Arnii
The Devil
shit?
--
The Devil
Arny Krueger
"The Devil" <ink...@EATSPAMbreathe.com> wrote in message
news:3h540tsmbuk519hc2...@4ax.com...
> Why, Arnii, do you treat fellow Christian Jeff Adams like a piece
of sh*t?
Mr. Briggs, what does Jeff Adams say when you ask him: "Jeff, do you
treat fellow Christian Arny Krueger like a piece of
sh*t and let low-life like Middius and Zipser ride free?"
Oooops. Kryptonite! ;-)
The Devil
wrote:
>Mr. Briggs, what does Jeff Adams say when you ask him: "Jeff, do you
>treat fellow Christian Arny Krueger like a piece of
> sh*t and let low-life like Middius and Zipser ride free?"
I don't know. I haven't asked him.
But back to my question: why do you treat a fellow Christian with such
contempt?
>Oooops. Kryptonite! ;-)
I am a superman?
Yes, I suppose you're right.
--
The Devil
Arny Krueger
"The Devil" <ink...@EATSPAMbreathe.com> wrote in message
> On Fri, 03 Nov 2000 10:05:07 GMT, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@flash.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Mr. Briggs, what does Jeff Adams say when you ask him: "Jeff, do
you
> >treat fellow Christian Arny Krueger like a piece of
> > sh*t and let low-life like Middius and Zipser ride free?"
>
> I don't know. I haven't asked him.
>
> But back to my question: why do you treat a fellow Christian with
such contempt?
For his own good and spiritual betterment.
Jeff Adams
wrote:
>
I'm sorry that you don't fully understand the command to exhort and
rebuke other believers and that you think following this command is
equivalent to being "treating you like sh*t".
Let me make myself perfectly clear: I completely and thoroughly
disapprove of George Middius' and Steve Ziper's style when they trash
you and others. I've said it before (yes, I know, not often enough to
please you) and I'm saying it again now. My understanding is that
since you are so provocative and rude so often (making it difficult to
hold a polite conversation with you), they have chosen to take a
different route - to instead try to shock you and others by often
saying things that I think are completely over the top and
unacceptable. IMO it's wrong and I wish they wouldn't do it.
You on the other hand have (if I recall correctly) publicly stated you
are essentially proud of your trolling and provocativeness. And that
you do these things intentionally to try to get people to look bad
when they (predictably) get angered by your behavior. So when people
behave poorly, who should be surprised? I'm not.
The commands that are supposed to govern our behavior include the
following: compassion, kindness, meekness, longsuffering, having
grace, rendering no one evil for evil, not quarrelsome, tranquil,
gentle, peaceable, merciful, self controlled, patient, truthful,
edifying, not to be bitter, wrathful, angry, to avoid clamor and
railing, to speak no guile, and the list goes on (over thirty
references based on a few hours of searching). That you often choose
to ignore these commands and behave in an entirely contrary fashion is
bewildering. And to anticipate your objection that I'm not following
these same commands, I have over a dozen more references that command
us to exhort/rebuke those that aren't behaving properly.
-
=== CORRECT EMAIL: remove letters between "gd" and "-es" ====================
| Jeff....@gdfeg-es.com) | General Dynamics Electronic Systems Division |
| Mountain View, CA U.S.A. |
| All opinions are mine and not my employer or internet access provider. |
=============================================================================
Arny Krueger
"Jeff Adams" <jeff....@gdfeg-es.com> wrote in message
news:ms860tsdas06salpe...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 03 Nov 2000 10:05:07 GMT, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@flash.net>
> wrote:
>
> >"The Devil" <ink...@EATSPAMbreathe.com> wrote in message
> >news:3h540tsmbuk519hc2...@4ax.com...
> >> Why, Arnii, do you treat fellow Christian Jeff Adams like a
piece
> >of sh*t?
> >Mr. Briggs, what does Jeff Adams say when you ask him: "Jeff, why
do you treat fellow Christian Arny Krueger like a piece of sh*t and
let low-life like Middius and Zipser ride free?"
> I'm sorry that you don't fully understand the command to exhort and
> rebuke other believers and that you think following this command is
> equivalent to being "treating you like sh*t".
Mr. Adams please cite the spot in the Bible that says that ONLY
believers are to be exhorted and rebuked.
Mr. Adams, anybody who cares to study DN can see that That is exactly
your track record on RAO for at least the past year.
If you can't find a bible text that says that ONLY believers are to
be exhorted and rebuked, then it is clear that you are making up
doctrine to suit your own cowardice and to obtain favor in the sight
of others who you want to please more than you want to please God.
> Let me make myself perfectly clear: I completely and thoroughly
> disapprove of George Middius' and Steve Ziper's style when they
trash
> you and others.
Then show that you've got the (spiritually speaking of course)
"balls" to deal with THEM.
Ooops. Kryptonite!
>I've said it before (yes, I know, not often enough to please you)
and I'm saying it again now.
I agree Mr. Adams, you are very repetitive and predictable, not to
mention obviously way to fearful of the predictable results that
would befall you were you to wage the larger war on the larger
misdeeds.
> My understanding is that
> since you are so provocative and rude so often (making it difficult
to
> hold a polite conversation with you), they have chosen to take a
> different route - to instead try to shock you and others by often
> saying things that I think are completely over the top and
> unacceptable. IMO it's wrong and I wish they wouldn't do it.
Mr. Adams, your understanding is no doubt what they tell you.
It's a very convenient understanding because it is so very safe and
convenient for you. It allows you to please them who are obviously
more important to you than pleasing God.
Mr. Adams, were Deja News intact I could show you that I crept into
RAO on little cat's feet. What you see of me today is simply a matter
of dealing with a group of people in the language and manner that
they seem to best understand.
If you were to open your eyes you would find that I post in over 100
other NG's quite nicely and with very little conflict. Why is that,
Mr. Adams?
> You on the other hand have (if I recall correctly) publicly stated
you
> are essentially proud of your trolling and provocativeness.
It's just a matter of speaking "Greek" to "Greeks". Furthermore, I
don't descend to their depths or even your depths, Mr. Adams. if you
didn't gratuitously and spontaneously come in and try to put sticks
in my eyes I would be very happy to speak with you very nicely about
audio.
At this time there is no person who has helped more newbies with
audio problems on RAO than I. There is no person who has made more
purely technical posts than I. There is no person who has spoken out
more against the evil and evil-doers on RAO and in the world than I.
There is no person who has not worked more frequently, honestly and
sincerely than I to mediate misunderstandings.
If you can't prove otherwise, Mr. Adams, then admit the truth. I do a
lot of good around here and your major claim to fame on RAO is how
you publicly attack and try to humiliate someone you claim is a
fellow Christian.
I often seriously doubt that you are truly a Christian based on your
behavior, Mr. Adams.
Based on your behavior Mr. Adams you could easily be a sock-puppet
manipulated by an atheist or agnostic who knows a little Bible and
some "church-speak".
> And that
> you do these things intentionally to try to get people to look bad
> when they (predictably) get angered by your behavior.
Mr. Adams it now seems clear that you believe that all the lies by
Mr. Zipser, Middius, etc. are all my fault. You are sadly deceived.
I can't make a person look bad against their will.
If I want to make someone look bad I have to do that based on their
previous actions.
I can't make people spontaneously look bad.
They do it to themselves.
Of course the same basic principals apply to me.
>So when people behave poorly, who should be surprised? I'm not.
You and Pilate are equally convincing at the hand-washing game, Mr.
Adams.
Now, Mr. Adams just show us that passage in the Bible that says that
believers are ONLY supposed to "exhort and rebuke" other believers,
which is exactly your track record on RAO!
If you can't, you just might want to ask your pastor to help you...
;-)
Trotsky
Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> "Jeff Adams" <jeff....@gdfeg-es.com> wrote in message
> news:ms860tsdas06salpe...@4ax.com...
>
> > Let me make myself perfectly clear: I completely and thoroughly
> > disapprove of George Middius' and Steve Ziper's style when they
> trash
> > you and others.
>
> Then show that you've got the (spiritually speaking of course)
> "balls" to deal with THEM.
>
> Ooops. Kryptonite!
>
> >I've said it before (yes, I know, not often enough to please you)
> and I'm saying it again now.
>
> I agree Mr. Adams, you are very repetitive and predictable, not to
> mention obviously way to fearful of the predictable results that
> would befall you were you to wage the larger war on the larger
> misdeeds.
Arnii, you seem to be having trouble understanding this discussion: guys
like me are already set up for punishment--I don't believe in God,
therefore I'm going to Hell. You do believe in God (supposedly) and
have probably already lied to people and told them you'll be going to
Heaven. It would seem that this lying and hypocrisy--which you've
already admitted to--is what Mr. Adams is objecting to. I don't blame
him for being perturbed: you make Christianity look like an incredible joke.
jeff_adams
wrote:
This is all very interesting Arny, but I can't see that you've taken
any responsibility for your own behavior. My post was about your
behavior. If you want to talk about me, that's fine, but you haven't
disproven any of what I've said about your behavior. I know it's a
favorite method of yours to try to deflect criticism, and I understand
it, but it won't work.
>"Jeff Adams" <jeff....@gdfeg-es.com> wrote in message
>news:ms860tsdas06salpe...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 03 Nov 2000 10:05:07 GMT, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@flash.net>
>> wrote:
>> >Mr. Briggs, what does Jeff Adams say when you ask him: "Jeff, why
>>>do you treat fellow Christian Arny Krueger like a piece of sh*t and
>>>let low-life like Middius and Zipser ride free?"
>
>> I'm sorry that you don't fully understand the command to exhort and
>> rebuke other believers and that you think following this command is
>> equivalent to being "treating you like sh*t".
>
>Mr. Adams please cite the spot in the Bible that says that ONLY
>believers are to be exhorted and rebuked.
There are passages relating to both. So, what's your point? You'd like
me to exhort and rebuke the others more? I'll take it under
advisement. In the mean time, I will assume you agree that my
exhortation/rebuke to you is _not_ in fact "treating you like a piece
of sh*t" but that it is proper.
>Mr. Adams, anybody who cares to study DN can see that That is exactly
>your track record on RAO for at least the past year.
>
>If you can't find a bible text that says that ONLY believers are to
>be exhorted and rebuked, then it is clear that you are making up
>doctrine to suit your own cowardice and to obtain favor in the sight
>of others who you want to please more than you want to please God.
Very odd logic. You can do your own study, but you will find quite a
number of passages that are to believers to exhort believers.
Therefore my exhortation/rebuke is proper. I'm not making up that
doctrine. Whether or not there are other passages for believers to
exhort non-believers is irrelevant to whether my actions were proper
with regards to you.
>> Let me make myself perfectly clear: I completely and thoroughly
>> disapprove of George Middius' and Steve Ziper's style when they
>> trash you and others.
>
>Then show that you've got the (spiritually speaking of course)
>"balls" to deal with THEM.
I'll deal with THEM as I see fit. I apologize again if it doesn't suit
you.
>>I've said it before (yes, I know, not often enough to please you)
>>and I'm saying it again now.
>
>I agree Mr. Adams, you are very repetitive and predictable, not to
>mention obviously way to fearful of the predictable results that
>would befall you were you to wage the larger war on the larger
>misdeeds.
You have no idea of what I may or may not be fearful of. I suggest you
quit trying to read my mind. I on the other hand am dealing with
mountains of evidence (your own written words here). The facts are
clear here.
>> My understanding is that
>> since you are so provocative and rude so often (making it difficult
>> hold a polite conversation with you), they have chosen to take a
>> different route - to instead try to shock you and others by often
>> saying things that I think are completely over the top and
>> unacceptable. IMO it's wrong and I wish they wouldn't do it.
>
>Mr. Adams, your understanding is no doubt what they tell you.
It's what I see on the group and what they've occasionally said on the
group. So what do you say about your behavior?
>It's a very convenient understanding because it is so very safe and
>convenient for you. It allows you to please them who are obviously
>more important to you than pleasing God.
Again I would politely ask you to quit trying to read my mind or guess
who I'm trying to please. You don't know.
Why do _you_ think they behave the way they do?
>Mr. Adams, were Deja News intact I could show you that I crept into
>RAO on little cat's feet. What you see of me today is simply a matter
>of dealing with a group of people in the language and manner that
>they seem to best understand.
What we see here is that as you taunt, troll, and provoke, people
respond in a predictable manner. What do you have to say about your
behavior? Is it proper or improper?
>If you were to open your eyes you would find that I post in over 100
>other NG's quite nicely and with very little conflict. Why is that,
>Mr. Adams?
I couldn't tell you. Perhaps you taunt. troll, and provoke less on
those groups. It also tells me that you let other people control your
behavior here if you are unable to be polite here but are able to be
polite elsewhere. Why is that Mr. Krueger?
>> You on the other hand have (if I recall correctly) publicly stated
>> you are essentially proud of your trolling and provocativeness.
>
>It's just a matter of speaking "Greek" to "Greeks".
Is that a yes? It sounds like a "yes". You aren't seriously trying to
tell me that you think it's OK to be rude, taunting, provocative,
etc., just because someone else acts these ways towards you?
>Furthermore, I
>don't descend to their depths or even your depths, Mr. Adams. if you
>didn't gratuitously and spontaneously come in and try to put sticks
>in my eyes I would be very happy to speak with you very nicely about
>audio.
I don't have any audio questions right now. I just have questions
about how you can defend or justify your behavior here. Since you've
essentially agreed that there are passages regarding rebuking
believers, I find it very odd that you would consider it "descending
to my depths" to follow a Biblical command. Very very odd logic.
>At this time there is no person who has helped more newbies with
>audio problems on RAO than I. There is no person who has made more
>purely technical posts than I. There is no person who has spoken out
>more against the evil and evil-doers on RAO and in the world than I.
>There is no person who has not worked more frequently, honestly and
>sincerely than I to mediate misunderstandings.
I've never denied that you do good here. I said it in a previous post
and you quoted it, so I know you read it. That's not what I'm
attempting to discuss with you.
>If you can't prove otherwise, Mr. Adams, then admit the truth. I do a
>lot of good around here...
You often help people out. You often say a lot of truthful things.
Again, I've never denied it and I said that in a previous post. That's
not the issue here.
>and your major claim to fame on RAO is how
>you publicly attack and try to humiliate someone you claim is a
>fellow Christian.
No, the issue here is that you regularly behave in a ways that are
decidedly un-Christian and they are extremely offensive to me and a
lot of other people. That's a simple fact proven by the dozens of
commands I've referred to earlier. You're simply wrong. Your behavior
is biblically indefensible. That's my issue with you. Period.
>I often seriously doubt that you are truly a Christian based on your
>behavior, Mr. Adams.
My exhortations/rebukes to you are easily defensible on biblical
grounds. Your behavior (the objectionable stuff) is not. No way, no
how. That's why I object so loudly. I recommend you quit trying to
deflect my rebukes and take them to heart like a wise man should.
>Based on your behavior Mr. Adams you could easily be a sock-puppet
>manipulated by an atheist or agnostic who knows a little Bible and
>some "church-speak".
>
>> And that
>> you do these things intentionally to try to get people to look bad
>> when they (predictably) get angered by your behavior.
>
>Mr. Adams it now seems clear that you believe that all the lies by
>Mr. Zipser, Middius, etc. are all my fault. You are sadly deceived.
Pardon me but you have stated right here on RAO before that you say
things in hopes of getting people to behave poorly (or words to that
effect - this is not meant to be a direct quote). Do you deny this?
>I can't make a person look bad against their will.
>
>If I want to make someone look bad I have to do that based on their
>previous actions.
What? If you walk up to a stranger and tell them that their Mother is
ugly, and they deck you, did them decking you have anything to do with
their previous actions? When you intentionally provoke people, they
often respond poorly. Some people are able to hold their tongue longer
than others. For those who erupt, shame on them, they are responsible
for their own actions. But the greater shame, IMO, is on you for doing
something you should know better not to do.
