sure you were laughing yourself silly when you
wrote this bit of nonsense to Dave. You just admitted that you're
insane, because NO ONE on this newsgroup has ever been shown to be
more of a liar and a hypocrite than you.
> > Still, I never stooped to claiming animal sex or anything so
> depraved.
>
> Weil, you've stooped in your own way. Gibbs stooped in his own way.
> Is there a universal scorecard for ranking insults?
Actually, there is. You have the worst marks of anyone, in case you're
curious. Show us one thing that Weil has said to you that you claim is
the equivalent of your remarks to him about having sex with animals.
Then we can judge for ourselves.
> > I certainly didn't ever taunt you like you taunted March,
> > gratuitously I might add.
>
> Weil, given how many Gibbs attacked me previously, how can you claim
> that it was gratuitous?
Because Gibbs didn't -provoke- the attack, moron. And there's only ONE
Gibbs who attacked you. Take your pills.
> > >>In fact, some of those
> > >> comments might be responsible for you working off of a dial-up
> > >account
> > >> at the moment.
>
> > >Weil, as usual not only are you playing the role of the consummate
> > >hypocrite, you're delusional.
>
> > Perhaps. Only time will tell, won't it?
>
> What's to tell?
Unless you're able to post from your Comcast account, there's nothing
to tell. However, if you're NOT, you have a LOT of explaining to do,
mister!
> > >The reason why I'm working off dialup has a lot to do with some
> windy
> > >weather in SE Michigan last Thursday.
>
> > I see. That's how you were able to post on the Comcast account on
> > Friday morning at 8:22am, right? You'd better tighten up your
> story.
>
> It was still windy on Friday.
Oh good one! "It was still windy on Friday"! Yeah, that's the ticket!
By 10:55 the next day, this terrible "wind" in SE Michigan was just
wreaking havoc on the little burb of Grosse Pointe Woods, right?
That's some "wind" all right! Sure you don't mean to say "windbag"?
And how exactly did this "wind" rip up underground cable again? I'm
not sure I understood that part. Did it cause an earthquake in Grosse
Pointe, perhaps? And how is it that since Thursday, they still haven't
repaired it after a week? There must be some angry Comcast subscribers
in Grosse Pointe Woods, to have gone for a week without television,
huh? Who did they send to fix the cable, Yogi Bear?
So Sockpuppet "Kruger" (or whatever your name is today). Have you
thought about your NEXT lie yet, the one where you tell us why you
won't be returning to your Comcast account? We can't wait for you to
reel that one off. I'm betting that it's probably going to be "Comcast
took too long to fix the cable, so I'm dropping them".
You realize that the only way you're going to be able to prove to us
that I didn't get you booted off your Comcast account last week, is by
posting from the SAME Comcast account using the SAME IP address you've
used for years. If you don't do this, NO EXCUSE IN THE WORLD WILL SAVE
YOU. We -know- it's a lie, Krueger. You got booted off your Comcast
ISP for illicit and illegal activities.
> > >Read my lips - *ALL* cable service to my house is down - modem,
> TV,
> > >the whole enchilada. And its down for my neighbor as well.
>
> > Well, we'll see, won't we?
>
> Weil I seriously doubt that you'll have the honesty it takes to admit
> that you've been wrong. If you do, it will be a first in recent
> remembrance.
We'll believe it when we see it, liar. In fact, I think I might call
up Comcast to check out your story about their cable being down in GP
Woods, affecting a mere 2 subscribers. If you can't post from your
Comcast account, will you admit that you were LYING Arny?
> > As for now, we'll just have to take your word for it.
>
> Why bother, Weil? You've already started a rumor that Comcast gave me
> the boot.
Oh I'm sure you'll be able to squelch that rumor in NO TIME,
Sockpuppet "Kruger"/"Krueger"! All you have to do is post from your
Comcast account. You've ALREADY been stretching the truth quite a bit
here, to say that after a week, they still can't get the cable fixed!
> > >Fact of the matter - anybody with a brain (sorry to discriminate
> > >against you gain, Weil) can see from the properties of this post
> that
> > >I'm posting via the same path right now as I was using last week,
> > >last month, and probably even last year.
>
> > Ahhhh, except that your name *had* changed, indicating that you set
> up
> > a new account with a dialup.
>
> Actually Weil, I just started using the dialup account I used before
> I got a cable modem. I've maintained it because they provided better
> newsgroup service than @home. What I said is that the posting path is
> unchanged, and folks with Outlook Express and other NG software that
> displays this information can verify it. Obviously, I'm now posting
> via an Ameritech/SBC/Prodigy dialup POP in Detroit instead of a
> Comcast IP address. But, I'm posting with the identical same email
> address and Newsgroup server pool as before.
No you're NOT! You changed your email address to "Arny Kruger" (with
an umlaut in the "u") only after you came back on the group with an
Ameritech account. What's more, you do NOT have the same IP server as
you had before, indicating you've changed ISP's. You still put
"Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com" in your Organization field
and X-Complaints line, but that's ANOTHER thing I wanted to talk to
you about! What does "Prodigy" have to do with Ameritech and Comcast?
Looks to me like you're FAKING your true ISP because you KNOW that
people will be sending complaints to your ISP for your illicit and
illegal activities, and you want them to send it to the wrong address!
Another question: since you NEVER posted under an Ameritech account
before, why did you get another ISP just for the "downtime" between
the time it takes for Comcast to fix your cable connection? Were you
anticipating Comcast taking a year or something to fix your cable?!
> I
> noticed the variation in the spelling of my last name, knew from
> experience that certain RAO regulars are highly obsessive and would
> make a fuss if I changed even two letters,
Oh, you mean like the highly obsessive fuss that YOU make over the
letters in the names of other RAO regulars? Could THAT possibly be why
you think people would turn the tables on YOU, sockpuppet
Kruger/Krueger, or whatever your name is this week?
> > Also, the ISP *has* changed with your previous posts, now hasn't
> it?
>
> Weil, why belabor of the obvious fact that dialup and cable modem are
> two different services? The posting path has remained the same, which
> is what I claimed.
What does that have to do with the fact that I got you booted off of
Comcast for your reprehensible behavior on Usenet, Mr. Scumbag?
> Weil, since you like to obsess over details, you should know that
> Prodigy bought Flashnet some months (over a year?) ago and
> Ameritech/SBC bought Prodigy. Thus this account is the logical and
> continuously-maintained successor to my old Flashnet posting account.
Usual Kroo-logic obfuscations on that one, isn't it? You were last
seen posting under a COMCAST account, not Prodigy, even though you put
the name "Prodigy" in your post headers to try to fool people about
which ISP you were posting under. That's why we like to obsess over
details. And as you know, NO ONE obsesses over details as much as YOU
do, Krueger! What's the matter, don't like being in the hot seat, that
you put others in? Remember all those posts you made when you saw me
use different email addresses? Remember all those "details" you were
sweating over? Sure you do!
> I've used this POP dialup account from time to time. I used it to
> lurk in newsgroups, but rarely if ever posted from it.
You know damn well you've NEVER posted from it. You've NEVER posted
from it because you NEVER had it. Second of all, you don't "lurk" in
newsgroups! All your time is spent POSTING to newsgroups. Why would
you "lurk" in newsgroups on one computer, and "post" on another?? Why
wouldn't you be able to post in newsgroups on your Ameritech account
before, if as you falsely claim, you always had it? LIAR!
> It's good for testing modems, and the like.
Yeah right. Now we're supposed to believe that you pay $21.95 a month
(before taxes) just to "test modems" and "lurk in newsgroups"! LIAR!
> What's changed is that part of Comcast's network is down, and it has
> temporarily impacted cable TV & modem service for my neighbor and I.
That "temporarily" is a week now. I'll bet the farm that you won't
ever post from your Comcast account again. I can already anticipate
the excuse you'll come up with for why you can't do that!
> What hasn't changed is that rarity of intelligent life on RAO.
Then why do you come back to RAO the first chance you get? Do you
realize that if you continue to troll RAO with your objectivist
ABX/DBT garbage I will just get you booted off of Ameritech as quickly
as I got you booted off of Comcast?
Don Pearce
Benchimol) wrote:
>Hi Arny. Jamie here. Remember me? I missed you.... Where've you been?
>;-) Say "hi" to the nice folks in the abuse dept. at Comcast for me,
>would ya? Anyway. I'm sure you were laughing yourself silly when you
>wrote this bit of nonsense to Dave. You just admitted that you're
>insane, because NO ONE on this newsgroup has ever been shown to be
>more of a liar and a hypocrite than you.
The charter of this newsgroup is subjective opinions on audio. If you
persist in this abuse of the charter, you will be reported to the
abuse department of your ISP.
Kindly bear this in mind in all your future postings.
d
_____________________________
Telecommunications consultant
http://www.pearce.uk.com
The Devil
<donald...@pearce.uk.com> wrote:
Don, is your e-mail working?
--
The Devil
trotsky
The Devil wrote:
>
> On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 09:32:19 +0430, Don Pearce
> <donald...@pearce.uk.com> wrote:
>
> Don, is your e-mail working?
Is it attached to his brain?
Howard Ferstler
I do not think it pays to offer people explanations for what you do.
They will just contest your reply and go more off topic than ever.
It makes sense to just lurk here and answer a civil question once in a
while from a concerned individual. At that time, one can also suggest
that they migrate to RAHE or RAT, or one of the other intelligent
sites, and leave RAO to the twerps. It would also be a good idea to
post basic invitations periodically, inviting intelligent people to
try some of those other information sources. Whatever, it makes no
sense to become involved in a name-calling contest. I tried it and it
does not work. It makes no sense to reply to some goofball's
invitation to swap rants.
Indeed, I now realize that debating mental cases is just not workable,
and RAO (probably should be renamed rec.audio.fantasyland) is just
going to attract people of that kind. Those people are attracted to
audio, because it allows them to speculate wildly. The act of
speculating is what appeals to them.
Howard Ferstler
dave weil
Benchimol) wrote:
>Usual Kroo-logic obfuscations on that one, isn't it? You were last
>seen posting under a COMCAST account, not Prodigy, even though you put
>the name "Prodigy" in your post headers to try to fool people about
>which ISP you were posting under.
That really doesn't matter. Prodigy notifies the complainant with the
following:
------------------
Dear Internet user,
Thank you for contacting the Prodigy Postmaster Department with
information regarding unsolicited email and/or newsgroup abuse.