>I can't make people spontaneously look bad.
False, as shown above.
>They do it to themselves.
>
>Of course the same basic principals apply to me.
>
>>So when people behave poorly, who should be surprised? I'm not.
>
>You and Pilate are equally convincing at the hand-washing game, Mr.
>Adams.
>
>Now, Mr. Adams just show us that passage in the Bible that says that
>believers are ONLY supposed to "exhort and rebuke" other believers,
>which is exactly your track record on RAO!
Bad logic as explained earlier. Both types of commands are in the
Bible. Therefore my exhortations/rebukes to you are proper, as are my
exhortations/rebukes to others. Again, I apologize if you don't like
the ratio.
>If you can't, you just might want to ask your pastor to help you...
>;-)
So, then, do you or do you not accept responsibility and admit that
you regularly sin here by provoking, taunting, twisting arguments,
being rude, not admitting fault when proven to be at fault, etc? You
have gone to a lot of trouble to (from what I can tell) avoid
answering the question (and to instead try to focus on me).
If on the other hand you feel you have answered the question, then I
apologize. It surely wasn't very clear at all based on all the
deflecting you were doing.
-
remove the letters between "gd" and "-es" to reply
==================================================================
| Jeff....@gdfeg-es.com | General Dynamics Electronic Systems |
| | Mountain View, CA U.S.A. |
==================================================================
George M. Middius
krazier klaims second-hand, and I just can't ignore it.
> >There is no person who has not worked more frequently, honestly and
> >sincerely than I to mediate misunderstandings.
Oh, wait, I misread it the first time. For once, Mr. Sack's
egregiously flawed "not" actually clarifies something. Never mind.
George M. Middius
Arny Krueger
<Jeff Adams> wrote in message
news:2uq80tgpo0haaa82t...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 04 Nov 2000 10:45:21 GMT, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@flash.net>
> wrote:
>
> This is all very interesting Arny, but I can't see that you've
taken
And I haven't seen you take any responsibility for yours, Jeff.
You really don't get the word hypocrite, do you, Jeff?
Look a mirror some time. It might help. Then again if it hasn't
helped by now, whose to say it ever will?
The Devil
;-)
--
The Devil
Stephen McElroy
Glan...@pop3free.com wrote:
> Excuse me for butting in™ here, Jeff, but I caught one of Krooger's
> krazier klaims second-hand, and I just can't ignore it.
>
> > >There is no person who has not worked more frequently, honestly and
> > >sincerely than I to mediate misunderstandings.
>
> Oh, wait, I misread it the first time. For once, Mr. Sack's
> egregiously flawed "not" actually clarifies something. Never mind.
I discarded a reply to that passage this morning, to the effect that the
statement as worded may be true.
Stepehn
George M. Middius
> > Excuse me for butting in here, Jeff, but I caught one of Krooger's
> > krazier klaims second-hand, and I just can't ignore it.
> > > >There is no person who has not worked more frequently, honestly and
> > > >sincerely than I to mediate misunderstandings.
> > Oh, wait, I misread it the first time. For once, Mr. Sack's
> > egregiously flawed "not" actually clarifies something. Never mind.
> I discarded a reply to that passage this morning, to the effect that the
> statement as worded may be true.
Do you think HypocratBorg was trolling deeply? If a Rational had
carelessly replied, thinking Mr. Sack had written what it looks like
he intended to write, Arnii could then say, "See! You guys always
blame me for starting everything, but this time I was telling the
truth!"
George M. Middius
George M. Middius
> And that your poor behavior is what brings on no
> small part of the grief you receive from people here?
Seldom in my travels has the quantity *all* (as in the entirety,
the whole, a hundred percent, or the big Kahuna) been rendered as
"no small part". I suppose this is the kind of thing that
happens when you try to play "the debating trade" with
HairSplitterNitPickerHypocratBorg.
George M. Middius
Arny Krueger
"Stephen McElroy" <smc...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:smcatut-0411...@dial-110-36.ots.utexas.edu...> > Excuse me for butting inâ"¢ here, Jeff, but I caught one of
Krooger's
> > krazier klaims second-hand, and I just can't ignore it.
> >
honestly and
> > > >sincerely than I to mediate misunderstandings.
> > Oh, wait, I misread it the first time. For once, Mr. Sack's
> > egregiously flawed "not" actually clarifies something. Never
mind.
Or you could presume that the sentence was consistent in intent with
the rest of the paragraph. Nahh, that would get in the way of trying
to make trouble... ;-)
> I discarded a reply to that passage this morning, to the effect
that the
> statement as worded may be true.
Must be an awfully slow weekend down there... Try listening to some
music. Seems to work for me when a really strong compulsion to split
hairs looms on the horizon.
jeff_adams
wrote:
>
><Jeff Adams> wrote in message
>news:2uq80tgpo0haaa82t...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 04 Nov 2000 10:45:21 GMT, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@flash.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> This is all very interesting Arny, but I can't see that you've
>taken
>> any responsibility for your own behavior. \
>
>And I haven't seen you take any responsibility for yours, Jeff.
Sure I have. Perhaps you didn't read very carefully.
>You really don't get the word hypocrite, do you, Jeff?
You haven't proven a single instance of such. You chose to ignore this
post, just as you did my other post that dealt with your empty claims
of hypocrisy on my part. My logic was plain, clear, and simple. Yours
was tortured and difficult to comprehend.
What is it that won't allow you to see or admit that your behavior is
often very poor? And that your poor behavior is a large part of the
problem around here? And that your poor behavior is what brings on no
small part of the grief you receive from people here?
I have used clear language to patiently, politely, and truthfully
explain to you (with detailed references) how and why you are in
error. Your responses have not shown the maturity I would expect for
someone your age.
>Look a mirror some time. It might help. Then again if it hasn't
>helped by now, whose to say it ever will?
This isn't about me, it's about you. Can you at least understand that
much of what I'm trying to get across? I attempt to communicate this
message to you something like once a year. If there were anything
sinful about my attempts to exhort/rebuke you (and that's a big "if"),
then that would mean that I commit that sin something like once a
year. On the other hand, you sin multiple times a week as you interact
with those you don't like (and sometimes those you barely know or
don't know at all). You need to stop. You are in deep, serious error
and denial. You need to read books written by some of the great saints
of the past. You need to admit (at least to yourself) that you may be
wrong and study these matters seriously and intently.
On Sat, 04 Nov 2000 10:45:21 GMT, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@flash.net>
wrote:
>"Jeff Adams" <jeff....@gdfeg-es.com> wrote in message
Arny Krueger
<Jeff Adams> wrote in message
> ><Jeff Adams> wrote in message
> >news:2uq80tgpo0haaa82t...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 04 Nov 2000 10:45:21 GMT, "Arny Krueger"
<ar...@flash.net>
> >> wrote:
> >> This is all very interesting Arny, but I can't see that you've
taken
> >> any responsibility for your own behavior.
This is either deceptive or just plain ignorant. I make a policy of
not denying my responsibility for part of the problems here. However,
by giving comfort and solace to major reprehensible offenders in your
attacks on me, I don't think you are exactly doing the right thing.
What would Jesus do? I think he'd attack reprehensible behavior where
he saw it. He would obviously not be as deceived as you are.
> >And I haven't seen you take any responsibility for yours, Jeff.
> Sure I have. Perhaps you didn't read very carefully.
Perhaps I notice all the times you whitewash your own sins and the
sins of others, Mr. Hypocrite.
> >You really don't get the word hypocrite, do you, Jeff?
> You haven't proven a single instance of such.
Obviously you can't see that, Mr. Hypocrite. That's a key failing of
hypocrites.
> You chose to ignore this
> post, just as you did my other post that dealt with your empty
claims
> of hypocrisy on my part.
You lie Mr. Hypocrite. I responded, you just didn't like the
response.
>My logic was plain, clear, and simple.
Where have I heard that claim before?
Obviously Mr. Hypocrite your plain, clear and simple logic is more
important to you than any number of holy directives from the lips of
my savior to act against reprehensible behavior where it exists.
>Yours was tortured and difficult to comprehend.
Where have I heard that claim before?
Obviously Mr. Hypocrite you are deceived by the prince of human
logic.
> What is it that won't allow you to see or admit that your behavior
is often very poor?
This question has been answered many times in a fashion that asking
it is deceptive, Mr. Hypocrite.
> And that your poor behavior is a large part of the problem around
here?
My Hypocrite, your logic is flawed on the grounds of the facts of
history:
(1) The history of RAO is that it was a very poorly behaved place
while I lurked here and did not post.
(2) Prior to the loss most of the DN database I verified that RAO was
a very poorly behaved place before I even knew it existed.
(3) RAO remains a very poorly behaved place in my absence which
happens at least once a year.
Furthermore I don't have general behavior problems when I post in
over 100 other newsgroups. Most of the primary villains (who you
absolve and ignore) in this place overwhelmingly post only here.
Frankly, I think they like the place just as it is with maybe one
little detail. They'd like to silence me because many of my comments
make their heads hurt by obliging them to think.
> And that your poor behavior is what brings on no small part of the
grief you receive from people here?
Mr. Hypocrite as usual your claims are falsified by the record of
history.
For example the vendetta between Mr. Zipser and Mr. Brian McCarty
existed long before I ever posted or even lurked here.
The attacks of Mr. Zipser and Mr. Sanders on Gene Steinberg and his
counter attacks existed long before I ever posted or even lurked
here.
The rancorous dispute between Mr. Zipser and Mr. Nousiane existed
long before I ever posted or even lurked here.
Mr. Ferstler's difficulties are largely independent of whether I
support or deny him.
Mr. Zipser and Mr. Middius frequently abuse and attack many people on
RAO besides me and many times do so independently of any comments I
might make or have made on the topic they are discussing.
I was asked to visit this place by several people who were ongoing
targets of vicious and ongoing attacks by Mr. Zipser, Mr. Sanders,
and a certain Mr. Derrida who no longer posts here, at least under
that name.
> I have used clear language to patiently, politely, and truthfully
> explain to you (with detailed references) how and why you are in
> error.
Mr. Hypocrite, repeated gratuitous attacks that are phrased in
polite language remains hostile acts. You are guilty of doing exactly
that.
The language and claims that I use to defend myself from Mr. Zipser,
Mr. Sanders, Mr. Middius, Mr. Phillips, "Felix" etc. is generally far
more polite and truthful than theirs.
Nevertheless I'm not such a hypocrite as you are and I won't claim
that somehow this totally justifies and absolves me.
>Your responses have not shown the maturity I would expect for
someone your age.
Your attacks are not what I would expect from a person who claims to
have the beliefs you claim. Your obsession with me as demonstrated by
the fact that for about a year I am essentially the only topic of
your RAO personal attacks, is not characteristic of a mature person.
> >Look a mirror some time. It might help. Then again if it hasn't
helped by now, whose to say it ever will?
> This isn't about me, it's about you.
Mr. Hypocrite, it is always about all of us. Everytime you say "This
isn't about me, it's about you." you clearly demonstrate your
self-deceit and hypocrisy.
> Can you at least understand that much of what I'm trying to get
across?
Mr. Hypocrite what you may deceive yourself into thinking you are
trying to get across and the clear message you send me appear to be
two different things.
> I attempt to communicate this
> message to you something like once a year. If there were anything
> sinful about my attempts to exhort/rebuke you (and that's a big
"if"),
> then that would mean that I commit that sin something like once a
> year.
Mr. Hypocrite the fact that you attack just me while justifying the
far more repressible acts of others is one of your sins.
Mr. Hypocrite, you are also lying, presuming that you are mentally
competent and have a normal memory.
Mr. Hypocrite you have attacked me on more than just one occasion in
the past year:
http://x65.deja.com/[ST_rn=fs]/getdoc.xp?AN=645631696
<An attack by Jeff Adams on Arny Kureger on 7/12/2000>
http://x65.deja.com/[ST_rn=fs]/getdoc.xp?AN=563475344
<An post from a series of attacks by Jeff Adams on Arny Krueger on
12/21/2000>
http://x65.deja.com/[ST_rn=fs]/getdoc.xp?AN=520450926.4&CONTEXT=97339
7701.541786175&hitnum=378
<An attack by Jeff Adams on Arny Krueger on 9/3/1999>
Mr. Hypocrite, that goes back just a little more than a year, and
covers 3 separate periods where you were attacking me.
>On the other hand, you sin multiple times a week as you interact
> with those you don't like (and sometimes those you barely know or
> don't know at all).
Mr. Hypocrite if that were the extent of my sinning I would be very
happy.
>You need to stop.
Mr. Hypocrite I need to do what I fell led to do, even if due to my
human imperfections I happen to sin while doing it.
>You are in deep, serious error and denial.
Mr. Hypocrite what is unclear about my various admissions of sinful
behavior?
Does Mr. Middius not bring them up often enough for you to remember
them?
> You need to read books written by some of the great saints of the
past.
Mr. Hypocrite, are you so presumptuous as to think that you somehow
know what I read or have read?
> You need to admit (at least to yourself) that you may be wrong and
study these matters seriously and intently.
Mr.Hypocrite, I know that I am frequently wrong because that's the
nature of my work.
I have admitted that I was wrong more often than any other person on
RAO.
OTOH, given how much I post that is correct, polite, helpful,
insightful and represents a unique but relevant viewpoint, my batting
average just isn't that bad. I've been praised by newbies in the
past fore being the only person who would take the time to give them
an honest, sincere answer.
The people who blame their own personal failings on me, have said on
many occasions that they want to put an end to all that.
Mr. Hypocrite, I guess you think they have a good idea because your
discussions with them w/r/t their reprehensible behavior are
conspicuous by their absence.
Paul D.
>deceptive ignorant. reprehensible offender your
>attacks on me,
>What would Jesus do?
>>not be as deceived as you are.
>Mr. Hypocrite.Mr. Hypocrite. hypocrites.You lie Mr. Hypocrite. Mr. Hypocrite
>Mr. Hypocrite you are deceived, it is deceptive, Mr. Hypocrite. My Hypocrite,
> villainsMr. Hypocrite Mr. Hypocrite,
>repeated gratuitous attacks
>hypocrite as you are,Your attacks Your obsession with me ..
>your RAO personal attacks,Mr. Hypocrite, demonstrate your
>self-deceit and hypocrisy.Mr. Hypocrite what you may deceive >Mr. Hypocrite
>Mr. Hypocrite, you are also lying,
>mentally competent and have a normal
memory.
>Mr. Hypocrite you have>Mr. Hypocrite, Mr. HypocriteMr. Hypocrite I
>Mr. Hypocrite >Mr. Hypocrite, >Mr.Hypocrite,Mr. Hypocrite,
>
>
>
S i g n a l . . . . .
Dan
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@flash.net> wrote:
>> Mr. Hypocrite.Mr. Hypocrite. hypocrites.You lie Mr. Hypocrite. Mr. Hypocrite
>> Mr. Hypocrite you are deceived, it is deceptive, Mr. Hypocrite. My Hypocrite,
>> villainsMr. Hypocrite Mr. Hypocrite,
Did you have to quote one of Arny's posts complete and unedited, Paul?
That is bad netiquette. You could at least have snipped some out. ;-)
jeff_adams
wrote:
><Jeff Adams> wrote in message
>news:94j90t498t7teb919...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 04 Nov 2000 22:46:59 GMT, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@flash.net>
>> wrote:
>
>> ><Jeff Adams> wrote in message
>> >news:2uq80tgpo0haaa82t...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Sat, 04 Nov 2000 10:45:21 GMT, "Arny Krueger"
><ar...@flash.net>
>> >> wrote:
>
>> >> This is all very interesting Arny, but I can't see that you've taken
>> >> any responsibility for your own behavior.
>This is either deceptive or just plain ignorant. I make a policy of
>not denying my responsibility for part of the problems here. However,
>by giving comfort and solace to major reprehensible offenders in your
>attacks on me, I don't think you are exactly doing the right thing.
Oh please. I am not "giving comfort and solace" as you suggest. This
started out with a very simple exhortation for you to apologize for
your error regarding Paul's training. When you squirmed and wiggled
and said the strangest things about how you didn't really owe him an
apology, things began to break down. I don't consider someone who will
blame just about anything and anyone else for why he receives so much
abuse as taking responsibility. If you would communicate in a clear
fashion, perhaps this could have gone more smoothly.
>What would Jesus do? I think he'd attack reprehensible behavior where
>he saw it. He would obviously not be as deceived as you are.
What am I deceived about? What does what someone says to you or how
someone treats you have to do with how you are commanded to behave? Do
you not understand the concept of loving your enemies and not repaying
evil with evil?
On the one hand you seem to admit to the fact that you sin. But yet
you justify your lousy behavior when pressed. It is this dichotomy
that I can not sort out. Why don't you spell out what you think is OK
for you to do and what you think is not OK? You've said you don't have
to apologize for an error you made regarding your statement about
Paul's training. I have no idea how you justify that. You apparently
don't think you sinned at all when you made your famous statement
about Paul's associate's obituary (you even reference it later). You
think it's OK to taunt and provoke. You take pride in your ability to
troll. Color me confused. Just what do you think _is_ sinful? What
exactly are you taking responsibility for? It's great to say you take
responsibility for your behavior, but when called on things, you say
you've done nothing wrong. It's all very confusing to me.
>> >And I haven't seen you take any responsibility for yours, Jeff.
>
>> Sure I have. Perhaps you didn't read very carefully.
>
>Perhaps I notice all the times you whitewash your own sins and the
>sins of others, Mr. Hypocrite.
You haven't proven any sin yet, or any hypocrisy yet. Why do you
insist on repeating this over and over again?
>> >You really don't get the word hypocrite, do you, Jeff?
>
>> You haven't proven a single instance of such.
>
>Obviously you can't see that, Mr. Hypocrite. That's a key failing of
>hypocrites.
You haven't proven any sin yet, or any hypocrisy yet. Why do you
insist on repeating this over and over again? Proof by vigorous
assertion is not proof I'm sorry to say.
>> You chose to ignore this
>> post, just as you did my other post that dealt with your empty claims
>> of hypocrisy on my part.
>
>You lie Mr. Hypocrite. I responded, you just didn't like the
>response.
No, I'm sorry, but you didn't respond to this post until just now. My
newsreader shows this response dated 11/4/00 at 8:52pm Pacific time.
And I still haven't seen a response to the post I'm talking about (the
one where I show you have proven absolutely no hypocrisy) in the
thread titled "Simply trying to get an answer". So I would be pleased
if you didn't call me a liar.
>>My logic was plain, clear, and simple.
>
>Where have I heard that claim before?
>
>Obviously Mr. Hypocrite your plain, clear and simple logic is more
>important to you than any number of holy directives from the lips of
>my savior to act against reprehensible behavior where it exists.
It's always back to me again, isn't it? Your behavior is often
reprehensible, but rather than admit to it and change, you try to
twist things around.
>>Yours was tortured and difficult to comprehend.
>
>Where have I heard that claim before?
>
>Obviously Mr. Hypocrite you are deceived by the prince of human
>logic.
???
>> What is it that won't allow you to see or admit that your behavior
>> is often very poor?
>
>This question has been answered many times in a fashion that asking
>it is deceptive, Mr. Hypocrite.
Still no hypocrisy proven. Sorry. And see above - you say something
about taking responsibility and at the same time continue the same
behavior week in and week out, denying specific instances of it when
called on it. That's not taking responsibility.
>> And that your poor behavior is a large part of the problem around
>>here?
>
>My Hypocrite, your logic is flawed on the grounds of the facts of
>history:
>
>(1) The history of RAO is that it was a very poorly behaved place
>while I lurked here and did not post.
>
>(2) Prior to the loss most of the DN database I verified that RAO was
>a very poorly behaved place before I even knew it existed.
>
>(3) RAO remains a very poorly behaved place in my absence which
>happens at least once a year.
That's all very interesting and probably true. It doesn't change the
fact that your behavior creates enormous amounts of problems here. It
doesn't change the need for you to change your ways, regardless of
whether the place continues to be a cesspool without your poor
behavior.
>Furthermore I don't have general behavior problems when I post in
>over 100 other newsgroups. Most of the primary villains (who you
>absolve and ignore) in this place overwhelmingly post only here.
Please stop the lying right now. It turns my stomach and you should be
ashamed of yourself. I clearly denounced the behavior of the "primary
villains" in a post you yourself quoted, so I know you read it.
>Frankly, I think they like the place just as it is with maybe one
>little detail. They'd like to silence me because many of my comments
>make their heads hurt by obliging them to think.
>
>> And that your poor behavior is what brings on no small part of the
>>grief you receive from people here?
>
>Mr. Hypocrite as usual your claims are falsified by the record of
>history.
Maybe you didn't read what I wrote carefully. I said you bring on a
lot of the grief you get yourself. I didn't say a word about other
people's vendetta's in the above statement.
>For example the vendetta between Mr. Zipser and Mr. Brian McCarty
>existed long before I ever posted or even lurked here.
>
>The attacks of Mr. Zipser and Mr. Sanders on Gene Steinberg and his
>counter attacks existed long before I ever posted or even lurked
>here.
>
>The rancorous dispute between Mr. Zipser and Mr. Nousiane existed
>long before I ever posted or even lurked here.
>
>Mr. Ferstler's difficulties are largely independent of whether I
>support or deny him.
>
>Mr. Zipser and Mr. Middius frequently abuse and attack many people on
>RAO besides me and many times do so independently of any comments I
>might make or have made on the topic they are discussing.
So you see this may all be true, but doesn't change what I actually
wrote: that you bring on the grief you receive in part due to your
lousy behavior.
>I was asked to visit this place by several people who were ongoing
>targets of vicious and ongoing attacks by Mr. Zipser, Mr. Sanders,
>and a certain Mr. Derrida who no longer posts here, at least under
>that name.
>
>> I have used clear language to patiently, politely, and truthfully
>> explain to you (with detailed references) how and why you are in
>> error.
>
>Mr. Hypocrite, repeated gratuitous attacks that are phrased in
>polite language remains hostile acts. You are guilty of doing exactly
>that.
You have proven no such thing. I am following biblical commands to
rebuke you. The fact that you see it as hostile is not my fault, nor
is it a sin on my part. You really don't understand this, do you?
>The language and claims that I use to defend myself from Mr. Zipser,
>Mr. Sanders, Mr. Middius, Mr. Phillips, "Felix" etc. is generally far
>more polite and truthful than theirs.
It's not a sliding scale. I readily admit you don't often if ever use
the "bad words" they do, but you taunt and provoke, insult, etc. Not
acceptable behavior.
>Nevertheless I'm not such a hypocrite as you are and I won't claim
>that somehow this totally justifies and absolves me.
So stop then. Does this mean you admit that taunting, provoking,
intentionally angering, etc., <and by all means, fill in the etc. so
we can be perfectly clear> is unacceptable? I really don't know what
you're saying you think is bad. You say you aren't totally absolved.
So what is it that you think you do that's bad? Lay it out plainly.
>>Your responses have not shown the maturity I would expect for
>>someone your age.
>
>Your attacks are not what I would expect from a person who claims to
>have the beliefs you claim. Your obsession with me as demonstrated by
>the fact that for about a year I am essentially the only topic of
>your RAO personal attacks, is not characteristic of a mature person.
You seem bound and determined to call biblical exhortations and
rebukes "personal attacks". We've had this problem before.
Exhortations and rebukes are biblical. Period. You don't like being on
the receiving end. I understand that. That doesn't make it "bad". I'm
sorry. And I would hardly call rebuking you once every year or so "an
obsession". That's actually pretty funny!
>> >Look a mirror some time. It might help. Then again if it hasn't
>> >helped by now, whose to say it ever will?
>
>> This isn't about me, it's about you.
>
>Mr. Hypocrite, it is always about all of us. Everytime you say "This
>isn't about me, it's about you." you clearly demonstrate your
>self-deceit and hypocrisy.
You yourself said I don't post here very often. If I don't post, I'm
not a part of the problem of your lousy behavior on a week-to-week
basis. I am not deceived when I watch you behave poorly and then
occasionally choose to try to get you to admit to a specific incident.
>> Can you at least understand that much of what I'm trying to get
>>across?
>
>Mr. Hypocrite what you may deceive yourself into thinking you are
>trying to get across and the clear message you send me appear to be
>two different things.
??? How much more clear could it possibly be ???
>> I attempt to communicate this
>> message to you something like once a year. If there were anything
>> sinful about my attempts to exhort/rebuke you (and that's a big "if"),
>> then that would mean that I commit that sin something like once a
>> year.
>
>Mr. Hypocrite the fact that you attack just me while justifying the
>far more repressible acts of others is one of your sins.
I haven't justified anyone else's "far more repressible acts". Please
stop lying. It's a sin. Just stop. You yourself quoted my post where I
denounced their behavior. How can you write such blatant lies?
>Mr. Hypocrite, you are also lying, presuming that you are mentally
>competent and have a normal memory.
>
>Mr. Hypocrite you have attacked me on more than just one occasion in
>the past year:
>
>http://x65.deja.com/[ST_rn=fs]/getdoc.xp?AN=645631696
>
><An attack by Jeff Adams on Arny Kureger on 7/12/2000>
This is an attack? Let's take a look:
----- begin post referenced above:
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 16:51:37 GMT, Gene Steinberg
<ge...@macnightowl.com> wrote:
>In article <8ki5ov$sm0$2...@plutonium.btinternet.com>, "Paul Bamborough"
><pa...@bamborough.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> This seems to me to lead directly to the conclusion that Krüger lied.
>> The only
>> other possibility would sem to be total delusion.
>
>
>Or simply something in between, which is where I lean.
It appears to me that this boils down to one simple thing:
Arny used the phrase, "... the obituary mentions ...". He said:
"It really says something when Paul Bamborough's coworker's
widely-published eulogy mentions what an irascible a-hole Paul
Bamborough was and apparently still is, some 20 years later"
The key word in the above is "mentions".
I think to many if not most people, this suggests that, somewhere in
the text of the obituary, it _mentions_ (or _says_ if you prefer) that
Paul B. is an a-hole. In other words "mentions" doesn't imply an
interpretation or opinion, it means that those words are actually
used. I think it's clear to just about everyone that Arny isn't fond
of Paul, so I don't think there's much surprise that Arny would
interpret the obit that way. And the way I read this thread, Paul
isn't objecting to what Arny's interpretation may or may not be. He's
simply relying on the notion that "mention" means the words appeared
somewhere in the obit.
-------------- end post
This was an extremely objective, neutral assessment of what happened.
I made a simple observation of the facts.
So we can strike this one.
OK, next:
>http://x65.deja.com/[ST_rn=fs]/getdoc.xp?AN=563475344
>
><An post from a series of attacks by Jeff Adams on Arny Krueger on
>12/21/2000>
OK, let's look at this one:
----------------------- begin post
On Tue, 21 Dec 1999 12:14:44 GMT, "Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net>
wrote:
> "Jeff Adams" <jeff....@gdfeg-es.com> wrote in message
> news:385ea826....@wlbr.iipo.gtegsc.com... On Mon, 20 Dec
> 1999 14:39:42 GMT, "Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net> wrote:
>>> "Jeff Adams" <jeff....@gdfeg-es.com> wrote in message
>>> news:385da21...@news.mtv.gtegsc.com... On Sun, 19 Dec 1999
>>> 21:39:53 GMT, "Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net> wrote:
>>>>> "Marc Blank" <mbl...@eidetic.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:MPG.12c6d38db...@enews.newsguy.com...
>>>>>> Of co urse, Arny, there's another "rule" that suggests that
>>>>>> you should treat people "nice" regardless....
>>>>> There is a limit to regardless, even in the Bible.
>>>> Even if you were to take "70 x 7" (Mat 18:22) as an actual
>>>> limit, that's a lot. And many people would disagree that this
>>>> is a hard and fast limit (I never heard anyone counsel
>>>> someone to keep counting from 1 to 489, then quit forgiving
>>>> at the 490th offense). But this may not be what you're
>>>> referring to.
>>> We've discussed this before. Why are you compelled to repeat
>>> past futile acts?
>> I didn't remember that we had had a dialogue on this exact topic.
> I think we had a non-dialogue. You made your assertions, and I
> declined to discuss religion with you.
>> Did you have something that would bolster your assertion that
>> there is a limit (which supposes that in fact this is the
>> passage you are talking about), or, are you suggesting we just
>> not attempt this? :-)
> The latter.
OK, that's fine, but you made an assertion in your post to Marc Blank
and I wanted to point out that the position you espoused may not be
correct. There are certainly many who would in fact strenuously
disagree with you.
------------------------------- end post
No attack here. I stated my understanding of a passage. I guess you
disagree, but I can't really tell from what you wrote in the above
post. How can you possibly call a potential difference of opinion an
attack? You must be kidding.
And in case you didn't notice, that's about a year ago (Dec 1999).
OK, let's keep going:
>http://x65.deja.com/[ST_rn=fs]/getdoc.xp?AN=520450926.4&CONTEXT=97339
>7701.541786175&hitnum=378
>
><An attack by Jeff Adams on Arny Krueger on 9/3/1999>
First, this post is over a year old, so, this validates my claim of
not having commented on your poor behavior for something like a year.
Nothing more needs to be said.
>Mr. Hypocrite, that goes back just a little more than a year, and
>covers 3 separate periods where you were attacking me.
Sorry, no hypocrisy. I said it had been something like a year, and
sure enough, the post on 9/31/99 is over a year ago. The preceding
post was around 11 months ago (also close to a year), but wasn't an
attack but rather a difference of opinion. And finally, the post from
July of this year was a simple statement of events. I didn't even take
sides, I just pointed out to Gene why Paul was annoyed. If you take
that as an "attack", you're extremely paranoid.
>>On the other hand, you sin multiple times a week as you interact
>> with those you don't like (and sometimes those you barely know or
>> don't know at all).
>
>Mr. Hypocrite if that were the extent of my sinning I would be very
>happy.
I don't know what to say. It sounds like you're saying your behavior
here is pretty good in comparison to the sins you commit in the rest
of your life.
>>You need to stop.
>
>Mr. Hypocrite I need to do what I fell led to do, even if due to my
>human imperfections I happen to sin while doing it.
Well, what you really need to do is what you are commanded to do by
scripture.
>>You are in deep, serious error and denial.
>
>Mr. Hypocrite what is unclear about my various admissions of sinful
>behavior?
What is unclear is that you make vague statements about sinful
behavior, but when called on sinful behavior, you deny it. So, spell
it out for us. What is sinful behavior to you? Give a few examples.
>Does Mr. Middius not bring them up often enough for you to remember
>them?
I guess not.
>> You need to read books written by some of the great saints of the
>> past.
>
>Mr. Hypocrite, are you so presumptuous as to think that you somehow
>know what I read or have read?
I have no idea what you've read. I can only base my statement
regarding your need to read the great saints on your sinful behavior
(i.e., that if you have, it doesn't show). Please recommend some
titles.
>> You need to admit (at least to yourself) that you may be wrong and
>>study these matters seriously and intently.
>
>Mr.Hypocrite, I know that I am frequently wrong because that's the
>nature of my work.
??? What nature of what work ???
>I have admitted that I was wrong more often than any other person on
>RAO.
>
>OTOH, given how much I post that is correct, polite, helpful,
>insightful and represents a unique but relevant viewpoint, my batting
>average just isn't that bad. I've been praised by newbies in the
>past fore being the only person who would take the time to give them
>an honest, sincere answer.
Great, as I've said before, you have a lot to offer when you behave
this way. It's your nasty style when dealing with those you dislike
that I object to. Surely I've made that clear by now???