Please be aware that Internet abusers often mask their identity within
the header of the correspondence. The information you have sent to us
should be directed to another ISP (Internet Service Provider).
We have forwarded the email and full headers to the proper ISP.
Thank you.
---------------------
Note the middle part. And then note the third part.
So basically, not only was he getting complaints from me (and others
like you I assume), he was also getting complaints from Prodigy.
And for those who think I complained just to get Arnold off of the
group, think again. I complained because of his damaging and false
claims about me being an identity theft and being on probation from
some unnamed crime, with the collateral but obviously less serious
charges of sockpuppeting. I also complained when he suggested that it
was a possiblity that I was engaging in animal sex.
I think that, if he *did* get booted from Comcast, the last thing was
probably the final straw, especially considering that he did it to a
fellow Comcast customer.
I can certainly go toe to toe with Arnold without going to his ISP.
But when he crosses the line like he did, by making unprovable and
unsubstantiated claims just because it makes his day, then I'm sorry,
it's time for him to get inconvenienced. Maybe he'll learn his lesson.
If he has been telling the truth about the repairs, which at this
point seems a bit dodgy, then I'd suggest that he wait for the other
shoe to drop. It hasn't been all that long.
As I said, time will tell. And he'll soon be running out of broadband
options if he isn't careful. I *know* he doesn't want to go to dial-up
full-time.
March Gibbs
>BTW, got any cheap shopping centers for $100 down? I've decided I want
>to be a millionaire by year's end.
Yeah, me too.
March Gibbs
wrote:
>
>dave weil <dw...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:45c3pug0e9k0p5j6t...@4ax.com...
>
>> I can understand your attitude considering how shitty he was to you
>> and your family on the day of your daughter's birth.
>
>Weil, let's not remember sockpuppet "Gibb's" reprehensible comments
>attacking me before that. That would break your sworn code of
>hypocrisy, wouldn't it?
Look, dickhead, I didn't start in with you. It was the other way
around.
I asked a simple audio related question here and you started in with
your "minimalist" comments, etc.
All my comments to you from that point forward have been retaliatory.
You reap what you sow, "Krueger".
March Gibbs
wrote:
>Weil, given how many Gibbs attacked me previously, how can you claim
>that it was gratuitous?
You started it, Krueger. Now you're crying like a baby?
You are *always* the one to "draw first blood", so to speak.
You're a natural born entertainer, jerkoff.
dave weil
wrote:
>"Arny Kr ger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:<fLik9.378$075...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>...
>> dave weil <dw...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:n4h1puc3ig3gsu7oe...@4ax.com...
>>
>> > Having speculated on the possibility that Arnold is currently
>> trying
>> > to get a new ISP, I *do* want to go on record as saying that I hope
>> > that there's nothing wrong with him health-wise or family-wise.
>
>> Why in heaven's name would I need a new ISP?
>>
>> What really happened is that Comcast's Grosse Pointe cable system
>> experienced a hardware failure that has affected my neighbor and I
>> since around 10 am on Thursday Sept 19. Since its just 2 customers,
>> we've gotten very low priority for our problem. We have very poor
>> cable TV particularly on the lower channels, and no cable internet.
>> If you know how cable modems work, the connection is obvious.
>>
>> I've been lurking in RAO a bit, but frankly there has been so few
>> signs of intelligent life that I've not been stimulated to make a
>> reply at dial-up speeds.
>
>I do not think it pays to offer people explanations for what you do.
>They will just contest your reply and go more off topic than ever.
I really don't care about the explanations. The only thing that
matters is if my quite serious complaints knocked him off of Comcast.
There will *never* be any way for me to prove that he *is* knocked off
Comcast and no way that he *isn't*, barring posting from his Comcast
account. I don't care about the fact that I can't prove it (remember,
Arnold himself has used the "tactic" in his dealings with Jamie).
The important thing, whether or not he *ever* posts from Comcast
again, is whether his losing his broadband service might temper the
kinds of things that he says around here "just for the fun of it".
After all, most of us only have a handful of broadband options.
Eventually, you either change your posting habits (and I'm not talking
about being cranky or even deceitful, but I'm talking about charges
such as he's flung my way).
Who knows, maybe his stories are true about being knocked off the air
of a week. Maybe his service *is* that lax. However, having outlined
the probable scenario that he's cooked up in the event of his getting
the boot, I've taken the pins out of his explanation for a new,
"permanent" ISP. The thing is, he won't be able to *prove* his story
is grounded in fact either.
>It makes sense to just lurk here and answer a civil question once in a
>while from a concerned individual. At that time, one can also suggest
>that they migrate to RAHE or RAT, or one of the other intelligent
>sites, and leave RAO to the twerps. It would also be a good idea to
>post basic invitations periodically, inviting intelligent people to
>try some of those other information sources. Whatever, it makes no
>sense to become involved in a name-calling contest. I tried it and it
>does not work. It makes no sense to reply to some goofball's
>invitation to swap rants.
You seem like you've posted more in the past day about this subject
than you *ever* posted about audio. That's pretty ironic.
>Indeed, I now realize that debating mental cases is just not workable,
>and RAO (probably should be renamed rec.audio.fantasyland) is just
>going to attract people of that kind. Those people are attracted to
>audio, because it allows them to speculate wildly. The act of
>speculating is what appeals to them.
That could be, since you do it quite a bit yourself.
sockpuppet Yustabe
"Howard Ferstler" <fer...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:d3d78e0.02092...@posting.google.com...
The door is that way ---------------->
Don Pearce
<Ink...@SPAMOFFlycos.co.uk> wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 09:32:19 +0430, Don Pearce
><donald...@pearce.uk.com> wrote:
>
>Don, is your e-mail working?
Thought it was - I'll send a post and see.
Don Pearce
I am currently with an ISP I can only describe as "interesting". That
attachment is at best whimsical.
Arny Krueger
March Gibbs <mgibb...@charter.nets> wrote in message
news:mq46puc0i51bah5m1...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 19:50:20 GMT, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >Weil, given how many Gibbs attacked me previously, how can you
claim
> >that it was gratuitous?
>
> You started it, Krueger. Now you're crying like a baby?
I leave that sort of childish behavior up to tender babes like
"Benchimol", Weil, and Gibbs.
> You are *always* the one to "draw first blood", so to speak.
You're delusional.
> You're a natural born entertainer, jerkoff.
If you were entertaining March Gibbs, that would be a major upgrade.
Arny Krueger
March Gibbs <mgibb...@charter.nets> wrote in message
> >dave weil <dw...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:45c3pug0e9k0p5j6t...@4ax.com...
> >> I can understand your attitude considering how shitty he was to
you
> >> and your family on the day of your daughter's birth.
> >Weil, let's not remember sockpuppet "Gibb's" reprehensible
comments
> >attacking me before that. That would break your sworn code of
> >hypocrisy, wouldn't it?
> Look, dickhead, I didn't start in with you.
Sure you did, March.
>It was the other way around.
> I asked a simple audio related question here and you started in
with
> your "minimalist" comments, etc.
Talking about my audio opinions constitutes picking a fight with you,
Gibbs? You must be really hypersensitive.
> You reap what you sow, "Krueger".
I reap many things that I didn't sow. I have *helpers* who sow things
for me, like Weil and Middius.
You came in the door with a big chip on your shoulder, Gibbs. Isn't
it true that, you'd previously had a business relationship with Weil?
dave weil
wrote:
>
I sold him a Mesa Baron amp in exchange for cash and 2 B&K 4100
monoblocks. This is well-known. I also bought a $1 album from a yard
sale the other day, which means that I have a business relationship
with them as well. I'm sorry that I can't confirm that it's not
someone here on RAO as I didn't catch their name.
I wonder how many people that have posted on RAO have a "business
relationship" with you.
Must be a drag not to have cable TV. Hopefully you have a backup
antenna, because that way, you didn't miss what was probably the one
case where TV promo hype lived up to its hyperbole (I'm referring to
the ER promo that claimed "a truly shocking moment that you just can't
miss" in their season's premiere). I just about jumped out of my seat
in the first 10 minutes.
Arny Krueger
> I really don't care about the explanations. The only thing that
> matters is if my quite serious complaints knocked him off of
Comcast.
It is very nice of you to admit your hypocrisy. Weil.
The funny thing is that Comcast has never said anything at all to me
about your complaints. I guess they considered the source!
> There will *never* be any way for me to prove that he *is* knocked
off
> Comcast and no way that he *isn't*, barring posting from his
Comcast
> account.
That's just another example of your stupidity, Weil. You've been
claiming that I got knocked off Comcast's Internet service, but you
can't prove it.
OTOH, I can prove that I'm still a Comcast subscriber by sending
people email from my Comcast Email account. When Comcast finally
fixes their wiring, I'll resume posting from an IP address that was
assigned to Comcast. The egg will be on your face, Weil.
Ironically Weil, I see no actual evidence that you post from a
Comcast IP address. You might want to explain to people why up until
this wiring outage I've been making posts that clearly indicate that
I post from a Comcast POP IP address (as you have personally
verified) while you haven't!
>I don't care about the fact that I can't prove it (remember,
> Arnold himself has used the "tactic" in his dealings with Jamie).
I find it very interesting that Gibbs, Weil, and Benchimol have all
publicly taken credit for getting me booted off Comcast. When in fact
I'm still a Comcast subscriber.
> The important thing, whether or not he *ever* posts from Comcast
> again, is whether his losing his broadband service might temper the
> kinds of things that he says around here "just for the fun of it".
It's called an "opinion" newsgroup Weil, so what's wrong with me
posting some opinions?
Again, you stated factually that I've lost my broadband posting
rights while what really happened is that part of Comcast's
infrastructure broke.
BTW, given how Comcast is dragging their butts fixing their wiring,
I updated this copy of OE to log onto my Comcast email account to
clear off the spam, etc. and avoid blowing my 5 meg space limit on
their email server.I logged on, and downloaded my email. No problems!
> After all, most of us only have a handful of broadband options.
Uhh, make that some of us...
> Eventually, you either change your posting habits (and I'm not
talking
> about being cranky or even deceitful, but I'm talking about charges
> such as he's flung my way).
Weil, if deceitful posting caused the loss of posting privileges,
you'd be out of here.
> Who knows, maybe his stories are true about being knocked off the
air
> of a week. Maybe his service *is* that lax. However, having
outlined
> the probable scenario that he's cooked up in the event of his
getting
> the boot, I've taken the pins out of his explanation for a new,
> "permanent" ISP. The thing is, he won't be able to *prove* his
story
> is grounded in fact either.