>The people who blame their own personal failings on me, have said on
>many occasions that they want to put an end to all that.
>
>Mr. Hypocrite, I guess you think they have a good idea because your
>discussions with them w/r/t their reprehensible behavior are
>conspicuous by their absence.
???
Arny Krueger
<Jeff Adams> wrote in message
> On Sun, 05 Nov 2000 04:52:13 GMT, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@flash.net>
> wrote:
>
> ><Jeff Adams> wrote in message
> >news:94j90t498t7teb919...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 04 Nov 2000 22:46:59 GMT, "Arny Krueger"
<ar...@flash.net>
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> ><Jeff Adams> wrote in message
> >> >news:2uq80tgpo0haaa82t...@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Sat, 04 Nov 2000 10:45:21 GMT, "Arny Krueger"
> ><ar...@flash.net>
> >> >> wrote:
> >
> >> >> This is all very interesting Arny, but I can't see that
you've taken
> >> >> any responsibility for your own behavior.
>
> >This is either deceptive or just plain ignorant. I make a policy
of
> >not denying my responsibility for part of the problems here.
However,
> >by giving comfort and solace to major reprehensible offenders in
your
> >attacks on me, I don't think you are exactly doing the right
thing.
> Oh please. I am not "giving comfort and solace" as you suggest.
LOL! You are just being deceptive again. The paragraph stared out
talking about your recent lies and deceptions. By not answering it,
you are showing that my claims about it are true.
> your error regarding Paul's training.
Interesting deception.
Here is my original claim:
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=686808563
"I'll be charitable and say that people like John Atkinson and Paul
Bamborough are just casualties of the fact that a person can get a EE
or any number of good jobs in audio without any training in the
design of subjective experiments, psychoacoustics or perceptual
psychology."
Let's look at this statement. It has a list of 3 items:
(1) design of subjective experiments
(2) psychoacoustics
(3) perceptual psychology
The logical connection between them is the word "or".
So their logical form is "Design of subjective experiments" OR
"psychoacoustics" OR "perceptual psychology"
However they are preceded by a word that negates the logic"without".
Therefore the form of the claim is "not or".
Now anybody who knows any combinatorial logic knows that "not or" =
"and".
Therefore to satisfy the claim, a person has to have training in
"design of subjective experiments" AND "psychoacoustics" AND
"perceptual psychology"
Mr. Bamborough listed his qualifications as follows:
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=687904776
"I have a degree in Experimental Psychology and Physiology from
Oxford University, and six years postgraduate work in cognitive and
perceptual psychology at Harvard and Oxford."
Therefore, Mr. Bamborough claimed he has training in:
"cognition" AND "perceptual psychology".
Since "cognition AND perceptual psychology" is not the same as in
"design of subjective experiments" AND "psychoacoustics" AND
"perceptual psychology" Mr. Bamborough has not falsified my claim.
Now I'm not saying that he can't falsify my claim, but he clearly had
a free choice of words and taking his words at face value, he has not
yet falsified my claim. Mr. Bamborough seems to have a great
reputation as a wordsmith, so we can only presume that he said
exactly what he meant to say when he apparently intentionally chose
not to falsify my claim.
>When you squirmed and wiggled
> and said the strangest things about how you didn't really owe him
an
> apology, things began to break down.
Mr. Bamborough has not falsified my claim Mr. Hypocrite. Yet you are
accusing me like he had. More proof of your lies and hypocrisy,
right?
>I don't consider someone who will
> blame just about anything and anyone else for why he receives so
much
> abuse as taking responsibility.
I have shown that clearly and logically, and based on the face value
of Mr. Bamborough's words, there is no blame to take.
> If you would communicate in a clear
> fashion, perhaps this could have gone more smoothly.
When people intentionally lie about events, such as you have just
done Mr. Hypocrite, there is little that I can do.
Now, lets take a recent event that you have blamed on me Mr.
Hypocrite:
=== begin long post =====
http://x53.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=687917787
Subject:Re: Kwazy Kwooger is thweatening to take his own wirthwess
wife
Date:10/31/2000
Author:Zip <szi...@mia.bellsouth.net>
<< previous in search · next in search >>
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:8UwL5.961$pq3....@news.flash.net...
>
> "Zip" <szi...@mia.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:oKqL5.2826$C7.2...@news2.mco...
>
> > Krooger NAMBLA,
>
> Mr. Zipser why are you bringing up your fascination with NAMBLA
> again? Perhaps if you had a son of your own you would take things
> like this more seriously.
I never mentioned it before in my life, Krooger. You are a liar - I
defy you to find any post where I previously used that term.
> > you are straying where you shouldn't.
>
> Mr. Zipser, as if you are not!
>
> > MY child did not kill him/her self.
>
> Mr. Zipser I am very pleased that your child is ignorant of the
> activities of her father and has not yet committed suicide because
of
> it.
And yours did - speaking loads about the father of your child
> Given your many reprehensible actions, I hope she never does find
out
> the truth about her dad.
>
> My child did not kill himself. If you have evidence to the
contrary,
> I'd really like to see it! If you don't, then why not just admit
that
> you are posting drunk again and making grievous mistakes?
I do not drink more than an occasional beer, and I made no mistake.
You did.
> > I suggest you leave family out, you loser!
>
> Mr. Zipser, you are the person who first raised the issue of
family
> by slandering my wife. At least my wife is not a well-known
> plagiarist!
No, she is a bone crusher with no mind, otherwise she'dd have not
married a sleezy, lying computer jockey that by your own admission
wipes his own ass with thousand dollar checks - like yourself
> Now Mr. Zipser, you've joined the small reprehensible group of
people
> on RAO who have slandered my dead son's memory. OK, so you are as
low
> if not lower than Mr. Singh and Mr. Middius. Are you proud of
> yourself?
You brought up family, you asshole, not I. Now go pull a Haugen and
kill yourself.
=== end long post ========
Please formally justify this post point by point, using whatever
means you will, since you seem to think that I caused it, Mr.
Hypcrite and Liar.
> >What would Jesus do? I think he'd attack reprehensible behavior
where
> >he saw it. He would obviously not be as deceived as you are.
> What am I deceived about? What does what someone says to you or how
> someone treats you have to do with how you are commanded to behave?
Do
> you not understand the concept of loving your enemies and not
repaying
> evil with evil?
Mr. Hypocrite and Liar, one way we show love for people is to help
them with their problems. One way we help people with their problems
is to point them out to them. You seem to think that only Christians
deserve that benefit. Where does the Bible say that we are only
supposed to love our enemies if they are Christians?
> On the one hand you seem to admit to the fact that you sin.
Mr. Liar and Hypocrite, I "Seem to admit to the fact that (I) sin"?
LOL. You obviously don't read any posts by Mr. Middius or Mr. Dormer.
They seem to be able to quote me admitting to sin at the drop of a
hat. They do it early and often. If they can do it, why can't you?
Mr. Liar and Hypocrite, the only person around here I see
specifically denying sinful behavior is you!
>But yet you justify your lousy behavior when pressed.
I don't justify it, I admit to it and explain it.
>It is this dichotomy that I can not sort out.
Mr. Liar and Hypocrite, that is because you are badly mislead, as I
have now repeatedly shown.
> Why don't you spell out what you think is OK for you to do and
what you think is not OK?
Way too big of a task when I am forced to deal with Liars and
Hypocrites who don't admit to their lies and hypocrisy.
>You've said you don't have
> to apologize for an error you made regarding your statement about
> Paul's training.
That error has not been proven, as I showed with clear and simple
logic.
> I have no idea how you justify that.
Thusfar, no need. If you consider how long it took for Mr. Bamborough
to reply to repeated simple questions about his training, (he was
dodging and weaving days before you asked your simple question Mr.
Liar and Hypocrite) I fail to see even less need for any kind of
correction.
>You apparently
> don't think you sinned at all when you made your famous statement
> about Paul's associate's obituary (you even reference it later).
I think that I have a right to read text and take it at face value
and use it with past experience to form an opinion. BTW, I hold that
opinion to this very day, Mr. Liar and Hypocrite.
> You think it's OK to taunt and provoke.
Mr. Liar and Hypocrite I'm waiting for a voluminous "Mea Culpa" from
you on the subject of your nearly 2 year record for taunting and
provoking me.
>You take pride in your ability to troll.
On RAO that is a life's skill! ;-) Besides what is trolling? It is
just the offering of a topic for conversation.
>Color me confused. Just what do you think _is_ sinful?
A list of things too long to mention here. However, sinful activity
is partially dependent on circumstance. RAO is as I have repeatedly
shown a peculiar circumstance, so therefore we have a peculiar
definition of sin around here.
> What exactly are you taking responsibility for?
Unlike the sinful people whose hands you wash Mr. Liar and Hypocrite,
everything I do whether you know about it or not.
>It's great to say you take responsibility for your behavior, but
when called on things, you say
> you've done nothing wrong. It's all very confusing to me.
Mr. Liar and Hypocrite, please disprove my claim that I've admitted
to more errors on RAO than any other person.
> >> >And I haven't seen you take any responsibility for yours, Jeff.
> >> Sure I have. Perhaps you didn't read very carefully.
> >Perhaps I notice all the times you whitewash your own sins and the
> >sins of others, Mr. Hypocrite.
> You haven't proven any sin yet, or any hypocrisy yet.
LOL!
>Why do you insist on repeating this over and over again?
Because Mr. Liar and Hypocrite, this is not just about me, it is
about all of us, even you!
Where does God say that only Christians need to be accountable for
their sins? Where is it written in the Bible that only Christians
should be corrected when they make mistakes? I've challenged you on
this point and you seem to be dodging it.
>
> >> >You really don't get the word hypocrite, do you, Jeff?
>
> >> You haven't proven a single instance of such.
>
> >Obviously you can't see that, Mr. Hypocrite. That's a key failing
of
> >hypocrites.
> You haven't proven any sin yet, or any hypocrisy yet.
Obviously you can't see that, Mr. Hypocrite. That's a key failing of
hypocrites
>Why do you insist on repeating this over and over again?
Why do you insist on repeating this over and over again?
> Proof by vigorous assertion is not proof I'm sorry to say.
Mr. Liar and Hypocrite, I've just shown 1 post ago where you have
lied presuming that you have a memory that goes back far enough to
cover the claims you have recently made.
> >> You chose to ignore this
> >> post, just as you did my other post that dealt with your empty
claims
> >> of hypocrisy on my part.
> >You lie Mr. Hypocrite. I responded, you just didn't like the
>response.
> No, I'm sorry, but you didn't respond to this post until just now.
My
> newsreader shows this response dated 11/4/00 at 8:52pm Pacific
time.
> And I still haven't seen a response to the post I'm talking about
(the
> one where I show you have proven absolutely no hypocrisy) in the
> thread titled "Simply trying to get an answer". So I would be
pleased
> if you didn't call me a liar.
I'm not required to read or reply to every post. I thought you were
talking about a post that Vie seen and read. You confuse Usenet with
a reliable means of communication.
> >>My logic was plain, clear, and simple.
> >Where have I heard that claim before?
> >Obviously Mr. Hypocrite your plain, clear and simple logic is more
> >important to you than any number of holy directives from the lips
of
> >my savior to act against reprehensible behavior where it exists.
> It's always back to me again, isn't it?
No Mr. Liar and Hypocrite it comes down to all of us! You have lied,
I have conclusively showed it several times now.
>Your behavior is often
> reprehensible, but rather than admit to it and change, you try to
> twist things around.
Mr. Liar and Hypocrite I have simply counted up the times that you
have done things within a timeframe you defined and came up with a
number that was 3 or more times what you claimed was the truth.
> >>Yours was tortured and difficult to comprehend.
>
> >Where have I heard that claim before?
> >Obviously Mr. Hypocrite you are deceived by the prince of human
> >logic.
> ???
Exactly. Human logic is flawed. It is not conclusive proof for
anything. That's why they require evidence in court.
> >> What is it that won't allow you to see or admit that your
behavior
> >> is often very poor?
> >This question has been answered many times in a fashion that
asking
> >it is deceptive, Mr. Hypocrite.
> Still no hypocrisy proven.
Again Mr. Liar and Hypocrite you again respond deceptively by not
answering my primary claim that I have answered the question about my
admissions about my behavior.
>Sorry. And see above - you say something
> about taking responsibility and at the same time continue the same
> behavior week in and week out, denying specific instances of it
when
> called on it.
I only deny things that I feel justified in denying. I admit to
failings that I know I have. I admit to far more personal failings
than you do Mr. Liar and Hypocrite. You deny failings that I have
conclusively shown that you have. Therefore my admissions are likely
to be more representative than yours.
>That's not taking responsibility.
That's what you do, Mr. Liar and Hypocrite. You don't take
responsibility and you public wash the hands of other reprehensible
individuals. I conclude that to do this you have to suppress the
leading of the scriptures and the Spirit, which raises the question
in my mind as to whether you are really and truly a Believer. I
could not bring myself to do what you do. Period.
> >> And that your poor behavior is a large part of the problem
around here?
> >My Hypocrite, your logic is flawed on the grounds of the facts of
> >history:
> >(1) The history of RAO is that it was a very poorly behaved place
> >while I lurked here and did not post.
> >(2) Prior to the loss most of the DN database I verified that RAO
was
> >a very poorly behaved place before I even knew it existed.
> >(3) RAO remains a very poorly behaved place in my absence which
> >happens at least once a year.
> That's all very interesting and probably true.
Mr. Liar and Hypocrite is key information that IS true. You are again
being deceptive. For all I know you have been reading and posting on
RAO going back further than I.
> It doesn't change the fact that your behavior creates enormous
amounts of problems here.
Prove it!
> It doesn't change the need for you to change your ways, regardless
of
> whether the place continues to be a cesspool without your poor
> behavior.
Mr. Liar and Hypocrite I have shown conclusively (lack of HARD
evidence due to events out of my control) that this place has been a
cesspool regardless of my behavior good or bad. You try to bob and
weave around these simple facts. Therefore you are being deceptive
and I have again shown that you are lying and acting like a
hypocrite.
> >Furthermore I don't have general behavior problems when I post in
> >over 100 other newsgroups. Most of the primary villains (who you
> >absolve and ignore) in this place overwhelmingly post only here.
> Please stop the lying right now. It turns my stomach and you should
be
> ashamed of yourself. I clearly denounced the behavior of the
"primary
> villains" in a post you yourself quoted, so I know you read it.
Mr. Liar and Hypocrite, your "clear enunciations" are extremely rare
and gently stated, frequently hidden away in attacks on me. Why don't
you try to show that you have denounced Mr. Zipser, and Mr. Middius
as often and with the vigor that you have denounced me?
> >Frankly, I think they like the place just as it is with maybe one
> >little detail. They'd like to silence me because many of my
comments
> >make their heads hurt by obliging them to think.
<no response from the Hypocrite and Liar>
> >> And that your poor behavior is what brings on no small part of
the
> >>grief you receive from people here?
> >Mr. Hypocrite as usual your claims are falsified by the record of
> >history.
> Maybe you didn't read what I wrote carefully.
LOL!
>I said you bring on a lot of the grief you get yourself. I didn't
say a word about other people's vendetta's in the above statement.
Mr. Liar and Hypocrite, I can show a direct connection between Mr.
Zipser's reprehensible attack on me (now proven to be largely lies)
and a time where I challenged Mr. Zipser based on his reprehensible
past behavior. Now, did I bring the additional lies on myself by
challenging him about his past lies? I would be stupid to say
otherwise. Nevertheless I brought that on myself because "Good
Christians" like you are tongue-tied. If you were doing your job and
attacking Mr. Zipser as aggressively as I have, you would no doubt
"suffer" as I did. I think you lack the moral courage to take those
kinds of risks. Being a Christian is being a risk if one confronts
lies and reprehensible behavior in people Like Mr. Zipser and Mr.