Sure I can. Comcast fixes their wiring, I start making posts from a
Comcast IP address, and lots of people have a big laugh at the
expense of Benchimol, Gibbs, and Weil. Will I have the exact same IP
address as before? I don't know. AFAIK its dynamically assigned. But
if its different, it will still be a Comcast IP address.
> >It makes sense to just lurk here and answer a civil question once
in a
> >while from a concerned individual.
It was fun to lurk here and watch Weil start out with his "concerned
citizen" pitch and quickly descended into his "shut Arny up any way I
can" persona.
> >At that time, one can also suggest
> >that they migrate to RAHE or RAT, or one of the other intelligent
> >sites, and leave RAO to the twerps.
A tempting proposition.
> >It would also be a good idea to
> >post basic invitations periodically, inviting intelligent people
to
> >try some of those other information sources. Whatever, it makes no
> >sense to become involved in a name-calling contest. I tried it and
it
> >does not work. It makes no sense to reply to some goofball's
> >invitation to swap rants.
It's just another opportunity to jerk Weil and his posse around, and
let them humiliate themselves in public.
> You seem like you've posted more in the past day about this subject
> than you *ever* posted about audio. That's pretty ironic.
Yet another lie from Weil.
> >Indeed, I now realize that debating mental cases is just not
workable,
> >and RAO (probably should be renamed rec.audio.fantasyland) is just
> >going to attract people of that kind. Those people are attracted
to
> >audio, because it allows them to speculate wildly. The act of
> >speculating is what appeals to them.
Not quite. Audio's attraction to them has been the opportunity for
them to say "It is this way because I say it is this way" and without
any accountability. We added accountability to audio with ABX over 20
years ago. They've been fighting the obvious for that long!
dave weil
wrote:
>
>dave weil <dw...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:nv76pu4uipcetsrb8...@4ax.com...
>
>> I really don't care about the explanations. The only thing that
>> matters is if my quite serious complaints knocked him off of
>Comcast.
>It is very nice of you to admit your hypocrisy. Weil.
It's not hypocrisy.
>The funny thing is that Comcast has never said anything at all to me
>about your complaints. I guess they considered the source!
>
>> There will *never* be any way for me to prove that he *is* knocked
>off
>> Comcast and no way that he *isn't*, barring posting from his
>Comcast
>> account.
>
>That's just another example of your stupidity, Weil. You've been
>claiming that I got knocked off Comcast's Internet service, but you
>can't prove it.
This is a lie. I have never claimed that. I have claimed that it's a
possibility. And it is.
>OTOH, I can prove that I'm still a Comcast subscriber by sending
>people email from my Comcast Email account. When Comcast finally
>fixes their wiring, I'll resume posting from an IP address that was
>assigned to Comcast. The egg will be on your face, Weil.
Then you should do that.
As i said, if it turns out that you have just been knocked off the
air, I've said that I'll be among the first to acknowledge it.
>Ironically Weil, I see no actual evidence that you post from a
>Comcast IP address. You might want to explain to people why up until
>this wiring outage I've been making posts that clearly indicate that
>I post from a Comcast POP IP address (as you have personally
>verified) while you haven't!
>
>>I don't care about the fact that I can't prove it (remember,
>> Arnold himself has used the "tactic" in his dealings with Jamie).
>
>I find it very interesting that Gibbs, Weil, and Benchimol have all
>publicly taken credit for getting me booted off Comcast. When in fact
>I'm still a Comcast subscriber.
I haven't done any such thing. I've already disputed that.
>> The important thing, whether or not he *ever* posts from Comcast
>> again, is whether his losing his broadband service might temper the
>> kinds of things that he says around here "just for the fun of it".
>
>It's called an "opinion" newsgroup Weil, so what's wrong with me
>posting some opinions?
There's nothing wrong with posting "opinions". I have never complained
to your ISP about even your most bizarre opinion and even your idiotic
behavior. However, when you started making unsubstantiated claims
about me *and* passed the bounds of good taste by linking me with
possible animal sex, I think that it goes beyond opinions. I took an
option that's even open to *you*when it comes to those claims of child
pornography. I seem to remember that you actually went to other
newsgroups and tried to get people that weren't even involved to do
the same thing. Hypocrisy anyone? What you did is even worse because
you tried to orchestrate a mass ISP protest.
>Again, you stated factually that I've lost my broadband posting
>rights while what really happened is that part of Comcast's
>infrastructure broke.
Again, I did no such thing. I've stated that it is a possibility and
it is indeed.
BTW, you can stay a Comcast subscriber on the TV side in any case.
>BTW, given how Comcast is dragging their butts fixing their wiring,
>I updated this copy of OE to log onto my Comcast email account to
>clear off the spam, etc. and avoid blowing my 5 meg space limit on
>their email server.I logged on, and downloaded my email. No problems!
>
>> After all, most of us only have a handful of broadband options.
>
>Uhh, make that some of us...
I'm sure that you have hundreds...
>> Eventually, you either change your posting habits (and I'm not
>talking
>> about being cranky or even deceitful, but I'm talking about charges
>> such as he's flung my way).
>
>Weil, if deceitful posting caused the loss of posting privileges,
>you'd be out of here.
Hardly.
>> Who knows, maybe his stories are true about being knocked off the
>air
>> of a week. Maybe his service *is* that lax. However, having
>outlined
>> the probable scenario that he's cooked up in the event of his
>getting
>> the boot, I've taken the pins out of his explanation for a new,
>> "permanent" ISP. The thing is, he won't be able to *prove* his
>story
>> is grounded in fact either.
>
>Sure I can. Comcast fixes their wiring, I start making posts from a
>Comcast IP address, and lots of people have a big laugh at the
>expense of Benchimol, Gibbs, and Weil. Will I have the exact same IP
>address as before? I don't know. AFAIK its dynamically assigned. But
>if its different, it will still be a Comcast IP address.
You really can't read, can you. The proof part refers to the
possibility that you come back with, say, a Direct TV or DSL account.
And nobody is claiming that if you return, that the ISP number has to
be the same one that Comcast previously supplied. All it takes is a
simple tracert command to support the claim that the new number is a
Comcast ISP.
>> >It makes sense to just lurk here and answer a civil question once
>in a
>> >while from a concerned individual.
>
>It was fun to lurk here and watch Weil start out with his "concerned
>citizen" pitch and quickly descended into his "shut Arny up any way I
>can" persona.
Yes, I'm a concerned citizen when it comes to protecting *this*
citizen. I don't care about how you treat others. That's *your* issue
to deal with. I would never complain to your ISP to protect someone
else, as you asked others to do.
>> >At that time, one can also suggest
>> >that they migrate to RAHE or RAT, or one of the other intelligent
>> >sites, and leave RAO to the twerps.
>
>A tempting proposition.
Hopefully, you can be tempted. But I doubt it.
>> >It would also be a good idea to
>> >post basic invitations periodically, inviting intelligent people
>to
>> >try some of those other information sources. Whatever, it makes no
>> >sense to become involved in a name-calling contest. I tried it and
>it
>> >does not work. It makes no sense to reply to some goofball's
>> >invitation to swap rants.
>
>It's just another opportunity to jerk Weil and his posse around, and
>let them humiliate themselves in public.
You mean like you do when you make posts about animal sex? Or is that
a fitting topic for your Sunday morning live music sessions?
>> You seem like you've posted more in the past day about this subject
>> than you *ever* posted about audio. That's pretty ironic.
>
>Yet another lie from Weil.
If a little bit of hyperbole is a lie, then I plead guilty.
dave weil
wrote:
>OTOH, I can prove that I'm still a Comcast subscriber by sending
>people email from my Comcast Email account. When Comcast finally
>fixes their wiring, I'll resume posting from an IP address that was
>assigned to Comcast. The egg will be on your face, Weil.
I find it funny that you haven't sent me a test message from your
email account to do just that.
I'll be happy to confirm that you are still a Comcast internet
subscriber when that happens.
Arny Krueger
> On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 14:12:14 GMT, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com>
> wrote:
> >You came in the door with a big chip on your shoulder, Gibbs.
Isn't
> >it true that, you'd previously had a business relationship with
Weil?
> I sold him a Mesa Baron amp in exchange for cash and 2 B&K 4100
> monoblocks. This is well-known.
Business relationships are denominated in dollars. How many dollars
was that one worth?
Let me guess. No discussion of RAO or personalities on RAO were
involved with that transaction?
>I also bought a $1 album from a yard
> sale the other day, which means that I have a business relationship
> with them as well.
Yes, $1 worth!
LOL!
>I'm sorry that I can't confirm that it's not
> someone here on RAO as I didn't catch their name.
Obviously immaterial.
> I wonder how many people that have posted on RAO have a "business
> relationship" with you.
AFAIK there has been 100% disclosure of that. Can you say the same,
Weil?
> Must be a drag not to have cable TV.
The roof antenna is still there, still works.
> Hopefully you have a backup
> antenna, because that way, you didn't miss what was probably the
one
> case where TV promo hype lived up to its hyperbole (I'm referring
to
> the ER promo that claimed "a truly shocking moment that you just
can't
> miss" in their season's premiere). I just about jumped out of my
seat
> in the first 10 minutes.
I didn't find it that exceptional. Removing the arm of a surgeon with
a helicopter tail rotor is AFAIK not usually that neat.
BTW, my roof antenna vastly outperforms Grosse Pointe Cable on local
channels, even when their system is working well.
Arny Krueger
> >dave weil <dw...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:nv76pu4uipcetsrb8...@4ax.com...
> >> I really don't care about the explanations. The only thing that
> >> matters is if my quite serious complaints knocked him off of
> >Comcast.
> >It is very nice of you to admit your hypocrisy. Weil.
> It's not hypocrisy.
It is hypocrisy.
> >The funny thing is that Comcast has never said anything at all to
me
> >about your complaints. I guess they considered the source!
> >> There will *never* be any way for me to prove that he *is*
knocked
> >off
> >> Comcast and no way that he *isn't*, barring posting from his
> >Comcast
> >> account.
> >That's just another example of your stupidity, Weil. You've been
> >claiming that I got knocked off Comcast's Internet service, but
you
> >can't prove it.
> This is a lie. I have never claimed that.
You ought to watch what you write, Weil.
> I have claimed that it's a
> possibility. And it is.
Weil, you've drifted into stronger statements than that.
> >OTOH, I can prove that I'm still a Comcast subscriber by sending
> >people email from my Comcast Email account. When Comcast finally
> >fixes their wiring, I'll resume posting from an IP address that
was
> >assigned to Comcast. The egg will be on your face, Weil.