Middius. Yes, if one tries to show them the errors of their ways one
runs a high risk of "bringing it on yourself". But Mr. Liar and
Hypocrite that is something that I think I should do as a Christian.
So, to summarize, when I say that I bring these things on myself I am
simple showing an ounce of insight to the natural outcome of honest,
sincere acts that I feel my FAITH demands of me. I am not admitting
to a general fault.
> >For example the vendetta between Mr. Zipser and Mr. Brian McCarty
> >existed long before I ever posted or even lurked here.
> >The attacks of Mr. Zipser and Mr. Sanders on Gene Steinberg and
his
> >counter attacks existed long before I ever posted or even lurked
> >here.
> >The rancorous dispute between Mr. Zipser and Mr. Nousiane existed
> >long before I ever posted or even lurked here.
> >Mr. Ferstler's difficulties are largely independent of whether I
> >support or deny him.
> >Mr. Zipser and Mr. Middius frequently abuse and attack many people
on
> >RAO besides me and many times do so independently of any comments
I
> >might make or have made on the topic they are discussing.
> So you see this may all be true, but doesn't change what I actually
> wrote: that you bring on the grief you receive in part due to your
> lousy behavior.
Its not necessarily my lousy behavior, the cause is often behavior
that I believe is demanded by my FAITH. In short Mr. Liar and
Hypocrite, much of what you are accusing me of is just me living out
my Christian faith, which I happily plead guilty to.
> >I was asked to visit this place by several people who were ongoing
> >targets of vicious and ongoing attacks by Mr. Zipser, Mr. Sanders,
> >and a certain Mr. Derrida who no longer posts here, at least under
> >that name.
> >> I have used clear language to patiently, politely, and
truthfully
> >> explain to you (with detailed references) how and why you are in
> >> error.
> >Mr. Hypocrite, repeated gratuitous attacks that are phrased in
> >polite language remains hostile acts. You are guilty of doing
exactly
> >that.
> You have proven no such thing.
I keep piling the proof on Mr. Hypocrite and you keep your blinders
on, living in denial of the obvious.
> I am following biblical commands to rebuke you.
Mr. Liar and Hypocrite, it is clear to me that you are in the
vernacular "Too Chickensh*t" to follow far more prevalent biblical
commands to rebuke sin where ever it is. You obviously practice
selective reading of The Bible. Instead of being a light to the
world, you spread darkness among Christians.
>The fact that you see it as hostile is not my fault, nor
> is it a sin on my part. You really don't understand this, do you?
Not understanding suggests a fault. My perceptions of your behavior
Mr. Liar and Hypocrite are not faulty.
> >The language and claims that I use to defend myself from Mr.
Zipser,
> >Mr. Sanders, Mr. Middius, Mr. Phillips, "Felix" etc. is generally
far
> >more polite and truthful than theirs.
> It's not a sliding scale. I readily admit you don't often if ever
use
> the "bad words" they do, but you taunt and provoke, insult, etc.
Not
> acceptable behavior.
Mr. Liar and Hypocrite many of my taunts and provoking relate to the
fact that they frequently lie and deceive. I have a responsibility to
confront that kind of behavior when I see it. You have no track
record for doing much of that at all. Therefore, you are falling down
on your responsibilities as a Christian. Furthermore you compound
your sins of omission with a very conscious sin: accusing a Christian
of Wong doing when he is just confronting evil.
> >Nevertheless I'm not such a hypocrite as you are and I won't claim
> >that somehow this totally justifies and absolves me.
> So stop then.
Mr. Liar and Hypocrite, I decline to stop taunt, provoke and insult
people who are in the midst of deceiving and just plain out-and-out
lying.
> Does this mean you admit that taunting, provoking, intentionally
angering, etc., <and by all means, fill in the etc. so
> we can be perfectly clear> is unacceptable?
Not when that taunting, provoking, intentionally angering, etc.
relates to people who are lying or deceiving or are trapped in the
lies and deceptions of others.
>I really don't know what you're saying you think is bad.
Its really between me and God, and not between me and you at all.
>You say you aren't totally absolved.
Huzzah, you can read!
> So what is it that you think you do that's bad? Lay it out plainly.
I make mistakes. That's what I do that is bad.
> >>Your responses have not shown the maturity I would expect for
> >>someone your age.
> >Your attacks are not what I would expect from a person who claims
to
> >have the beliefs you claim. Your obsession with me as demonstrated
by
> >the fact that for about a year I am essentially the only topic of
> >your RAO personal attacks, is not characteristic of a mature
person.
> You seem bound and determined to call biblical exhortations and
rebukes "personal attacks".
Easy to do when it is easy to show that they are based on a very
selective reading of the Bible!
>We've had this problem before.
No, Mr. Liar and Hypocrite YOU'VE had this problem before.
> Exhortations and rebukes are biblical. Period.
Thank you. Now Mr. Liar and Hypocrite, please explain why you think
that the biblical directives to exhort and rebuke apply almost
entirely to Christians. At least, that's the story your actions tell.
>You don't like being on the receiving end. I understand that. That
doesn't make it "bad".
Your selective Bible reading is the obvious sin in your life here,
Mr. Liar and Hypocrite. Your denial of your own public sinfulness is
yet another obvious sin in your life, Mr. Liar and Hypocrite.
>I'm sorry.
You are very a very sorry mess, Mr. Liar and Hypocrite. I hope that
after you go to church today and get counseling and you will shortly
report back that the "scales have been taken off your eyes" and you
now understand that the demand from God that we exhort people to do
good and avoid evil applies to non-Christians as well. Since there
are about twice as many non-Christians as Christians that means that
about 2/3 of the time we should be exhorting non-Christians. Thinking
about it Mr. Liar and Hypocrite, I have not been exhorting and
rebuking enough Christians. If you really are a Christian, and I more
and more doubt that you are, I thank you for bringing a little
balance to my spiritual life!
>And I would hardly call rebuking you once every year or so "an
> obsession". That's actually pretty funny!
Come on Mr. Liar and Hypocrite I just conclusively busted you on that
lie. I showed that in the past just over a year you had 4 different
rebuking sessions with me including this one. That's not "once a year
or so". It's every 3 months on the average. Then if we count in the
multiple rebuking posts in some of the sessions we probably can say
that you rebuke me dozens of times a year. If we count the multiple
rebukes per post, then we might find 100 rebukes a year. LOL talk
about self-deception!
> >> >Look a mirror some time. It might help. Then again if it hasn't
> >> >helped by now, whose to say it ever will?
>
> >> This isn't about me, it's about you.
> >Mr. Hypocrite, it is always about all of us. Everytime you say
"This
> >isn't about me, it's about you." you clearly demonstrate your
> >self-deceit and hypocrisy.
> You yourself said I don't post here very often. If I don't post,
I'm
> not a part of the problem of your lousy behavior on a week-to-week
> basis.
Yet another deception Mr. Liar and Hypocrite. I've made no such claim
as the one that you are addressing here. Straw Man! you are busted
again!
> I am not deceived when I watch you behave poorly and then
> occasionally choose to try to get you to admit to a specific
incident.
As I pointed out with "clear simple logic" that was a deception on
your part, Mr. Liar and Hypocrite!
> >> Can you at least understand that much of what I'm trying to get
> >>across?
>
> >Mr. Hypocrite what you may deceive yourself into thinking you are
> >trying to get across and the clear message you send me appear to
be
> >two different things.
> ??? How much more clear could it possibly be ???
Mr. Liar and Hypocrite, let's start with you making it clear you
admit that you've lied and been a hypocrite?
> >> I attempt to communicate this
> >> message to you something like once a year. If there were
anything
> >> sinful about my attempts to exhort/rebuke you (and that's a big
"if"),
> >> then that would mean that I commit that sin something like once
a
> >> year.
>
> >Mr. Hypocrite the fact that you attack just me while justifying
the
> >far more reprehensible acts of others is one of your sins.
> I haven't justified anyone else's "far more reprehensible acts".
LOL! That's the whole point of your attacks Mr. Liar and Hypocrite.
People blame their reprehensible behavior on me and you turn around
and attack me. You don't publically (probably not privately either)
exhort and rebuke them like the holy scriptures you like to thump
against me demand that you do to them.
> Please stop lying. It's a sin. Just stop.
M. Liar and Hypocrite, show me how YOU do that!
>You yourself quoted my post where I denounced their behavior. How
can you write such blatant lies?
Mr. Liar and Hypocrite your denouncements of them don't extend much
beyond that one example. As I recall your typical behavior is to
hide such denouncements away in posts where you primarily attack me.
Now that is brave of you! (NOT)
> -------------- end post
Tortured exegesis aside It's an attack on my character by one Liar
and Hypocrite named Jeff Adams.
> So we can strike this one.
Nope, it remains an attack by Jeff Adams Liar and Hypocrite on Arny
Krueger.
> OK, next:
Nope you are still at zero, Mr. Liar and Hypocrite.
Tortured exegesis aside It's an attack on my character by one Liar
and Hypocrite named Jeff Adams.
> And in case you didn't notice, that's about a year ago (Dec 1999).
Well within 1 year of 5 November 2000, which is today's date. We'll
add that to your list of deceptions, Mr. Liar and Hypocrite.
5&hitnum=378
> >
> ><An attack by Jeff Adams on Arny Krueger on 9/3/1999>
>
> First, this post is over a year old, so, this validates my claim of
> not having commented on your poor behavior for something like a
year.
> Nothing more needs to be said.
I didn't count the current attack, so the one year clock starts with
the previous occurrence I cited. That was on 7/12/2000 so my 1 year
period would be valid if I go back to 7/12/1999.
We'll add that one to your list of deceptions, Mr. Liar and
Hypocrite.
Boy, Mr. Liar and Hypocrite you really did good that time. You just
got busted for what, 4 more deceptions?
>>Hypocrite, that goes back just a little more than a year, and
> >covers 3 separate periods where you were attacking me.
> Sorry, no hypocrisy. I said it had been something like a year, and
> sure enough, the post on 9/31/99 is over a year ago.
However, I started my 1 year period on 7/12/2000. If I included your
current round of attacks then a year would strictly end on 11/4/1999,
but in the previous post I didn't do that. You're busted a 5th time
on just this one little issue, Mr. Liar and Hypocrite!
>The preceding
> post was around 11 months ago (also close to a year), but wasn't an
> attack but rather a difference of opinion. And finally, the post
from
> July of this year was a simple statement of events. I didn't even
take
> sides, I just pointed out to Gene why Paul was annoyed. If you take
> that as an "attack", you're extremely paranoid.
Thanks for the personal attack, Mr. Liar and Deceiver.
> >>On the other hand, you sin multiple times a week as you interact
> >> with those you don't like (and sometimes those you barely know
or
> >> don't know at all).
>
> >Mr. Hypocrite if that were the extent of my sinning I would be
very
> >happy.
> I don't know what to say. It sounds like you're saying your
behavior
> here is pretty good in comparison to the sins you commit in the
rest
> of your life.
Since this is only a tiny part of my life that has to be true, no?
> >>You need to stop.
>
> >Mr. Hypocrite I need to do what I fell led to do, even if due to
my
> >human imperfections I happen to sin while doing it.
> Well, what you really need to do is what you are commanded to do by
> scripture.
Mr. Liar and Hypocrite if I saw you doing that in your own life it
would encourage me very much. However what I see you doing is lying
deceiving, bobbing, weaving, selectively reading the Bible and
justifying reprehensible sin in yourself and others by blaming it on
me.
> >>You are in deep, serious error and denial.
> >Mr. Hypocrite what is unclear about my various admissions of
sinful
> >behavior?
> What is unclear is that you make vague statements about sinful
> behavior, but when called on sinful behavior, you deny it.
Mr. Liar and Deceiver did I not just clearly and logically show that
your example of that was grievously flawed?
>So, spell it out for us. What is sinful behavior to you? Give a few
examples.
I'm sure I sinned a few times in this post by making some kind of
error. Gosh, if I knew what the errors were I'd fix them but hey, I'm
not perfect.
> >Does Mr. Middius not bring them up often enough for you to
remember >them?
> I guess not.
Not my problem!
> >> You need to read books written by some of the great saints of
the
> >> past.
> >Mr. Hypocrite, are you so presumptuous as to think that you
somehow
> >know what I read or have read?
> I have no idea what you've read. I can only base my statement
> regarding your need to read the great saints on your sinful
behavior
> (i.e., that if you have, it doesn't show). Please recommend some
> titles.
Not my job!
Mr. Liar and Hypocrite your bobbing and weaving and selective
Bible-reading has convinced me that you are self-deceived beyond my
ability to help you with exhortation and some carefully considered
and well-documented rebukes. Therefore as always I will pray for your
soul. However, this means that I probably won't be replying to many
of your posts because doing so seems to increase your sinful
behavior.
> >> You need to admit (at least to yourself) that you may be wrong
and
> >>study these matters seriously and intently.
>
> >Mr.Hypocrite, I know that I am frequently wrong because that's the
nature of my work.
> ??? What nature of what work ???
Computers.
> >I have admitted that I was wrong more often than any other person
on RAO.
<no response from the Liar and Hypocrite, I guess that means he
agrees>
> >OTOH, given how much I post that is correct, polite, helpful,
> >insightful and represents a unique but relevant viewpoint, my
batting
> >average just isn't that bad. I've been praised by newbies in the
> >past fore being the only person who would take the time to give
them
> >an honest, sincere answer.
> Great, as I've said before, you have a lot to offer when you behave
> this way. It's your nasty style when dealing with those you dislike
> that I object to. Surely I've made that clear by now???
Unfortunately what you have made clear is that you are a Liar and
Hypocrite and beyond my limited means to convince you of the same,
Mr. Adams.
> >The people who blame their own personal failings on me, have said
on
> >many occasions that they want to put an end to all that.
>
> >Mr. Hypocrite, I guess you think they have a good idea because
your
> >discussions with them w/r/t their reprehensible behavior are
> >conspicuous by their absence.
> ???
Think about it!
Don't miss church!
Stereophi...@compuserve.com
Jeff Adams asked of Arny Krueger:
> How can you possibly call a potential difference of opinion an
> attack?
Mr. Adams, Arny Kruger explained in one of the exchanges I had with him
that to for someone to criticize his views or to publicly disagree with
them was indeed equivalent to a personal attack. His grounds for drawing
that equivalence was that the public disagreement lowered his standing
in the eyes of his peers, hence was an attack, and justified his
subsequent behavior.
I think this is ridiculous, because it would eliminate all public
disagreements and debates. However, the Carver lawsuit against
Stereophile many years was based on just this premise: that for a
reviewer to criticize a product was equivalent to a personal attack on
that product's designer. The judge in the case agreed enough with the
premise that he felt it should be tested in trial. (The case was settled
by an arbitrator, so we didn't help explore that corner of the law,
thank goodness.)
--
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Stephen McElroy
Glan...@pop3free.com wrote:
> Do you think HypocratBorg was trolling deeply?
Bad luck should he succeed in trolling God.
>If a Rational had
> carelessly replied, thinking Mr. Sack had written what it looks like
> he intended to write, Arnii could then say, "See! You guys always
> blame me for starting everything, but this time I was telling the
> truth!"
Possible, but he'd've misspelled something, too, as a "watermark".
Stephen
Stephen McElroy
<ar...@flash.net> wrote:
> "Stephen McElroy" <smc...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
To George:
> > I discarded a reply to that passage this morning, to the effect
> > that the statement as worded may be true.
Arny:
> Must be an awfully slow weekend down there...
No credit for passing up the chance to be the first to take a shot at your
double negative?
> Try listening to some music.
This weekend I heard an all Brahms choral concert and a Durufle Requiem
with motets by Bruckner, Poulenc and Stanford, as well as performing in
excerpts from Faure's Requiem and the Lachrymosa from the Mozart Requiem.
> Seems to work for me when a really strong compulsion to split
> hairs looms on the horizon.