Ironically, one of the emails in one of my inboxes today was spam
from a "David Weil". I get a feeling that someone has come up with a
new angle on harvesting email addresses from Usenet.
> Then you should do that.
Anybody who wants to can send me email at my Comcast Email address
which is xx...@comcast.net (It follows the usual pattern so just
replace the "xxxx" with "arnyk" ) I'll respond to it, thus proving
that I'm still a Comcast internet customer. Everybody gets a big
laugh at the expense of Gibbs, Weil, and Benchimol!
> As I said, if it turns out that you have just been knocked off the
> air, I've said that I'll be among the first to acknowledge it.
No you won't Weil, I will acknowledge it first.
> >Ironically Weil, I see no actual evidence that you post from a
> >Comcast IP address. You might want to explain to people why up
until
> >this wiring outage I've been making posts that clearly indicate
that
> >I post from a Comcast POP IP address (as you have personally
> >verified) while you haven't!
<Notice that Weil has no explanation for the fact that he can't prove
that he has a Comcast IP address even though he posts with references
to a Comcast Email address.>
> >>I don't care about the fact that I can't prove it (remember,
> >> Arnold himself has used the "tactic" in his dealings with
Jamie).
> >I find it very interesting that Gibbs, Weil, and Benchimol have
all
> >publicly taken credit for getting me booted off Comcast. When in
fact
> >I'm still a Comcast subscriber.
> I haven't done any such thing. I've already disputed that.
Weil, your enthusiasm has gone further than it should have.
> >> The important thing, whether or not he *ever* posts from Comcast
> >> again, is whether his losing his broadband service might temper
the
> >> kinds of things that he says around here "just for the fun of
it".
> >It's called an "opinion" newsgroup Weil, so what's wrong with me
> >posting some opinions?
> There's nothing wrong with posting "opinions". I have never
complained
> to your ISP about even your most bizarre opinion and even your
idiotic
> behavior. However, when you started making unsubstantiated claims
> about me *and* passed the bounds of good taste by linking me with
> possible animal sex, I think that it goes beyond opinions. I took
an
> option that's even open to *you*when it comes to those claims of
child
> pornography.
Look what good it did you, Weil? It caused you and Gibbs and
Benchimol to once again make fools of yourself in public. Plus it
provided me with a reason to question why my posts made via Comcast's
cable modem infrastructure carry a Comcast IP address, but yours
don't!
>I seem to remember that you actually went to other
> newsgroups and tried to get people that weren't even involved to do
> the same thing.
Well, it worked as far as it went. Benchimol lost his "fireofjesu"
Usenet posting account.
>Hypocrisy anyone? What you did is even worse because
> you tried to orchestrate a mass ISP protest.
I succeeded because "Benchimol" went way over the top. BTW Weil, you
might want to explain why you are so conversant with "Benchimol"
activities in newsgroups where you have no explicit presence.
> >Again, you stated factually that I've lost my broadband posting
> >rights while what really happened is that part of Comcast's
> >infrastructure broke.
> Again, I did no such thing. I've stated that it is a possibility
and
> it is indeed.
It was wish-fulfillment on your part, Weil. The good news is that I
got you to drop your "concerned citizen" facade and admit that you
are trying to get me booted off the web.
> BTW, you can stay a Comcast subscriber on the TV side in any case.
Where's the problem, Weil. Send me email at my Comcast email address.
I'll return it to you. That will prove that Comcast has taken no
action against me.
> >BTW, given how Comcast is dragging their butts fixing their
wiring,
> >I updated this copy of OE to log onto my Comcast email account to
> >clear off the spam, etc. and avoid blowing my 5 meg space limit on
> >their email server.I logged on, and downloaded my email. No
problems!
> >> After all, most of us only have a handful of broadband options.
> >Uhh, make that some of us...
> I'm sure that you have hundreds...
More than a handful. Comes from living in a civilized part of the
world.
> >> Eventually, you either change your posting habits (and I'm not
> >talking
> >> about being cranky or even deceitful, but I'm talking about
charges
> >> such as he's flung my way).
> >Weil, if deceitful posting caused the loss of posting privileges,
> >you'd be out of here.
> Hardly.
Surely.
> >> Who knows, maybe his stories are true about being knocked off
the
> >air
> >> of a week. Maybe his service *is* that lax. However, having
> >outlined
> >> the probable scenario that he's cooked up in the event of his
> >getting
> >> the boot, I've taken the pins out of his explanation for a new,
> >> "permanent" ISP. The thing is, he won't be able to *prove* his
> >story
> >> is grounded in fact either.
> >Sure I can. Comcast fixes their wiring, I start making posts from
a
> >Comcast IP address, and lots of people have a big laugh at the
> >expense of Benchimol, Gibbs, and Weil. Will I have the exact same
IP
> >address as before? I don't know. AFAIK its dynamically assigned.
But
> >if its different, it will still be a Comcast IP address.
> You really can't read, can you. The proof part refers to the
> possibility that you come back with, say, a Direct TV or DSL
account.
Comcast would have to do some serious foot-dragging for that to
happen. They've promised to fix everything tomorrow. We'll see!
> And nobody is claiming that if you return, that the ISP number has
to
> be the same one that Comcast previously supplied.
Weil, what are you gibbering about? What is an "ISP number"?
>All it takes is a
> simple tracert command to support the claim that the new number is
a
> Comcast ISP.
That would work. Comcast & Ameritech IP addresses work with Arin, as
well.
> >> >It makes sense to just lurk here and answer a civil question
once
> >in a
> >> >while from a concerned individual.
> >It was fun to lurk here and watch Weil start out with his
"concerned
> >citizen" pitch and quickly descended into his "shut Arny up any
way I
> >can" persona.
> Yes, I'm a concerned citizen when it comes to protecting *this*
> citizen.
Which is why Weil your posts show no sure evidence of posting from
Comcast despite your use of a Comcast email address?
>I don't care about how you treat others. That's *your* issue
> to deal with. I would never complain to your ISP to protect someone
> else, as you asked others to do.
A public nuisance like Benchimol is a public nuisance.
> >> >At that time, one can also suggest
> >> >that they migrate to RAHE or RAT, or one of the other
intelligent
> >> >sites, and leave RAO to the twerps.
> >A tempting proposition.
> Hopefully, you can be tempted. But I doubt it.
Been there, done that. Trouble is, moderation at rec.audio.high-end
doesn't prevent the anti-scientific contingent from wasting
everybody's time with amazing feats of forgetfulness.
> >> >It would also be a good idea to
> >> >post basic invitations periodically, inviting intelligent
people
> >to
> >> >try some of those other information sources. Whatever, it makes
no
> >> >sense to become involved in a name-calling contest. I tried it
and
> >it
> >> >does not work. It makes no sense to reply to some goofball's
> >> >invitation to swap rants.
> >It's just another opportunity to jerk Weil and his posse around,
and
> >let them humiliate themselves in public.
> You mean like you do when you make posts about animal sex?
Weil, do try to stay on topic. Your obsession with animal sex is
noted.
>Or is that
> a fitting topic for your Sunday morning live music sessions?
Weil, apparently you know that you're getting your ass kicked here.
Your mind is wandering in all directions at the same time!
> >> You seem like you've posted more in the past day about this
subject
> >> than you *ever* posted about audio. That's pretty ironic.
> >Yet another lie from Weil.
> If a little bit of hyperbole is a lie, then I plead guilty.
The comment was so off-base that its not even hyperbole.
> >> >Indeed, I now realize that debating mental cases is just not
> >workable,
> >> >and RAO (probably should be renamed rec.audio.fantasyland) is
just
> >> >going to attract people of that kind. Those people are
attracted
> >to
> >> >audio, because it allows them to speculate wildly. The act of
> >> >speculating is what appeals to them.
> >Not quite. Audio's attraction to them has been the opportunity for
> >them to say "It is this way because I say it is this way" and
without
> >any accountability. We added accountability to audio with ABX over
20
> >years ago. They've been fighting the obvious for that long!
<notice that Weil can't rebut this>
Arny Krueger
> On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 14:32:47 GMT, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >OTOH, I can prove that I'm still a Comcast subscriber by sending
> >people email from my Comcast Email account. When Comcast finally
> >fixes their wiring, I'll resume posting from an IP address that
was
> >assigned to Comcast. The egg will be on your face, Weil.
>
> I find it funny that you haven't sent me a test message from your
> email account to do just that.
That's because I haven't received a message from you!
> I'll be happy to confirm that you are still a Comcast internet
> subscriber when that happens.
Just send me some test email, Weil.
If you won't, then you'll have to explain that to everybody.
MiNe 109
dave weil <dw...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Must be a drag not to have cable TV. Hopefully you have a backup
> antenna, because that way, you didn't miss what was probably the one
> case where TV promo hype lived up to its hyperbole (I'm referring to
> the ER promo that claimed "a truly shocking moment that you just can't
> miss" in their season's premiere). I just about jumped out of my seat
> in the first 10 minutes.
There was a "Law and Order" promo a few years back that went something
like, "tune in tonight: one of your favorite characters will be killed!"
On topic: was the audio screwed up in the scenes following the "shocking
moment"?
Stephen
dave weil
wrote:
>
>dave weil <dw...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:s8q8puoj4ob9fpjbt...@4ax.com...
>
>> On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 14:12:14 GMT, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> >You came in the door with a big chip on your shoulder, Gibbs.
>Isn't
>> >it true that, you'd previously had a business relationship with
>Weil?
>
>> I sold him a Mesa Baron amp in exchange for cash and 2 B&K 4100
>> monoblocks. This is well-known.
>
>Business relationships are denominated in dollars. How many dollars
>was that one worth?
Actually it resulted in no dollars but two B&K monoblocks. So, until
those are converted to cash (since you seem dollar driven), none.
>Let me guess. No discussion of RAO or personalities on RAO were
>involved with that transaction?
Not in the transaction, no. RAO didn't have anything to do with it.
>>I also bought a $1 album from a yard
>> sale the other day, which means that I have a business relationship
>> with them as well.
>
>Yes, $1 worth!
>
>LOL!
Well, it's a dollar more hard cash than the other transaction.
>>I'm sorry that I can't confirm that it's not
>> someone here on RAO as I didn't catch their name.
>
>Obviously immaterial.
But it might be. They might be one of the occasional people that rag
on you.
>> I wonder how many people that have posted on RAO have a "business
>> relationship" with you.
>
>AFAIK there has been 100% disclosure of that. Can you say the same,
>Weil?
I don't know. What was the disclosure?
I can say that I've always been forthright about the transaction that
March and I did.
I haven't had any other such dealings with anyone on RAO.
I also haven't tried to hype my business by sending product out to RAO
people either.
>> Must be a drag not to have cable TV.
>
>The roof antenna is still there, still works.
>
>> Hopefully you have a backup
>> antenna, because that way, you didn't miss what was probably the
>one
>> case where TV promo hype lived up to its hyperbole (I'm referring
>to
>> the ER promo that claimed "a truly shocking moment that you just
>can't
>> miss" in their season's premiere). I just about jumped out of my
>seat
>> in the first 10 minutes.
>
>I didn't find it that exceptional. Removing the arm of a surgeon with
>a helicopter tail rotor is AFAIK not usually that neat.
Well, besides spoiling it for the people who might not have seen it
(which I think is rather thoughtless), I found it pretty shocking. It
was extremely well done and totally surprising, as well as shocking.
Your mileage obviously varies.
I was mainly commenting on the fact that most network promos don't
really deliver what they promise. This was an exception.
>BTW, my roof antenna vastly outperforms Grosse Pointe Cable on local
>channels, even when their system is working well.
Cool.
dave weil
wrote:
I'd like to see you lack up this claim with a quote. I don't think
you're going to be able to do it.
>> I have claimed that it's a
>> possibility. And it is.
>
>Weil, you've drifted into stronger statements than that.
Prove it!
<g>
>> >OTOH, I can prove that I'm still a Comcast subscriber by sending
>> >people email from my Comcast Email account. When Comcast finally
>> >fixes their wiring, I'll resume posting from an IP address that
>was
>> >assigned to Comcast. The egg will be on your face, Weil.
>
>Ironically, one of the emails in one of my inboxes today was spam
>from a "David Weil". I get a feeling that someone has come up with a
>new angle on harvesting email addresses from Usenet.
Well, that's certainly a possibility. Hopefully it was at least
interesting spam.
>> Then you should do that.
>
>Anybody who wants to can send me email at my Comcast Email address
>which is xx...@comcast.net (It follows the usual pattern so just
>replace the "xxxx" with "arnyk" ) I'll respond to it, thus proving
>that I'm still a Comcast internet customer. Everybody gets a big
>laugh at the expense of Gibbs, Weil, and Benchimol!
So, why couldn't you just send a test message to me directly?
>> As I said, if it turns out that you have just been knocked off the
>> air, I've said that I'll be among the first to acknowledge it.
>
>No you won't Weil, I will acknowledge it first.
Sure i will. Did you miss the word "among"?
>> >Ironically Weil, I see no actual evidence that you post from a
>> >Comcast IP address. You might want to explain to people why up
>until
>> >this wiring outage I've been making posts that clearly indicate
>that
>> >I post from a Comcast POP IP address (as you have personally
>> >verified) while you haven't!
>
><Notice that Weil has no explanation for the fact that he can't prove
>that he has a Comcast IP address even though he posts with references
>to a Comcast Email address.>
Sure I have an explanation, which I offered before. Comcast
out-sources their newsgroup server to Giganews and apparently they
scramble the path. I could care less whether or not they do that.
I'd be happy to send you an email if you'd like. But I'll only do it
upon your invitation.
>> >>I don't care about the fact that I can't prove it (remember,
>> >> Arnold himself has used the "tactic" in his dealings with
>Jamie).
>
>> >I find it very interesting that Gibbs, Weil, and Benchimol have
>all
>> >publicly taken credit for getting me booted off Comcast. When in
>fact
>> >I'm still a Comcast subscriber.
>
>> I haven't done any such thing. I've already disputed that.
>
>Weil, your enthusiasm has gone further than it should have.
Prove it. So far, it's just empty words. If you can find such a quote
in context, I'll be happy to say that you are right and I was sloppy,
because I've taken great pains to avoid such a claim, as I have no way
to prove one way or another that you *have* been booted.
>> >> The important thing, whether or not he *ever* posts from Comcast
>> >> again, is whether his losing his broadband service might temper
>the
>> >> kinds of things that he says around here "just for the fun of
>it".
>
>> >It's called an "opinion" newsgroup Weil, so what's wrong with me
>> >posting some opinions?
>
>> There's nothing wrong with posting "opinions". I have never
>complained
>> to your ISP about even your most bizarre opinion and even your
>idiotic
>> behavior. However, when you started making unsubstantiated claims
>> about me *and* passed the bounds of good taste by linking me with
>> possible animal sex, I think that it goes beyond opinions. I took
>an
>> option that's even open to *you*when it comes to those claims of
>child
>> pornography.
>
>Look what good it did you, Weil? It caused you and Gibbs and
>Benchimol to once again make fools of yourself in public. Plus it
>provided me with a reason to question why my posts made via Comcast's
>cable modem infrastructure carry a Comcast IP address, but yours
>don't!
It's very simple - neither of us uses any Comcast newsgroup server. It
would be impossible for me to, since Comcast doesn't offer it in my
area.
However, you've glibly avoided the fact that it's clearly marked on my
headers list that I am a Comcast subscriber:
X-Complaints-To: ab...@comcast.com
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dm...@comcast.net
What about yours? Are you trying to hide something, as Prodigy
themselves alluded to when they forwarded my complaints to your "true
ISP"?
>>I seem to remember that you actually went to other
>> newsgroups and tried to get people that weren't even involved to do
>> the same thing.
>
>Well, it worked as far as it went. Benchimol lost his "fireofjesu"
>Usenet posting account.
Prove it!
<chuckle>
Now, shall we talk about the hypocrisy issue again?
>>Hypocrisy anyone? What you did is even worse because
>> you tried to orchestrate a mass ISP protest.
>
>I succeeded because "Benchimol" went way over the top.
As did you when you accused me of identity theft.
> BTW Weil, you might want to explain why you are so conversant with "Benchimol"
>activities in newsgroups where you have no explicit presence.
Simple. Someone posted it here on RAO. That's the only way that I knew
about it.
>> >Again, you stated factually that I've lost my broadband posting
>> >rights while what really happened is that part of Comcast's
>> >infrastructure broke.
>
>> Again, I did no such thing. I've stated that it is a possibility
>and
>> it is indeed.
>
>It was wish-fulfillment on your part, Weil. The good news is that I
>got you to drop your "concerned citizen" facade and admit that you
>are trying to get me booted off the web.
I think I have the right to protect myself from sladerous charges. You
have that same right, you know.
>> BTW, you can stay a Comcast subscriber on the TV side in any case.
>
>Where's the problem, Weil. Send me email at my Comcast email address.
>I'll return it to you. That will prove that Comcast has taken no
>action against me.
Why are you so afraid to simply send me a test message?
But, I'll consider this an explicit request for me to send mail to
you. when I get your reply, I'll come back on here and post the
results.
Seems like over a week is serious foot-dragging.
> They've promised to fix everything tomorrow. We'll see!
Good luck.
>> And nobody is claiming that if you return, that the ISP number has
>to
>> be the same one that Comcast previously supplied.
>
>Weil, what are you gibbering about? What is an "ISP number"?
>
>>All it takes is a
>> simple tracert command to support the claim that the new number is
>a
>> Comcast ISP.
>
>That would work. Comcast & Ameritech IP addresses work with Arin, as
>well.
So you *do* know what number I was referring to.
Good.
>> >> >It makes sense to just lurk here and answer a civil question
>once
>> >in a
>> >> >while from a concerned individual.
>
>> >It was fun to lurk here and watch Weil start out with his
>"concerned
>> >citizen" pitch and quickly descended into his "shut Arny up any
>way I
>> >can" persona.
>
>> Yes, I'm a concerned citizen when it comes to protecting *this*
>> citizen.
>
>Which is why Weil your posts show no sure evidence of posting from
>Comcast despite your use of a Comcast email address?
Already answered.
>>I don't care about how you treat others. That's *your* issue
>> to deal with. I would never complain to your ISP to protect someone
>> else, as you asked others to do.
>
>A public nuisance like Benchimol is a public nuisance.
As you are when you fling unsubstantiated charges and broadcast what
99% of America would consider filth.
>> >> >At that time, one can also suggest
>> >> >that they migrate to RAHE or RAT, or one of the other
>intelligent
>> >> >sites, and leave RAO to the twerps.
>
>> >A tempting proposition.
>
>> Hopefully, you can be tempted. But I doubt it.
>
>Been there, done that. Trouble is, moderation at rec.audio.high-end
>doesn't prevent the anti-scientific contingent from wasting
>everybody's time with amazing feats of forgetfulness.
Who cares? You're the one who proclaims the greatness of that forum.
>> >> >It would also be a good idea to
>> >> >post basic invitations periodically, inviting intelligent
>people
>> >to
>> >> >try some of those other information sources. Whatever, it makes
>no
>> >> >sense to become involved in a name-calling contest. I tried it
>and
>> >it
>> >> >does not work. It makes no sense to reply to some goofball's
>> >> >invitation to swap rants.
>
>> >It's just another opportunity to jerk Weil and his posse around,
>and
>> >let them humiliate themselves in public.
>
>> You mean like you do when you make posts about animal sex?
>
>Weil, do try to stay on topic. Your obsession with animal sex is
>noted.
It's certainly on-topic.
>>Or is that
>> a fitting topic for your Sunday morning live music sessions?
>
>Weil, apparently you know that you're getting your ass kicked here.
>Your mind is wandering in all directions at the same time!
Delusional again, I see.
>> >> You seem like you've posted more in the past day about this
>subject
>> >> than you *ever* posted about audio. That's pretty ironic.
>
>> >Yet another lie from Weil.
>
>> If a little bit of hyperbole is a lie, then I plead guilty.
>
>The comment was so off-base that its not even hyperbole.
Nope. He's been far more active talking about not posting here in the
last few days than talking about audio.
>> >> >Indeed, I now realize that debating mental cases is just not
>> >workable,
>> >> >and RAO (probably should be renamed rec.audio.fantasyland) is
>just
>> >> >going to attract people of that kind. Those people are
>attracted
>> >to
>> >> >audio, because it allows them to speculate wildly. The act of
>> >> >speculating is what appeals to them.
>
>> >Not quite. Audio's attraction to them has been the opportunity for
>> >them to say "It is this way because I say it is this way" and
>without
>> >any accountability. We added accountability to audio with ABX over
>20
>> >years ago. They've been fighting the obvious for that long!