A "Hairway to Stephen" reference! Cool! I didn't know Arny was a 'surfers
fan...Or is it "hair looms"? an inspired juxtaposition! Even more so if
you've met me...
As for your laughable "proof" that PB hadn't contradicted you concerning
qualifications, based on the premise that "or" means "and" based on an
unconnected "not" appearing somewhere in the same paragraph, you live and
die according to split hairs.
Stephen
Paul Bamborough
A long, angry and self-righteous rant, in which he graduated from calling
Jeff Adams a
hypocrite to repeatedly claiming that he is also a liar. Jeff Adams, a
polite and patient man,
is manifestly *not* a liar, and Krüger has completely and utterly failed to
demonstrate that
he is one. In particular, Krüger seeks (and fails) to prove that his
original claim about my
lack of training is true, and therefore that Jeff Adams is perpetrating a
'deception' by saying
that it was an error. From 'deception', he then moves easily to 'liar',
and repeats the word
over and over again.
Now, Krüger's 'proof' is ludicrously wrong at the most elementary level,
and I shall
demonstrate that in a moment. First, I'm simply going to remove what he
erroneously
believes to be its foundation. I already said I have training in
experimental psychology,
which by *definition* includes subjective experiments and in my case did
include
psychoacoustics. Therefore Krüger's original statement was in error.
Therefore Jeff Adams
was neither wrong, deceptive or a liar by saying so.
Therefore Krüger should apologise for his false attack. I wonder if he is
sufficiently decent
to do so, or whether his particular 'morality' contimues to mean that normal
rules of ethical
behaviour apply only to those of us who are not Arnold B. Krüger.
Now. The Krüger 'proof'. If anybody else at all can't see why it is
complete nonsense,
(and should get him fired from any software job), I'd be happy to go through
it formally.
For now I'll just point out this: if his 'proof' is correct, then I can
safely claim that the following sentence is true:
"Arnold Krüger is without honesty, decency, morals, truthfulness, measurable
intelligence,
redeeming personal qualities, worthwhile characteristics of any kind, any
reason to exist,
good looks, charm, money, or fifty legs."
According to his 'logic' it is, and will remain, *unfalsified*.
p
The 'proof'
Paul Bamborough
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@flash.net> wrote...
A long, angry and self-righteous rant, in which he graduated from
calling Jeff Adams a hypocrite to repeatedly claiming that he is also a
liar. Jeff Adams, a polite and patient man, is manifestly *not* a
liar, and Krüger has completely and utterly failed to demonstrate that
he is one. In particular, Krüger seeks (and fails) to prove that his
original claim about my lack of training is true, or at least unfalsified,
p
.... The 'proof' .....
Zip
Did you study newsgroup formatting under Krazy Krooger?
Zip
"Paul Bamborough" <pa...@bamborough.com> wrote in message
news:8u4bql$di7$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@flash.net> wrote...
>
> A long, angry and self-righteous rant, in which he graduated from calling
> Jeff Adams a
> hypocrite to repeatedly claiming that he is also a liar. Jeff Adams, a
> polite and patient man,
> is manifestly *not* a liar, and Krüger has completely and utterly failed
to
> demonstrate that
> he is one. In particular, Krüger seeks (and fails) to prove that his
> original claim about my
> lack of training is true, and therefore that Jeff Adams is perpetrating a
> The 'proof'
Steve Zipser
In article <8u4c6m$ioa$1...@uranium.btinternet.com>, pa...@bamborough.com
says...
> (Re-post: formatting problems)
>
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@flash.net> wrote...
>
> A long, angry and self-righteous rant, in which he graduated from
> calling Jeff Adams a hypocrite to repeatedly claiming that he is also a
> liar. Jeff Adams, a polite and patient man, is manifestly *not* a
> liar, and Krüger has completely and utterly failed to demonstrate that
> he is one. In particular, Krüger seeks (and fails) to prove that his
> original claim about my lack of training is true, or at least unfalsified,
> .... The 'proof' .....
>
> > LOL! You are just being deceptive again. The paragraph stared out
> > talking about your recent lies and deceptions. By not answering it,
> > you are showing that my claims about it are true.
>
--
Sunshine Stereo, Inc http://www.sunshinestereo.com Tel: 305-757-9358
9535 Biscayne Blvd Miami Shores, FL 33138 Fax: 305-757-1367
Conrad Johnson Spectron Parasound PASS PSB DUNLAVY REGA LEXICON EAD PSB
ORACLE Gallo Panasonic Video Straightwire Audible Illusions and lots
more!
*CHECK OUT OUR LIST OF SPECIALS ON OUR WEBSITE*
Phil
Arny Krueger wrote:
> (1) without any training in design of subjective experiments
>
> (2) without any training in psychoacoustics
>
> (3) without any training in perceptual psychology
This is an error in the use of the English language the three items are
different endings to the phrase thus it should be:
(1) design of subjective experiments
(2) psychoacoustics
(3) perceptual psychology
>
>
> The logical connection between them is the word "or".
>
> So their logical form is "Design of subjective experiments" OR
> "psychoacoustics" OR "perceptual psychology"
>
> However they are preceded by a word that negates the logic"without".
>
> Therefore the form of the claim is "not or".
>
> Now anybody who knows any combinatorial logic knows that "not or" =
> "and".
Now let's continue, assume that my contention above is untrue and Arny's
argument is correct is does as Arny contends "not or" = "and".
Consider: AND function if A is true and B is true then the AND of A and
B is true all other cases false. if 1 = true and 0 = false where AND(A,
B) = A and B. AND(0,0)=0, AND(0,1)=0, AND(1,0)=0, AND(1,1)= 1.
Now consider the OR function, that is if either A or B is true then the
OR of A and B is true and all other case false. Therefore: OR(0,0)=0,
OR(0,1)=1, OR(1,0)=1, OR(1,1)= 1.
Now consider Not function, that is if A is false the Not of A is true.
NOT(1)=0, NOT(0)=1.
As stated the NOR function is NOT(OR(A,B)) so let us do the calculation.
NOR(0,0)=1, NOR(0,1)=0, NOR(1,0)=0, NOR(1,1)= 0, now AND function again:
AND(0,0)=0, AND(0,1)=0, AND(1,0)=0, AND(1,1)= 1. Note, NOR function does
not equal the AND function.
[rest of post snip relevant to point of post]
Conclusion: fundamental to Arny's argument is that a NOR logic function
is the same as an AND logic function. This is not true, therefore his
argument is untrue.
Phil
George M. Middius
> I don't have much time to discuss this but the logic is faulty.
It's not "logic," Phil. It's BorgLogic. Remember the Bizarro
universe that Superman visited from time to time? All you need is
the proper frame of reference.
George M. Middius
Arny Krueger
"Paul Bamborough" <pa...@bamborough.com> wrote in message
news:8u4bql$di7$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
> A long, angry and self-righteous rant, in which he graduated from
calling Jeff Adams a
> hypocrite to repeatedly claiming that he is also a liar.
It has something to do with having multiple conclusive pieces of
evidence showing lies hypocrisy and deception on the part of both
Adams and Bamborough.
Mr. Bamborough, I'm happy to see that your physical head is above
water, even though your metaphorical head most certainly is not!
Arny Krueger
"Trotsky" <gsi...@enteract.com> wrote in message
news:3A03FA3F...@enteract.com...
>
> Arnii, you seem to be having trouble understanding this discussion:
guys
> like me are already set up for punishment--I don't believe in God,
> therefore I'm going to Hell.
You might have a change of heart...
>You do believe in God (supposedly) and
> have probably already lied to people and told them you'll be going
to
> Heaven.
Mr. Singh, your claim that I am lying about what I believe my eternal
reward is must be based on the idea that I don't actually think my
eternal reward is assured in accordance with my spiritual beliefs.
> It would seem that this lying and hypocrisy--which you've already
admitted to--is what Mr. Adams is objecting to.
It seems clear that Mr. Adams has objected to the fact that I respond
in lesser kind to abusive posters such as yourself.
> I don't blame him for being perturbed: you make Christianity look
like an incredible joke.
He's doing the same. I guess that is further proof of his hypocrisy.
Trotsky
Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> "Trotsky" <gsi...@enteract.com> wrote in message
> news:3A03FA3F...@enteract.com...
> >
> > Arnii, you seem to be having trouble understanding this discussion:
> guys
> > like me are already set up for punishment--I don't believe in God,
> > therefore I'm going to Hell.
>
> You might have a change of heart...
I've been watching my cholesterol intake.
>
> >You do believe in God (supposedly) and
> > have probably already lied to people and told them you'll be going
> to
> > Heaven.
>
> Mr. Singh, your claim that I am lying about what I believe my eternal
> reward is must be based on the idea that I don't actually think my
> eternal reward is assured in accordance with my spiritual beliefs.
Arnii, I've already got your hypocrat religion all figured out: you
believe that you can behave as much like a jerk as you care to, because
you can always use the "loophole" of repentance for redemption.
Admittedly, I'm no expert, but I'm reasonably sure it doesn't work that way.
>
> > It would seem that this lying and hypocrisy--which you've already
> admitted to--is what Mr. Adams is objecting to.
>
> It seems clear that Mr. Adams has objected to the fact that I respond
> in lesser kind to abusive posters such as yourself.
I have no idea what "lesser kind" is supposed to mean. More than likely
Adams doesn't either.
>
> > I don't blame him for being perturbed: you make Christianity look
> like an incredible joke.
>
> He's doing the same. I guess that is further proof of his hypocrisy.
Arnii, you have a slanted view--I challenge you to find anybody else,
even your new found friend Paula Wagnerette, that thinks the same as you.
jeff_adams
wrote:
> <Jeff Adams> wrote in message
> news:g94a0t8tnenamvej2...@4ax.com... On Sun, 05 Nov
> 2000 04:52:13 GMT, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@flash.net> wrote:
>>> <Jeff Adams> wrote in message
>>> news:94j90t498t7teb919...@4ax.com... On Sat, 04 Nov
>>> 2000 22:46:59 GMT, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@flash.net> wrote:
>>>>> <Jeff Adams> wrote in message
>>>>> news:2uq80tgpo0haaa82t...@4ax.com... On Sat, 04
>>>>> Nov 2000 10:45:21 GMT, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@flash.net> wrote:
>>>>>> This is all very interesting Arny, but I can't see that you've
>>>>>> taken any responsibility for your own behavior.
>>> This is either deceptive or just plain ignorant. I make a policy
>>> of not denying my responsibility for part of the problems here.
>>> However, by giving comfort and solace to major reprehensible
>>> offenders in your attacks on me, I don't think you are exactly
>>> doing the right thing.
>> Oh please. I am not "giving comfort and solace" as you suggest.
> LOL! You are just being deceptive again. The paragraph stared out
> talking about your recent lies and deceptions. By not answering it,
> you are showing that my claims about it are true.
I answered both parts. You snipped the answer to the first part.
Please play fair. Or maybe you didn't understand my answer. Either
way, there is no deception on my part.
> Interesting deception.
> http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=686808563
> http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=687904776
Wow. Talk about parsing words and splitting hairs. I'm speechless.
I'll have to defer to an expert in logic since I still don't see it
your way.
>> When you squirmed and wiggled and said the strangest things about
>> how you didn't really owe him an apology, things began to break down.
> Mr. Bamborough has not falsified my claim Mr. Hypocrite. Yet you are
> accusing me like he had. More proof of your lies and hypocrisy, right?
No, proof that I read your words and took them at simple face value.
Again I'll have to defer to a logic expert to support your parsing of
the statement. It looks more to me like wiggling and squirming. If
however someone more expert than myself in parsing your statement
agrees with your interpretation, then I apologize in advance for
misunderstanding what you said. See, that wasn't hard for me to do. No
lies, no hypocrisy.
>> I don't consider someone who will blame just about anything and
>> anyone else for why he receives so much abuse as taking
>> responsibility.
> I have shown that clearly and logically, and based on the face value
> of Mr. Bamborough's words, there is no blame to take.
The jury is still out. However there are dozens and dozens of other
cases. The obituary is another. Can you parse that out so such that
you are blameless in that incident to?
>> If you would communicate in a clear fashion, perhaps this could
>> have gone more smoothly.
> When people intentionally lie about events, such as you have just
> done Mr. Hypocrite, there is little that I can do.
Sorry, but I've just explained that there was nothing intentional in
my interpretation of the events. Are you trying to read my mind again?
Haven't you condemned that kind of activity in the past? Bad show on
your part.
> Now, lets take a recent event that you have blamed on me Mr.
> Hypocrite:
> === begin long post =====
<post deleted>
> === end long post ========
> Please formally justify this post point by point, using whatever
> means you will, since you seem to think that I caused it, Mr.
> Hypcrite and Liar.
Forgive me for asking, but what do I have to do with that exchange?
Unless I missed it, I didn't see that I was in any way involved in
that exchange? I'm truly baffled.
>>> What would Jesus do? I think he'd attack reprehensible behavior
>>> where he saw it. He would obviously not be as deceived as you are.
>> What am I deceived about? What does what someone says to you or how
>> someone treats you have to do with how you are commanded to behave?
>> Do you not understand the concept of loving your enemies and not
>> repaying evil with evil?
> Mr. Hypocrite and Liar, one way we show love for people is to help
> them with their problems. One way we help people with their problems
> is to point them out to them. You seem to think that only Christians
> deserve that benefit. Where does the Bible say that we are only
> supposed to love our enemies if they are Christians?
I don't know what you're even talking about. I was referring to the
way you behave towards Paul. I was making the assumption (perhaps I'm
incorrect) that he is not a believer.
If you are saying that your method of helping people with their
problems is by taunting, provoking, intentionally angering, etc., then
I object to that and have supplied numerous references saying that
kind of behavior is not acceptable. This is really so simple. I supply
the references, you ignore them and/or somehow claim they don't apply
here on RAO.
>> On the one hand you seem to admit to the fact that you sin.
> Mr. Liar and Hypocrite, I "Seem to admit to the fact that (I) sin"?
> LOL. You obviously don't read any posts by Mr. Middius or Mr.
> Dormer. They seem to be able to quote me admitting to sin at the
> drop of a hat. They do it early and often. If they can do it, why
> can't you?
Um, I just did. Why must you insist on being so insulting with the
repeated "Mr. Liar and Hypocrite", especially when you haven't proven
a single case of either. Not very appropriate behavior.
> Mr. Liar and Hypocrite, the only person around here I see
> specifically denying sinful behavior is you!
>> But yet you justify your lousy behavior when pressed.
> I don't justify it, I admit to it and explain it.
>> It is this dichotomy that I can not sort out.
> Mr. Liar and Hypocrite, that is because you are badly mislead, as I
> have now repeatedly shown.
You of course have shown no such thing.
>> Why don't you spell out what you think is OK for you to do and
>> what you think is not OK?
> Way too big of a task when I am forced to deal with Liars and
> Hypocrites who don't admit to their lies and hypocrisy.
So now we get down to it. You are unwilling to say what it is you
think is acceptable and unacceptable behavior.
>> You've said you don't have to apologize for an error you made
>> regarding your statement about Paul's training.
> That error has not been proven, as I showed with clear and simple
> logic.
>> I have no idea how you justify that.
> Thusfar, no need. If you consider how long it took for Mr.
> Bamborough to reply to repeated simple questions about his training,
> (he was dodging and weaving days before you asked your simple
> question Mr. Liar and Hypocrite) I fail to see even less need for
> any kind of correction.
>> You apparently don't think you sinned at all when you made your
>> famous statement about Paul's associate's obituary (you even
>> reference it later).
> I think that I have a right to read text and take it at face value
> and use it with past experience to form an opinion. BTW, I hold that
> opinion to this very day, Mr. Liar and Hypocrite.
Right, except that you used specific language that implied those words
were contained in the obituary when they were not. You made a simple
mistake in the words you chose and apparently to this day won't admit
it.
>> You think it's OK to taunt and provoke.