>
><notice that Weil can't rebut this>
I didn't see any need to "rebut" it.
dave weil
wrote:
>
>dave weil <dw...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:n6s8pusqim3j301db...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 14:32:47 GMT, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >OTOH, I can prove that I'm still a Comcast subscriber by sending
>> >people email from my Comcast Email account. When Comcast finally
>> >fixes their wiring, I'll resume posting from an IP address that
>was
>> >assigned to Comcast. The egg will be on your face, Weil.
>>
>> I find it funny that you haven't sent me a test message from your
>> email account to do just that.
>
>That's because I haven't received a message from you!
So, you can't send me an email?
>> I'll be happy to confirm that you are still a Comcast internet
>> subscriber when that happens.
>
>Just send me some test email, Weil.
>
>If you won't, then you'll have to explain that to everybody.
You mean like you'll have to explain to everyone why you won't send me
an email? using a silly excuse like i haven't sent you one first?
Just for this, I've decided to wait until you send me a test email.
Your failure to do that will speak volumes.
PS, learn to spell exaggerated.
dave weil
wrote:
Not on my system.
The episode *did* have the air let out of it in the final third
though.
Arny Krueger
> >Anybody who wants to can send me email at my Comcast Email address
> >which is xx...@comcast.net (It follows the usual pattern so just
> >replace the "xxxx" with "arnyk" ) I'll respond to it, thus proving
> >that I'm still a Comcast internet customer. Everybody gets a big
> >laugh at the expense of Gibbs, Weil, and Benchimol!
> So, why couldn't you just send a test message to me directly?
Because Weil, I realized that you might not be able to send me a
message directly.
If I'm going to do a little work, I might as well learn a little
something along the way.
Weil, I notice that you haven't sent me an email message yet. Why are
you dragging your feet? Mission Impossible?
dave weil
wrote:
>
>dave weil <dw...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:jj09pug3e99bbl2d3...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 15:41:20 GMT, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> >Anybody who wants to can send me email at my Comcast Email address
>> >which is xx...@comcast.net (It follows the usual pattern so just
>> >replace the "xxxx" with "arnyk" ) I'll respond to it, thus proving
>> >that I'm still a Comcast internet customer. Everybody gets a big
>> >laugh at the expense of Gibbs, Weil, and Benchimol!
>
>> So, why couldn't you just send a test message to me directly?
>
>Because Weil, I realized that you might not be able to send me a
>message directly.
Hmmmm, thats my suspicion of *you*. Amazing.
And what does that have to do with the possibility that *you* don't
have Comcast service? Trying a little deflection maybe?
>If I'm going to do a little work, I might as well learn a little
>something along the way.
>
>Weil, I notice that you haven't sent me an email message yet. Why are
>you dragging your feet? Mission Impossible?
Why are *you*? You claimed to be able to send emails to prove your
point. Why aren't you jumping at the chance?
I notice that you haven't acknowledged screwing up when you claimed
that my headers don't prove that I'm a Comcast customer. You want to
weigh in on that?
Here's the deal. You send me an email and not only will I notify the
group that you are indeed still with Comcast in terms of your internet
service, but I'll also send you an email in return. Why you need an
email from me is beyond me though, since it's clear from my headers
that I'm a Comcast subscriber. Up until last week, it was clear from
yours, but only if someone traced your IP address. Mine proof is
there, without any such effort.
Ball's in your court.
Arny Krueger
> >That's because I haven't received a message from you!
> So, you can't send me an email?
I can do so quite easily Weil, but I won't until you send me one
first!
> >> I'll be happy to confirm that you are still a Comcast internet
> >> subscriber when that happens.
> >
> >Just send me some test email, Weil.
>
> >If you won't, then you'll have to explain that to everybody.
> You mean like you'll have to explain to everyone why you won't send
me
> an email? using a silly excuse like i haven't sent you one first?
Weil, it's not a silly excuse if you can't send me an email, first.
> Just for this, I've decided to wait until you send me a test email.
> Your failure to do that will speak volumes.
Anybody who wants to send me a test email can do so. My Comcast email
address is xx...@comcast.net where xxxx is arnyk. I'll respond to it,
thus proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Comcast hasn't dropped
me.
Of course receiving a response from me @comcast.net makes Benchimol
a liar and once again shows Weil & Gibbs to be the hate-driven
deceivers that many of us already know that they are.
When anybody who tests my Comcast email account, and gets a reply
from me, they will be laughing their asses off at you, Weil.
Weil, why won't you be the first to try to send me email at Comcast?
Afraid of revealing that dirty little secret?
dave weil
wrote:
>dave weil <dw...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:7j19pugd8tg8k0pqm...@4ax.com...
>
>> >That's because I haven't received a message from you!
>
>> So, you can't send me an email?
>
>I can do so quite easily Weil, but I won't until you send me one
>first!
Why?
You were the first to claim that you could send email to anyone.
I'm just responding to that first offer.
>> >> I'll be happy to confirm that you are still a Comcast internet
>> >> subscriber when that happens.
>> >
>> >Just send me some test email, Weil.
>>
>> >If you won't, then you'll have to explain that to everybody.
>
>> You mean like you'll have to explain to everyone why you won't send
>me
>> an email? using a silly excuse like i haven't sent you one first?
>
>Weil, it's not a silly excuse if you can't send me an email, first.
I'm wondering why you're balking.
>> Just for this, I've decided to wait until you send me a test email.
>> Your failure to do that will speak volumes.
>
>Anybody who wants to send me a test email can do so. My Comcast email
>address is xx...@comcast.net where xxxx is arnyk. I'll respond to it,
>thus proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Comcast hasn't dropped
>me.
Why are you demanding that someone send you email first? You first
claimed that you can send email from your account.
>Of course receiving a response from me @comcast.net makes Benchimol
>a liar and once again shows Weil & Gibbs to be the hate-driven
>deceivers that many of us already know that they are.
>
>When anybody who tests my Comcast email account, and gets a reply
>from me, they will be laughing their asses off at you, Weil.
>
>Weil, why won't you be the first to try to send me email at Comcast?
>Afraid of revealing that dirty little secret?
What dirty little secret?
dave weil
Well, off to work.
I guess we'll find out tomorrow whether or not Arnold is still on
Comcast since I haven't heard from him.
Howard Ferstler
> Howard Said:
> > >Indeed, I now realize that debating mental cases is just not
> workable,
> > >and RAO (probably should be renamed rec.audio.fantasyland) is just
> > >going to attract people of that kind. Those people are attracted
> to
> > >audio, because it allows them to speculate wildly. The act of
> > >speculating is what appeals to them.
> Not quite. Audio's attraction to them has been the opportunity for
> them to say "It is this way because I say it is this way" and without
> any accountability. We added accountability to audio with ABX over 20
> years ago. They've been fighting the obvious for that long!
Audio as a hobby appears to attract two kinds of people.
1) Those for whom the sometime nebulous characteristic of sound allows
for ineffable interactions with the invisible.
2) Those for whom the technical complexities of audio (both electronic
and psychoacoustic) offer up a mental challenge.
Obviously, the two groups are not about to get along. The latter group
finds the intellectual slackness of the former to be insulting to the
hobby and the former group finds the latter to be lacking in piety.
Well, of course there is still a third group: one that victimizes the
first group and fears the second.
Howard Ferstler
Jamie Benchimol
>
> dave weil <dw...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:nv76pu4uipcetsrb8...@4ax.com...
>
> > I really don't care about the explanations. The only thing that
> > matters is if my quite serious complaints knocked him off of
> Comcast.
>
> It is very nice of you to admit your hypocrisy. Weil.
>
> The funny thing is that Comcast has never said anything at all to me
> about your complaints. I guess they considered the source!
Know what I find funny? I called Comcast today to see if your story
checks out. Guess what they told me? They know of NO lines down in
Grosse Pointe Woods, and furthermore, they said weather-related cable
failures are very rare, and would be unlikely to take out only 2
subscribers. But they also said if there's a cable failure in an area,
they know of no repair job that ever took 2 weeks! They told me a
small repair job affecting 2 homes would be completed in no time.
This is exactly the same bull you tried to peddle with your cockamamie
MSP story, where you said you never spoke to them, then you did, then
you didn't, and then you did again! And then an officer came over to
your house, right? But did the officer come over to check on your
child pornography complaint as you allege, or was the officer actually
called over to your house because of a complaint received of you
dumping garbage on your neighbor's lawn? Do we have us a Hatfield's v.
McCoy's in the little burb of Gross People Woods?
> > There will *never* be any way for me to prove that he *is* knocked
> off
> > Comcast and no way that he *isn't*, barring posting from his
> Comcast
> > account.
>
> That's just another example of your stupidity, Weil. You've been
> claiming that I got knocked off Comcast's Internet service, but you
> can't prove it.
It's up to YOU to prove it, moron. Instead, all you've done is push
some blatant lie upon us saying that because of a little wind, the
cable somehow got ripped up out of the ground!, only TWO subscribers
in Grosse pointe woods were affected, and after TWO WEEKS of people
going without their tv, Comcast -still- can't fix the problem. RIGHT!!
Two weeks without TV to an American, is like 2 months without food and
water to the rest of the world. NO WAY would a company take two weeks
on fixing a cable service.
> OTOH, I can prove that I'm still a Comcast subscriber by sending
> people email from my Comcast Email account.
Okay, prove it then. Send me an email, I'll see if the IP's match up
with your old posts.
> Ironically Weil, I see no actual evidence that you post from a
> Comcast IP address. You might want to explain to people why up until
> this wiring outage I've been making posts that clearly indicate that
> I post from a Comcast POP IP address (as you have personally
> verified) while you haven't!
No, actually they DON'T clearly indicate you post from a Comcast IP
address. What they "CLEARLY INDICATE" is that you post from Prodigy.
I've asked you this before and received no answer. Tell us Arny, WHY
IS IT that "Prodigy" is in the complaints line of your Comcast posts?
(ie. send complaints to ab...@prodigy.net)? Why is Prodigy in your Org
line (Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com) ?
> > The important thing, whether or not he *ever* posts from Comcast
> > again, is whether his losing his broadband service might temper the
> > kinds of things that he says around here "just for the fun of it".
>
> It's called an "opinion" newsgroup Weil, so what's wrong with me
> posting some opinions?