> Mr. Liar and Hypocrite I'm waiting for a voluminous "Mea Culpa" from
> you on the subject of your nearly 2 year record for taunting and
> provoking me.
I can't quite tell whether you agree or disagree that it's OK to taunt
and provoke. Could you please answer the question? I've repeatedly
shown that my remarks about your behavior are biblically supported.
You can choose to call them whatever you want, but, they are valid and
in fact commanded. I will therefore not bother repeating this now
firmly established and obvious fact.
>> You take pride in your ability to troll.
> On RAO that is a life's skill! ;-) Besides what is trolling? It is
> just the offering of a topic for conversation.
>> Color me confused. Just what do you think _is_ sinful?
> A list of things too long to mention here. However, sinful activity
> is partially dependent on circumstance. RAO is as I have repeatedly
> shown a peculiar circumstance, so therefore we have a peculiar
> definition of sin around here.
Wow. You seem to be saying (again) that you think that certain sins
are OK if the situation justifies it. Or did I misunderstand what you
just said?
And again, since you won't delineate what you think constitutes a sin
here, you aren't truly taking responsibility for your sins here. A
general statement that you sometimes sin is not very helpful when you
so frequently deny any wrong doing when questioned.
>> What exactly are you taking responsibility for?
> Unlike the sinful people whose hands you wash Mr. Liar and
> Hypocrite, everything I do whether you know about it or not.
Like what? Name one thing. And please, it's not proper behavior to
continue to call someone a liar and/or a hypocrite when you have not
proven either. It reflects very poorly on your character.
>> It's great to say you take responsibility for your behavior, but
>> when called on things, you say you've done nothing wrong. It's all
>> very confusing to me.
> Mr. Liar and Hypocrite, please disprove my claim that I've admitted
> to more errors on RAO than any other person.
The errors I seem to recall you admitting to are of the category of
clerical or technical. I can't recall an instance of you apologizing
for bad behavior. It's the bad behavior that I've clearly been
addressing.
>>>>> And I haven't seen you take any responsibility for yours, Jeff.
>>>> Sure I have. Perhaps you didn't read very carefully.
>>> Perhaps I notice all the times you whitewash your own sins and the
>>> sins of others, Mr. Hypocrite.
>> You haven't proven any sin yet, or any hypocrisy yet.
> LOL!
Laugh all you want but it's true.
>> Why do you insist on repeating this over and over again?
> Because Mr. Liar and Hypocrite, this is not just about me, it is
> about all of us, even you!
> Where does God say that only Christians need to be accountable for
> their sins? Where is it written in the Bible that only Christians
> should be corrected when they make mistakes? I've challenged you on
> this point and you seem to be dodging it.
No, I haven't dodges, I've answered your question. At least two or
three times now. I sent you passages regarding exhortations and
rebukes that demonstrate both cases. So what's your point? That I
don't denounce Middius, Singh, and Zipser very often? As I said
before, I'll take it under advisement. However, it in no way negates
the correctness of me exhorting/rebuking you for your inappropriate
behavior. I'm sure you understand this, right?
>>>>> You really don't get the word hypocrite, do you, Jeff?
>>>> You haven't proven a single instance of such.
>>> Obviously you can't see that, Mr. Hypocrite. That's a key failing
>>> of hypocrites.
>> You haven't proven any sin yet, or any hypocrisy yet.
> Obviously you can't see that, Mr. Hypocrite. That's a key failing of
> hypocrites
>> Why do you insist on repeating this over and over again?
> Why do you insist on repeating this over and over again?
>> Proof by vigorous assertion is not proof I'm sorry to say.
> Mr. Liar and Hypocrite, I've just shown 1 post ago where you have
> lied presuming that you have a memory that goes back far enough to
> cover the claims you have recently made.
I know the post, and I refuted it fully. Did you miss that?
>>>> You chose to ignore this post, just as you did my other post that
>>>> dealt with your empty claims of hypocrisy on my part.
>>> You lie Mr. Hypocrite. I responded, you just didn't like the
>>> response.
>> No, I'm sorry, but you didn't respond to this post until just now.
>> My newsreader shows this response dated 11/4/00 at 8:52pm Pacific
>> time. And I still haven't seen a response to the post I'm talking
>> about (the one where I show you have proven absolutely no
>> hypocrisy) in the thread titled "Simply trying to get an answer".
>> So I would be pleased if you didn't call me a liar.
> I'm not required to read or reply to every post. I thought you were
> talking about a post that Vie seen and read. You confuse Usenet with
> a reliable means of communication.
I never said you were. You made a statement that I showed to be
incorrect. You called me a liar and that was incorrect, as I showed.
>>>> My logic was plain, clear, and simple.
>>> Where have I heard that claim before?
>>> Obviously Mr. Hypocrite your plain, clear and simple logic is more
>>> important to you than any number of holy directives from the lips
>>> of my savior to act against reprehensible behavior where it exists.
>> It's always back to me again, isn't it?
> No Mr. Liar and Hypocrite it comes down to all of us! You have lied,
> I have conclusively showed it several times now.
No, you haven't shown it once, let alone several times now. Very poor
behavior on your part. And another example of what I so strongly
object to.
>> Your behavior is often reprehensible, but rather than admit to it
>> and change, you try to twist things around.
> Mr. Liar and Hypocrite I have simply counted up the times that you
> have done things within a timeframe you defined and came up with a
> number that was 3 or more times what you claimed was the truth.
No, you used a private definition of what you considered to be an
attack which no one else I know of would agree with.
brief diversion: Is there ANYONE out there that thinks that
a difference of opinion, or a neutral recalling of a situation
with an explanation as to why the situation caused annoyance
is an attack? ANYONE at all?????????????????
I'm sorry but I can't help it if you have a different view of reality.
A statement of events is not a personal attack. A difference of
opinion is not a personal attack. You are, simply, mistaken. Finally,
you quoted a post that was over a year old. That was not an attack
either, but rather a biblical exhortation/rebuke. But I can at least
see how you might consider it an attack (even though you'd be
mistaken). Case closed.
>>>> Yours was tortured and difficult to comprehend.
>>> Where have I heard that claim before?
>>> Obviously Mr. Hypocrite you are deceived by the prince of human
>>> logic.
>> ???
> Exactly. Human logic is flawed. It is not conclusive proof for
> anything. That's why they require evidence in court.
>>>> What is it that won't allow you to see or admit that your
>>>> behavior is often very poor?
>>> This question has been answered many times in a fashion that
>>> asking it is deceptive, Mr. Hypocrite.
>> Still no hypocrisy proven.
> Again Mr. Liar and Hypocrite you again respond deceptively by not
> answering my primary claim that I have answered the question about
> my admissions about my behavior.
You have made a generic statement that sometimes you sin. That is not
the same as taking responsibility for specific sins. It comes off
sounding like an excuse to sin, not like someone taking
responsibility. You are commanded to apologize to the persons you sin
against. Perhaps you do it privately. But the only cases I remember
where you admit to a mistake aren't sin in the first place, they were
cases where you were in error about a technical fact, or you made some
kind of clerical mistake. The stuff I'm talking about are the
behavioral sins. For those I've not seen you take specific
responsibility.
>> Sorry. And see above - you say something about taking
>> responsibility and at the same time continue the same behavior week
>> in and week out, denying specific instances of it when called on it.
> I only deny things that I feel justified in denying. I admit to
> failings that I know I have. I admit to far more personal failings
> than you do Mr. Liar and Hypocrite. You deny failings that I have
> conclusively shown that you have. Therefore my admissions are likely
> to be more representative than yours.
You have shown nothing conclusively except that you apparently don't
understand my responsibility to exhort/rebuke you. You say I
exhort/rebuke you more than the others. That doesn't make me a liar or
a hypocrite. It saddens me that you won't discuss these things
privately, and I do feel some guilt for being compelled to do this
here.
>> That's not taking responsibility.
> That's what you do, Mr. Liar and Hypocrite. You don't take
> responsibility and you public wash the hands of other reprehensible
> individuals. I conclude that to do this you have to suppress the
> leading of the scriptures and the Spirit, which raises the question
> in my mind as to whether you are really and truly a Believer. I
> could not bring myself to do what you do. Period.
Do you read what I write? I denounced the others you mentioned very
early on in this exchange. You choose to ignore this - or maybe you
didn't see it or didn't remember? See, I'll show you grace and not
accuse you of lying (hint - you should do the same).
>>>> And that your poor behavior is a large part of the problem
>>>> around here?
>>> My Hypocrite, your logic is flawed on the grounds of the facts of
>>> history:
>>> (1) The history of RAO is that it was a very poorly behaved place
>>> while I lurked here and did not post.
>>> (2) Prior to the loss most of the DN database I verified that RAO
>>> was a very poorly behaved place before I even knew it existed.
>>> (3) RAO remains a very poorly behaved place in my absence which
>>> happens at least once a year.
>> That's all very interesting and probably true.
> Mr. Liar and Hypocrite is key information that IS true. You are
> again being deceptive. For all I know you have been reading and
> posting on RAO going back further than I.
It doesn't change your personal responsibility. Period. The commands
that are to guide your behavior aren't on a sliding scale. They don't
depend on what came before you, or what others do around you.
>> It doesn't change the fact that your behavior creates enormous
>> amounts of problems here.
> Prove it!
It's pretty much QED isn't it? Do you actually contest that fact that
your poor behavior causes a lot of problems? I'm stunned if that's the
case. I recommend you read Proverbs. There you will find plenty of
wisdom regarding how you should behave, and how, when you behave
poorly, people will likely respond.
>> It doesn't change the need for you to change your ways, regardless
>> of whether the place continues to be a cesspool without your poor
>> behavior.
> Mr. Liar and Hypocrite I have shown conclusively (lack of HARD
> evidence due to events out of my control) that this place has been a
> cesspool regardless of my behavior good or bad. You try to bob and
> weave around these simple facts. Therefore you are being deceptive
> and I have again shown that you are lying and acting like a hypocrite.
No such thing is true. I'm not bobbing or weaving. I'll grant you your
premise that this place was not pretty before you arrived. I did that
last time. That's not bobbing and weaving.
The requirements on your behavior do not depend on what came before
you. I'm asking you to clean up your behavior. You are going on and on
and on and on about all these other factors. They are interesting and
in some cases true, but they don't change your responsibilities.
>>> Furthermore I don't have general behavior problems when I post in
>>> over 100 other newsgroups. Most of the primary villains (who you
>>> absolve and ignore) in this place overwhelmingly post only here.
>> Please stop the lying right now. It turns my stomach and you should
>> be ashamed of yourself. I clearly denounced the behavior of the
>> "primary villains" in a post you yourself quoted, so I know you
>> read it.
> Mr. Liar and Hypocrite, your "clear enunciations" are extremely rare
> and gently stated, frequently hidden away in attacks on me. Why
> don't you try to show that you have denounced Mr. Zipser, and Mr.
> Middius as often and with the vigor that you have denounced me?
I wouldn't try to do that because I haven't. But now we have the truth
of the matter, don't we? You admit that I have denounced them (even
though you stated over and over again in this and previous posts that
I have "washed their hands"). It's just that you'd like me to do it
more often.
You claim a faith that carries with it certain codes of conduct. You
violate those regularly. I find that highly offensive. I believe that
if you were to behave as you are commanded to, much of the grief you
receive would subside (although it would surely take quite some time
since you have thousands of posts and a number of years of this poor
behavior that has generated a lot of momentum and hatred that I'm sure
some of your biggest detractor wouldn't quickly forget or let go of).
Sure, there would still be arguments. That's beside the (or at least
my) point. Do what _you_ are commanded to do.
>>> Frankly, I think they like the place just as it is with maybe one
>>> little detail. They'd like to silence me because many of my
>>> comments make their heads hurt by obliging them to think.
> <no response from the Hypocrite and Liar>
What, I'm required to respond to each sentence? OK, I didn't have
anything about your statement because I thought it wasn't relevant. It
is my opinion that people want to silence you (if that's really what
they want to do) because of your lousy behavior. This is another part
that you seem to be unwilling to admit. Sure, some of them think your
PCABX is rediculous, and some people wish you'd let the subjectivists
talk about their impressions of equipment without you interjecting.
But why don't you ask your biggest detractors and see what they say
about why they want to silence you rather than us guessing?
>>>> And that your poor behavior is what brings on no small part of
>>>> the grief you receive from people here?
>>> Mr. Hypocrite as usual your claims are falsified by the record of
>>> history.
>> Maybe you didn't read what I wrote carefully.
> LOL!
LOL right back to you.
>> I said you bring on a lot of the grief you get yourself. I didn't
>> say a word about other people's vendetta's in the above statement.
> Mr. Liar and Hypocrite, I can show a direct connection between Mr.
> Zipser's reprehensible attack on me (now proven to be largely lies)
> and a time where I challenged Mr. Zipser based on his reprehensible
> past behavior. Now, did I bring the additional lies on myself by
> challenging him about his past lies? I would be stupid to say
> otherwise. Nevertheless I brought that on myself because "Good
> Christians" like you are tongue-tied. If you were doing your job and
> attacking Mr. Zipser as aggressively as I have, you would no doubt
> "suffer" as I did. I think you lack the moral courage to take those
> kinds of risks. Being a Christian is being a risk if one confronts
> lies and reprehensible behavior in people Like Mr. Zipser and Mr.
> Middius. Yes, if one tries to show them the errors of their ways one
> runs a high risk of "bringing it on yourself". But Mr. Liar and
> Hypocrite that is something that I think I should do as a Christian.
You choose your battlegrounds and I'll choose mine. However, the
method in which you challenge and communicate with these people is, in
my well substantiated opinion, frequently unacceptable. We have a
chicken and an egg problem here. You're finding yourself in a position
where people make reprehensible claims about you.
I FULLY AGREE THAT THEY SHOULD STOP AND THAT THESE CLAIMS ARE
REPULSIVE!!!
But here's the "trick" part of the whole thing. It is my theory that
you receive the bulk of this reprehensible behavior due to the way you
conduct yourself here. Can you understand this simple concept?
Let's ask:
Steve, why do you often make outrageous and reprehensible attacks on
Arny?
George, why do you often make outrageous and reprehensible attacks on
Arny?
Greg, why do you often make outrageous and reprehensible attacks on
Arny?
> So, to summarize, when I say that I bring these things on myself I
> am simple showing an ounce of insight to the natural outcome of
> honest, sincere acts that I feel my FAITH demands of me. I am not
> admitting to a general fault.
OK. And I'm suggesting that if you comported yourself in the manner
commanded in the bible around here, you'd receive less of this kind of
treatment. Now this brings up an interesting distinction - the Bible
clearly states that believers will be reviled and called all sorts of
names. But the context here is that the apostles were preaching the
gospel - this is what people were reviling them for. Here on RAO, the
discussion is not about the gospel. You (IMO) are not being reviled
for being holy and defending the faith. You are (IMO) being reviled
for behaving so poorly (i.e., the taunting, insulting, condescension,
provoking, trolling, etc., etc., etc). You are (IMO) being reviled for
the evil that you do, not the good that you do. There's a verse about
that that I'll leave you to look up.
>>> For example the vendetta between Mr. Zipser and Mr. Brian McCarty
>>> existed long before I ever posted or even lurked here.
>>> The attacks of Mr. Zipser and Mr. Sanders on Gene Steinberg and
>>> his counter attacks existed long before I ever posted or even
>>> lurked here.
>>> The rancorous dispute between Mr. Zipser and Mr. Nousiane existed
>>> long before I ever posted or even lurked here.
>>> Mr. Ferstler's difficulties are largely independent of whether I
>>> support or deny him.
>>> Mr. Zipser and Mr. Middius frequently abuse and attack many people
>>> on RAO besides me and many times do so independently of any
>>> comments I might make or have made on the topic they are discussing.
>> So you see this may all be true, but doesn't change what I actually
>> wrote: that you bring on the grief you receive in part due to your
>> lousy behavior.