Well, okay. Let's talk about that. For starers, what's wrong is that
some of your opinions are stated as "facts", and those "facts" allege
that several people here are child pornographers, extortionists,
adulterers, theives, fraudulent businessmen, and so on. You seem to
think that you just have an inherent to be a lying bag of scum. You
think you can say bloody well ANYTHING about ANYBODY at ANY TIME.
You've been doing that for 6 years until I came along. You're about to
find out different mister. The only reason you think the rules never
applied to you is because no one ever tried to apply any rules to you.
But I will.
> Again, you stated factually that I've lost my broadband posting
> rights while what really happened is that part of Comcast's
> infrastructure broke.
Yeah, that's the ticket! :-)
> BTW, given how Comcast is dragging their butts fixing their wiring,
> I updated this copy of OE to log onto my Comcast email account to
> clear off the spam, etc. and avoid blowing my 5 meg space limit on
> their email server.I logged on, and downloaded my email. No problems!
Prove it.
> > After all, most of us only have a handful of broadband options.
>
> Uhh, make that some of us...
Make that you. You're just a "dial-up grunt" now, or did you forget?
> Sure I can. Comcast fixes their wiring, I start making posts from a
> Comcast IP address, and lots of people have a big laugh at the
> expense of Benchimol, Gibbs, and Weil. Will I have the exact same IP
> address as before? I don't know. AFAIK its dynamically assigned. But
> if its different, it will still be a Comcast IP address.
No it ISN'T "dynamically assigned". You've had the EXACT same IP
address for years. If you start posting under a different Comcast IP
address, then WE KNOW FOR A FACT YOU GOT BOOTED OFF and had to open
up a new account under a different name.
If you post from Comcast, you had BETTER show us THIS IP address:
68.42.253.252
Remember LIAR, you said the problem was only in YOUR area, so the bad
"wind" couldn't knock down computer servers at Comcast central office
as well as 2 homes in GPW! If it really was simply "the world's
longest cable repair job", you'd have EXACTLY the same IP address as
you did for all these years, because it wouldn't be affected.
> > >At that time, one can also suggest
> > >that they migrate to RAHE or RAT, or one of the other intelligent
> > >sites, and leave RAO to the twerps.
>
> A tempting proposition.
YOU TOO you're going to just sit there and "threaten" to leave RAO for
other groups like Howard? Geez! Shut up and do it already!
> Not quite. Audio's attraction to them has been the opportunity for
> them to say "It is this way because I say it is this way" and without
> any accountability. We added accountability to audio with ABX over 20
> years ago. They've been fighting the obvious for that long!
That's true. The obvious lie that it has any relevance to consumer
audio. And you won't be engaging in any more of that objectivist ABX
crapola on this group while I'm still breathing. Otherwise, be
prepared to play more games of "musical ISP's" until the only option
that will remain for you is a freebie adware account, used by the rest
of your slimy ilk. (Child pornographers).
Jamie Benchimol
>
> > >That's because I haven't received a message from you!
>
> > So, you can't send me an email?
>
> I can do so quite easily Weil, but I won't until you send me one
> first!
Yeah right! You lied about not getting booted off of Comcast, you're
lying about the email. Every time you're asked for proof of your lies
you fumble, evade and obfuscate like this.
> > You mean like you'll have to explain to everyone why you won't send
> me
> > an email? using a silly excuse like i haven't sent you one first?
>
> Weil, it's not a silly excuse if you can't send me an email, first.
No, YOU are the one that claimed you could still use your comcast
account for email. So its up to YOU to prove your claim, not Weil,
since he never claimed he lost an account. All you are doing here is
STALLING, until you can try to reopen another Comcast account under a
different name and a different IP server.
Send ME an email from Comcast IMMEDIATELY if you really have your
Comcast account still open. You won't because you CAN'T. So all you
can do is make excuses.
> > Just for this, I've decided to wait until you send me a test email.
> > Your failure to do that will speak volumes.
>
> Anybody who wants to send me a test email can do so. My Comcast email
> address is xx...@comcast.net where xxxx is arnyk. I'll respond to it,
> thus proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Comcast hasn't dropped
> me.
Fine, I just sent you an email and see that you respond to it from
your Comcast account. I don't understand though why you say your
address is xx...@comcast.net and the "xxxx" stands for "arnyk"?? Why
didn't you just say your address is ar...@comcast.net? Don't you think
that's kind of bizarre?
> Of course receiving a response from me @comcast.net makes Benchimol
> a liar and once again shows Weil & Gibbs to be the hate-driven
> deceivers that many of us already know that they are.
Where did this "comcast.net" address come from all of a sudden? I
can't see hide nor hair of it mentioned in any of your posts or web
sites. Why do you hide behind false Prodigy ISP's and other email
accounts, and why haven't you mentioned the fact that Comcast is your
ISP before (instead of Prodigy), or that you have a comcast email
account?
George M. Middius
Jamie Benchimol said to Shit-for-Brains:
> Send ME an email from Comcast IMMEDIATELY if you really have your
> Comcast account still open. You won't because you CAN'T. So all you
> can do is make excuses.
I emailed Mr. Shit too. Of course he can't reply. My theory is he
may be able to receive email if Comcast gave him a grace period, but
he definitely can't reply through Comcast's mail server.
Paul D.
>Anybody who wants to send me a test email can do so. My Comcast email
>address is xx...@comcast.net where xxxx is arnyk. I'll respond to it,
>thus proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Comcast hasn't dropped
>me.
When you say "anybody", are you putting any limit on the number of
emails you will entertain per individual? It's just I have this piece
of script..
--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t
Paul D.
>>Afraid of revealing that dirty little secret?
dave weil wrote:
>What dirty little secret?
It's obvious. He's been defecating in the kitchen sink. Again.
Paul D.
>> Anybody who wants to send me a test email can do so. My Comcast email
>> address is xx...@comcast.net where xxxx is arnyk. I'll respond to it,
>> thus proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Comcast hasn't dropped
>> me.
>
>Fine, I just sent you an email and see that you respond to it from
>your Comcast account. I don't understand though why you say your
>address is xx...@comcast.net and the "xxxx" stands for "arnyk"?? Why
>didn't you just say your address is ar...@comcast.net? Don't you think
>that's kind of bizarre?
Perhaps he doesn't want it to be easily searchable?
ar...@comcast.net
ar...@comcast.net
ar...@comcast.net
ar...@comcast.net
ar...@comcast.net
ar...@comcast.net
ar...@comcast.net
ar...@comcast.net
ar...@comcast.net
ar...@comcast.net
ar...@comcast.net
ar...@comcast.net
ar...@comcast.net
ar...@comcast.net
ar...@comcast.net
ar...@comcast.net
Oops!
sockpuppet Yustabe
>
> dave weil <dw...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:s8q8puoj4ob9fpjbt...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 14:12:14 GMT, "Arny Krueger"
<ar...@hotpop.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >You came in the door with a big chip on your shoulder, Gibbs.
> Isn't
> > >it true that, you'd previously had a business relationship with
> Weil?
>
> > I sold him a Mesa Baron amp in exchange for cash and 2 B&K 4100
> > monoblocks. This is well-known.
>
> Business relationships are denominated in dollars. How many dollars
> was that one worth?
>
Then, if it wasn't denominated in dollars,
it wasn't a business relationship.
sockpuppet Yustabe
>>
> If you were entertaining March Gibbs, that would be a major upgrade.
>
>
Krooglish.
It sure looks like the real thing to me.
sockpuppet Yustabe
>
>
> > >Not quite. Audio's attraction to them has been the opportunity
for
> > >them to say "It is this way because I say it is this way" and
> without
> > >any accountability. We added accountability to audio with ABX
over
> 20
> > >years ago. They've been fighting the obvious for that long!
>
> <notice that Weil can't rebut this>
>
I noticed that he didn't bother to.
So, your idiotic point is that if you trumpet this bullshit
1,000,000 times, and its only rebutted 999,999 times,
you can point to the one time it isn't rebutted and
claim it is true. What a bunch of crap.
sockpuppet Yustabe
sockpuppet Yustabe
"Howard "Oops, I forgot about something" Ferstler"
<fer...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:d3d78e0.02092...@posting.google.com...
You are completely oblivious to the fourth group of those
who have audio as a hobby: Those who like to listen to music.
Sorry if that is irrelevant or off topic.
ha
George M. Middius
Art said to Shit-for-Brains:
> There is no reason for him to send a message to you.
I dunno. In my view, you can't say "Fuck off and die!" too many
times when Krooger is in the crosshairs.
Surf
>
> <snip>
Jamie -
You ever post as Tapio?
Is this your IP - 64.83.28.78 - ?
March Gibbs
LOL!!
I know.... I saw it and laughed myself right through the consideration
of a response.
Jamie Benchimol
> > >>I don't care about the fact that I can't prove it (remember,
> > >> Arnold himself has used the "tactic" in his dealings with
> Jamie).
He's right, you HAVE. Remember that Krueger? Remember when you posted
my message headers all over newsgroups on Usenet in an organized
campaign to have people complain to Google to try to get me booted off
of one of my many many easily obtainable Google accounts? A campaign
which backfired in your face? Sure you do. Now it's YOUR TURN!
> Look what good it did you, Weil? It caused you and Gibbs and
> Benchimol to once again make fools of yourself in public.
You're the one making a fool out of yourself sockpuppet
Kruger/Krueger! Nearly two weeks and you STILL haven't posted from
your Comcast account, NOR have you sent ANY ONE a single piece of
email from Comcast! I'm still waiting for my email Mr. No Show!
> Plus it
> provided me with a reason to question why my posts made via Comcast's
> cable modem infrastructure carry a Comcast IP address, but yours
> don't!
You never answered the question of what "Prodigy" was doing in your
headers on your Comcast account! Trying to fool people into
complaining to the wrong ISP perhaps?!
> >I seem to remember that you actually went to other
> > newsgroups and tried to get people that weren't even involved to do
> > the same thing.
>
> Well, it worked as far as it went. Benchimol lost his "fireofjesu"
> Usenet posting account.
Like hell I did. I just sent you an email from my "fireofjesu"
account! You were suppoed to send me one back from your Comcast
account, to prove you still have it. You never did! You were never
able to prove you could post from Comcast either! So you're the one
who lost your account!
> >Hypocrisy anyone? What you did is even worse because
> > you tried to orchestrate a mass ISP protest.
>
> I succeeded because "Benchimol" went way over the top.
All you succeeded at is making an ass out of yourself. And because of
my efforts, your reputation off-RAO is as infamous as your reputation
on RAO. Where there's smoke, there's fire! ;-)
> BTW Weil, you
> might want to explain why you are so conversant with "Benchimol"
> activities in newsgroups where you have no explicit presence.
Here's your explanation: you kept POSTING my activities in other
newsgroups MORON!
You might want to explain why your garbage is all over your neighbor's
lawn.
> > >Again, you stated factually that I've lost my broadband posting
> > >rights while what really happened is that part of Comcast's
> > >infrastructure broke.
>
> > Again, I did no such thing. I've stated that it is a possibility
> and
> > it is indeed.
>
> It was wish-fulfillment on your part, Weil.
That's more speculation on your part. It's not a fact.
> The good news is that I
> got you to drop your "concerned citizen" facade and admit that you
> are trying to get me booted off the web.
You did no such thing.
> > BTW, you can stay a Comcast subscriber on the TV side in any case.
>
> Where's the problem, Weil. Send me email at my Comcast email address.
> I'll return it to you. That will prove that Comcast has taken no
> action against me.
Return your promised email to ME! I already sent you an email
requesting it. So did George and others. You haven't returned email to
ANYONE! You won't because you can't because I succeeded in getting you
booted off your Comcast ISP for illicit and illegal activities
(including child pornography).
> > >> After all, most of us only have a handful of broadband options.
>
> > >Uhh, make that some of us...
>
> > I'm sure that you have hundreds...
>
> More than a handful. Comes from living in a civilized part of the
> world.
Is that so? Then why are you just a "dial-up grunt" on Ameritech?
> > >Weil, if deceitful posting caused the loss of posting privileges,
> > >you'd be out of here.
And if your nose grew every time you lied, the tip would be somewhere
on the border of Anchorage Alaska at this moment.
> > You really can't read, can you. The proof part refers to the
> > possibility that you come back with, say, a Direct TV or DSL
> account.
>
> Comcast would have to do some serious foot-dragging for that to
> happen. They've promised to fix everything tomorrow. We'll see!
Like hell. There was never any problem in your area! I've confirmed
that by speaking to Comcast. There's no way a simple "wind" is going
to knock down cables buried deep underground, and if it did, there's
no way on earth they will take 2 weeks to fix the problem! Let's see
you post on your Comcast account with the exact same IP address you
used before!
> > And nobody is claiming that if you return, that the ISP number has
> to
> > be the same one that Comcast previously supplied.
>
> Weil, what are you gibbering about? What is an "ISP number"?
You know damn well what he's "gibbering about", an IP number. And he's
wrong about that too. Yesterday, I DID claim that if you return, your
IP number has to be EXACTLY THE SAME AS IT WAS FOR YEARS. Because your
ISP does not dynamically allocate IP addresses, and the "wind in SE
Michigan" can not affect their computer servers at central HQ. If you
DON'T post tomorrow with exactly the same IP address you've always
had, that's conclusive proof you were LYING about the whole thing. You
got booted off your ISP by me.
> Which is why Weil your posts show no sure evidence of posting from
> Comcast despite your use of a Comcast email address?
Why do YOUR posts on Comcast show your ISP to be Prodigy? How long do
you plan to evade the question?
> >I don't care about how you treat others. That's *your* issue
> > to deal with. I would never complain to your ISP to protect someone
> > else, as you asked others to do.
>
> A public nuisance like Benchimol is a public nuisance.
Wrong, I'm in public service for this newsgroup (self-elected). You've
been a public nuisance for 6 years. In fact, you even made official
"usenet troll" lists on Usenet. You were one of the top public
nuisances for several years in a row, by an objective standard.
> > >> >At that time, one can also suggest
> > >> >that they migrate to RAHE or RAT, or one of the other
> intelligent
> > >> >sites, and leave RAO to the twerps.
>
> > >A tempting proposition.
>
> > Hopefully, you can be tempted. But I doubt it.
>
> Been there, done that. Trouble is, moderation at rec.audio.high-end
> doesn't prevent the anti-scientific contingent from wasting
> everybody's time with amazing feats of forgetfulness.
Then why for years do you keep arguing the OPPOSITE POINT OF VIEW by
telling these so-called "anti-scientific contigent' that they can't
post on RAHE because of who or what they are?
> > You mean like you do when you make posts about animal sex?
>
> Weil, do try to stay on topic. Your obsession with animal sex is
> noted.
You're the one that brought up the animal sex and the homosexual
fellatio and the urination in your mouth by your own dead son, for
starters... remember? Your fantasies about getting naked and having
sex with your son is very well noted.
> > >Not quite. Audio's attraction to them has been the opportunity for
> > >them to say "It is this way because I say it is this way" and
> without
> > >any accountability. We added accountability to audio with ABX over
> 20
> > >years ago. They've been fighting the obvious for that long!
>
> <notice that Weil can't rebut this>
That's because no one cares about your irrelevant ABX gibberish.
Jamie Benchimol
>
> > On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 14:32:47 GMT, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >dave weil <dw...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> > >> I really don't care about the explanations. The only thing that
> > >> matters is if my quite serious complaints knocked him off of
> > >Comcast.
>
> > >It is very nice of you to admit your hypocrisy. Weil.
>
> > It's not hypocrisy.
>
> It is hypocrisy.
>
> > >The funny thing is that Comcast has never said anything at all to
> me
> > >about your complaints. I guess they considered the source!
>
> > >> There will *never* be any way for me to prove that he *is*
> knocked
> > >off
> > >> Comcast and no way that he *isn't*, barring posting from his
> > >Comcast
> > >> account.
>
> > >That's just another example of your stupidity, Weil. You've been
> > >claiming that I got knocked off Comcast's Internet service, but
> you
> > >can't prove it.
>
> > This is a lie. I have never claimed that.
>
> You ought to watch what you write, Weil.
>
> > possibility. And it is.
>
> Weil, you've drifted into stronger statements than that.
>
> > >people email from my Comcast Email account. When Comcast finally
> > >fixes their wiring, I'll resume posting from an IP address that
> was
> > >assigned to Comcast. The egg will be on your face, Weil.
>
> Ironically, one of the emails in one of my inboxes today was spam
> from a "David Weil". I get a feeling that someone has come up with a
> new angle on harvesting email addresses from Usenet.
>
>
> which is xx...@comcast.net (It follows the usual pattern so just
> replace the "xxxx" with "arnyk" ) I'll respond to it, thus proving
> that I'm still a Comcast internet customer. Everybody gets a big
> laugh at the expense of Gibbs, Weil, and Benchimol!
>
> > air, I've said that I'll be among the first to acknowledge it.
>
> No you won't Weil, I will acknowledge it first.
>
> > >Comcast IP address. You might want to explain to people why up
> until
> > >this wiring outage I've been making posts that clearly indicate
> that
> > >I post from a Comcast POP IP address (as you have personally
> > >verified) while you haven't!
>
> <Notice that Weil has no explanation for the fact that he can't prove
> that he has a Comcast IP address even though he posts with references
> to a Comcast Email address.>
<Notice sockpuppet Kruger/Krueger has no explanation for the fact that
he has an abuse@Prodigy in his complaints line on his Comcast
messages, but Comcast has nothing to do with prodigy!
> > >I find it very interesting that Gibbs, Weil, and Benchimol have
> all
> > >publicly taken credit for getting me booted off Comcast. When in
> fact
> > >I'm still a Comcast subscriber.
I find it very interesting that you think everyone is stupid enough to
believe that a little wind can knock out an underground cable
connection and that it takes Comcast up to 2 weeks to repair a small
job that affects only 2 customers. Especially when it affects
someone's tv!
If after 2 days you are not able to post from Comcast, it means you
got booted off. If after nearly 2 weeks you are not able to post from
Comcast from your usual IP address, or send anyone email from a
Comcast account, it means you got booted off and you're a filthy
stinking liar over it.
But I think we all know that already.
Jamie Benchimol
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
> >Anybody who wants to send me a test email can do so. My Comcast email
> >address is xx...@comcast.net where xxxx is arnyk. I'll respond to it,
> >thus proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Comcast hasn't dropped
> >me.
>
> emails you will entertain per individual? It's just I have this piece
> of script..
> S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t
If you want to test it out, that address again is AR...@COMCAST.NET
dave weil
Yes, considering that no cash actually stayed in my hands. What I got
in essense was two B&K monoblocks. It was a wildly and unusual win-win
audio deal.
Some people might remember me outlining the circumstances of the deal.
George M. Middius
dave weil said:
> Some people might remember me outlining the circumstances of the deal.
Apparently no sales tax was paid. Obviously you're trying to
undercut the welfare state on which Krooger depends to make his
Villager payments.
Arny Krueger
"George M. Middius" <Glanb...@KILLsoftALLhomeSPAM.net> wrote in
message news:nup9pugb47olqahdc...@4ax.com...
>
>
> Jamie Benchimol said to Shit-for-Brains:
>
> > Send ME an email from Comcast IMMEDIATELY if you really have your
> > Comcast account still open. You won't because you CAN'T. So all
you
> > can do is make excuses.
>
> I emailed Mr. Shit too. Of course he can't reply. My theory is he
> may be able to receive email if Comcast gave him a grace period,
but
Of course I replied to you George.
Of course I've provided postive proof that I am posting from a
Comcast IP address.
Of course George is lying as usual!
Paul D.
>> >Anybody who wants to send me a test email can do so. My Comcast email
>> >address is xx...@comcast.net where xxxx is arnyk. I'll respond to it,
>> >thus proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Comcast hasn't dropped
>> >me.
>>
>> When you say "anybody", are you putting any limit on the number of
>> emails you will entertain per individual? It's just I have this piece
>> of script..
>> --
>> S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t
>
>If you want to test it out, that address again is AR...@COMCAST.NET
A thorough test would include receiving attachments. These could range
anywhere in size upto 50Mb!
tor b
>Date: 9/28/2002 7:15 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <eahcpu8193tembk1n...@4ax.com>
tor b
Paul D.
>>>> >Anybody who wants to send me a test email can do so. My Comcast email
>>>> >address is xx...@comcast.net where xxxx is arnyk. I'll respond to it,
>>>> >thus proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Comcast hasn't dropped
>>>> >me.
>>>>
>>>> When you say "anybody", are you putting any limit on the number of
>>>> emails you will entertain per individual? It's just I have this piece
>>>> of script..
>>>
>>>If you want to test it out, that address again is AR...@COMCAST.NET
>>
>>A thorough test would include receiving attachments. These could range
>>anywhere in size upto 50Mb!
>>
>What an asshole
Hi Arny.