> Its not necessarily my lousy behavior, the cause is often behavior
> that I believe is demanded by my FAITH. In short Mr. Liar and
> Hypocrite, much of what you are accusing me of is just me living out
> my Christian faith, which I happily plead guilty to.
See above. You are, IMO, not being reviled for your Christian
behavior, you are being reviled for your lousy behavior! That's just
my point! If you demonstrated the character traits demanded of a
believer as you argue your points here, you wouldn't (IMO) get nearly
the mountains of grief you do.
>>> I was asked to visit this place by several people who were ongoing
>>> targets of vicious and ongoing attacks by Mr. Zipser, Mr. Sanders,
>>> and a certain Mr. Derrida who no longer posts here, at least under
>>> that name.
>>>> I have used clear language to patiently, politely, and truthfully
>>>> explain to you (with detailed references) how and why you are in
>>>> error.
>>> Mr. Hypocrite, repeated gratuitous attacks that are phrased in
>>> polite language remains hostile acts. You are guilty of doing
>>> exactly that.
>> You have proven no such thing.
> I keep piling the proof on Mr. Hypocrite and you keep your blinders
> on, living in denial of the obvious.
Again, you have proven no such thing.
>> I am following biblical commands to rebuke you.
> Mr. Liar and Hypocrite, it is clear to me that you are in the
> vernacular "Too Chickensh*t" to follow far more prevalent biblical
> commands to rebuke sin where ever it is. You obviously practice
> selective reading of The Bible. Instead of being a light to the
> world, you spread darkness among Christians.
I guess I just won't get this across to you. I choose to exhort/rebuke
you because that is commanded. Therefore it is valid. The fact that I
don't exhort/rebuke the others very often is interesting, but I do in
fact do it, and the choice as to the ratio of my rebukes is mine. As
I've tried to explain so many times, I see your unbiblical behavior as
stirring up a great portion of the reprehensible treatment you
receive. Therefore I see it as very important to try to get you to
behave as a believer should.
>> The fact that you see it as hostile is not my fault, nor is it a
>> sin on my part. You really don't understand this, do you?
> Not understanding suggests a fault. My perceptions of your behavior
> Mr. Liar and Hypocrite are not faulty.
Well, to the degree that they are your perceptions, they are not
faulty. In light of biblical objectivity, they are.
>>> The language and claims that I use to defend myself from Mr.
>>> Zipser, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Middius, Mr. Phillips, "Felix" etc. is
>>> generally far more polite and truthful than theirs.
>> It's not a sliding scale. I readily admit you don't often if ever
>> use the "bad words" they do, but you taunt and provoke, insult,
>> etc. Not acceptable behavior.
> Mr. Liar and Hypocrite many of my taunts and provoking relate to the
> fact that they frequently lie and deceive. I have a responsibility
> to confront that kind of behavior when I see it.
You have no command to taunt and provoke in return. You have a command
to be polite, respectful, meek, etc (check the passages I've sent
you). This is perhaps the crux of the matter.
> You have no track
> record for doing much of that at all. Therefore, you are falling
> down on your responsibilities as a Christian. Furthermore you
> compound your sins of omission with a very conscious sin: accusing a
> Christian of Wong doing when he is just confronting evil.
I'm not rebuking your effort to confront evil, I'm rebuking the
behavior you use while doing it. Do you understand the distinction? I
thought I had made it extremely clear by this point.
>>> Nevertheless I'm not such a hypocrite as you are and I won't claim
>>> that somehow this totally justifies and absolves me.
>> So stop then.
> Mr. Liar and Hypocrite, I decline to stop taunt, provoke and insult
> people who are in the midst of deceiving and just plain out-and-out
> lying.
Then you decline to behave in a biblical fashion as we are commanded
to NOT behave this way.
I think we finally have arrived at the heart of our disagreement.
>> Does this mean you admit that taunting, provoking, intentionally
>> angering, etc., <and by all means, fill in the etc. so we can be
>> perfectly clear> is unacceptable?
> Not when that taunting, provoking, intentionally angering, etc.
> relates to people who are lying or deceiving or are trapped in the
> lies and deceptions of others.
See above. That behavior is not in keeping with the commands that
govern our behavior.
>> I really don't know what you're saying you think is bad.
> Its really between me and God, and not between me and you at all.
When you disobey the commandments, I am commanded to exhort/rebuke
you. You apparently don't think the commandments I've sent you apply.
Here in lies our disagreement.
>> You say you aren't totally absolved.
> Huzzah, you can read!
>> So what is it that you think you do that's bad? Lay it out plainly.
> I make mistakes. That's what I do that is bad.
Like what?
>>>> Your responses have not shown the maturity I would expect for
>>>> someone your age.
>>> Your attacks are not what I would expect from a person who claims
>>> to have the beliefs you claim. Your obsession with me as
>>> demonstrated by the fact that for about a year I am essentially
>>> the only topic of your RAO personal attacks, is not characteristic
>>> of a mature person.
>> You seem bound and determined to call biblical exhortations and
>> rebukes "personal attacks".
> Easy to do when it is easy to show that they are based on a very
> selective reading of the Bible!
Then send me your exhaustive list of references regarding our
behavior, and regarding exhorting and rebuking. You have my list.
There were something like 50 references that support my position. I'm
sure I could find more.
>> We've had this problem before.
> No, Mr. Liar and Hypocrite YOU'VE had this problem before.
>> Exhortations and rebukes are biblical. Period.
> Thank you. Now Mr. Liar and Hypocrite, please explain why you think
> that the biblical directives to exhort and rebuke apply almost
> entirely to Christians. At least, that's the story your actions tell.
Asked and answered.
>> You don't like being on the receiving end. I understand that. That
>> doesn't make it "bad".
> Your selective Bible reading is the obvious sin in your life here,
> Mr. Liar and Hypocrite. Your denial of your own public sinfulness is
> yet another obvious sin in your life, Mr. Liar and Hypocrite.
You haven't shown any of the above. All you've shown is that you'd
like me to rebuke people like Middius, Zipser, Singh, etc., more often
than I do. I hear your request. I respectfully decline to do it the
way you do, ignoring 50 some passages that are to guide our behavior.
>> I'm sorry.
> You are very a very sorry mess, Mr. Liar and Hypocrite. I hope that
> after you go to church today and get counseling and you will shortly
> report back that the "scales have been taken off your eyes" and you
> now understand that the demand from God that we exhort people to do
> good and avoid evil applies to non-Christians as well. Since there
> are about twice as many non-Christians as Christians that means that
> about 2/3 of the time we should be exhorting non-Christians.
> Thinking about it Mr. Liar and Hypocrite, I have not been exhorting
> and rebuking enough Christians. If you really are a Christian, and I
> more and more doubt that you are, I thank you for bringing a little
> balance to my spiritual life!
I understand that you'd like me to rebuke people like Middius, Zipser,
Singh, etc., more often than I do. I hear your request. However, I see
your unbiblical behavior as extremely serious and a major provoker of
these people. You need to stop.
>> And I would hardly call rebuking you once every year or so "an
>> obsession". That's actually pretty funny!
> Come on Mr. Liar and Hypocrite I just conclusively busted you on
> that lie. I showed that in the past just over a year you had 4
> different rebuking sessions with me including this one. That's not
> "once a year or so". It's every 3 months on the average. Then if we
> count in the multiple rebuking posts in some of the sessions we
> probably can say that you rebuke me dozens of times a year. If we
> count the multiple rebukes per post, then we might find 100 rebukes
> a year. LOL talk about self-deception!
Already addressed. Using your definition of a rebuke, anyone that ever
says anything that disagrees with you is a rebuke or attack. That's
not reality. You have not busted me on anything except perhaps
pointing out your unusual definition of a rebuke (which apparently
includes stating a difference of opinion and recounting to someone
what you said and why I thought it was interpreted the way it was).
>>>>> Look a mirror some time. It might help. Then again if it hasn't
>>>>> helped by now, whose to say it ever will?
>>>> This isn't about me, it's about you.
>>> Mr. Hypocrite, it is always about all of us. Everytime you say
>>> "This isn't about me, it's about you." you clearly demonstrate
>>> your self-deceit and hypocrisy.
>> You yourself said I don't post here very often. If I don't post,
>> I'm not a part of the problem of your lousy behavior on a week-to-
>> week basis.
> Yet another deception Mr. Liar and Hypocrite. I've made no such
> claim as the one that you are addressing here. Straw Man! you are
> busted again!
LOL. I'm responding to what I think you said. I guess we disagree. No
deception. No lie. No hypocrisy. Maybe just a disagreement or even a
misunderstanding?
>> I am not deceived when I watch you behave poorly and then
>> occasionally choose to try to get you to admit to a specific
>> incident.
> As I pointed out with "clear simple logic" that was a deception on
> your part, Mr. Liar and Hypocrite!
You're seriously confused. You've done no such thing.
>>>> Can you at least understand that much of what I'm trying to get
>>>> across?
>>> Mr. Hypocrite what you may deceive yourself into thinking you are
>>> trying to get across and the clear message you send me appear to
>>> be two different things.
>> ??? How much more clear could it possibly be ???
> Mr. Liar and Hypocrite, let's start with you making it clear you
> admit that you've lied and been a hypocrite?
You've shown no such thing. You've shown that I re-stated to Gene
Steinberg why I thought what you said about the obituary was annoying
to Paul Bamborough. The other quote which was Dec of 99 (within the
"close to a year"), I disagreed with your interpretation of 70 times
7. Not a rebuke, not an attack. Then in July of 1999 you found a
rebuke for your behavior. Definitely more than a year ago. Give it up.
You're wrong, case closed.
>>>> I attempt to communicate this message to you something like once
>>>> a year. If there were anything sinful about my attempts to
>>>> exhort/ rebuke you (and that's a big "if"), then that would mean
>>>> that I commit that sin something like once a year.
>>> Mr. Hypocrite the fact that you attack just me while justifying
>>> the far more reprehensible acts of others is one of your sins.
>> I haven't justified anyone else's "far more reprehensible acts".
> LOL! That's the whole point of your attacks Mr. Liar and Hypocrite.
> People blame their reprehensible behavior on me and you turn around
> and attack me. You don't publically (probably not privately either)
> exhort and rebuke them like the holy scriptures you like to thump
> against me demand that you do to them.
>> Please stop lying. It's a sin. Just stop.
> M. Liar and Hypocrite, show me how YOU do that!
Did you forget that I rebuked them early on in this exchange?
Therefore, your statement is incorrect. Period.
>> You yourself quoted my post where I denounced their behavior. How
>> can you write such blatant lies?
> Mr. Liar and Hypocrite your denouncements of them don't extend much
> beyond that one example. As I recall your typical behavior is to
> hide such denouncements away in posts where you primarily attack me.
> Now that is brave of you! (NOT)
Ah, so now you admit that you were incorrect in your assertion that I
haven't rebuked them. Thank you for that admission.
>>> http://x65.deja.com/[ST_rn=fs]/getdoc.xp?AN=645631696
>> -------------- end post
Please give up the paranoia. Did I or did I not fairly and objectively
state what you said, and why it likely angered Paul Bamborough? Why is
it an attack on your character to repeat your exact words and give an
opinion as to why it angered Paul?
The answer is, it's NOT. PERIOD. GIVE IT UP.
>> So we can strike this one.
> Nope, it remains an attack by Jeff Adams Liar and Hypocrite on Arny
> Krueger.
I know you're doing your best to anger me, but it won't work. Your
statement above is FALSE and absurd. Give it up.
>> OK, next:
>>> http://x65.deja.com/[ST_rn=fs]/getdoc.xp?AN=563475344
>> ----------------------- begin post
>>> The latter.
>> ------------------------------- end post
No, it's a difference of opinion. There is no attack on your
character. Maybe your opinion was right, maybe mine was. No attack.
You're simply wrong. Give it up.
>> And in case you didn't notice, that's about a year ago (Dec 1999).
> Well within 1 year of 5 November 2000, which is today's date. We'll
> add that to your list of deceptions, Mr. Liar and Hypocrite.
I thought you didn't approve of hair splitting. What did I say
originally? Did I not say something to the effect of "probably a
year", implying it might not be exactly a year? And since it's
provably NOT an attack, it doesn't qualify anyway. Please give it up,
it makes you look extremely bad.
> 5&hitnum=378
>> First, this post is over a year old, so, this validates my claim of
>> not having commented on your poor behavior for something like a
>> year. Nothing more needs to be said.
> I didn't count the current attack, so the one year clock starts with
> the previous occurrence I cited. That was on 7/12/2000 so my 1 year
> period would be valid if I go back to 7/12/1999.
> We'll add that one to your list of deceptions, Mr. Liar and
> Hypocrite.
> Boy, Mr. Liar and Hypocrite you really did good that time. You just
> got busted for what, 4 more deceptions?
Give up your blustering and hair splitting Arny. I proved my case, you
lose, and you don't like it. You use definitions that are unique to
your own private world that wouldn't stand the objective light of day.
Give it up. You're wrong, and you don't like it. I understand that.
>>> Hypocrite, that goes back just a little more than a year, and
>>> covers 3 separate periods where you were attacking me.
>> Sorry, no hypocrisy. I said it had been something like a year, and
>> sure enough, the post on 9/31/99 is over a year ago.
> However, I started my 1 year period on 7/12/2000. If I included your
> current round of attacks then a year would strictly end on 11/4/
> 1999, but in the previous post I didn't do that. You're busted a 5th
> time on just this one little issue, Mr. Liar and Hypocrite!
No comment required. You're out of control and wrong. You're doing a
fine job of "auguring in" though.
>> The preceding post was around 11 months ago (also close to a year),
>> but wasn't an attack but rather a difference of opinion. And
>> finally, the post from July of this year was a simple statement of
>> events. I didn't even take sides, I just pointed out to Gene why
>> Paul was annoyed. If you take that as an "attack", you're extremely
>> paranoid.
> Thanks for the personal attack, Mr. Liar and Deceiver.
Good grief. What exactly in the above paragraph was an attack? It
appears that your definition of an attack is anything you don't like.
Anyone? What is he talking about????
>>>> On the other hand, you sin multiple times a week as you interact
>>>> with those you don't like (and sometimes those you barely know or
>>>> don't know at all).
>>> Mr. Hypocrite if that were the extent of my sinning I would be
>>> very happy.
>> I don't know what to say. It sounds like you're saying your
>> behavior here is pretty good in comparison to the sins you commit
>> in the rest of your life.
> Since this is only a tiny part of my life that has to be true, no?
>>>> You need to stop.
>>> Mr. Hypocrite I need to do what I fell led to do, even if due to
>>> my human imperfections I happen to sin while doing it.
>> Well, what you really need to do is what you are commanded to do by
>> scripture.
> Mr. Liar and Hypocrite if I saw you doing that in your own life it
> would encourage me very much. However what I see you doing is lying
> deceiving, bobbing, weaving, selectively reading the Bible and
> justifying reprehensible sin in yourself and others by blaming it on
> me.
Sigh. No comment required. Continued ducking of my point by trying to
turn it around on me. So noted.
>>>> You are in deep, serious error and denial.
>>> Mr. Hypocrite what is unclear about my various admissions of
>>> sinful behavior?
>> What is unclear is that you make vague statements about sinful
>> behavior, but when called on sinful behavior, you deny it.
> Mr. Liar and Deceiver did I not just clearly and logically show that
> your example of that was grievously flawed?
No.
>> So, spell it out for us. What is sinful behavior to you? Give a
>> few examples.
> I'm sure I sinned a few times in this post by making some kind of
> error. Gosh, if I knew what the errors were I'd fix them but hey,
> I'm not perfect.
>>> Does Mr. Middius not bring them up often enough for you to
>>> remember them?
>> I guess not.
> Not my problem!
>>>> You need to read books written by some of the great saints of
>>>> the past.
>>> Mr. Hypocrite, are you so presumptuous as to think that you
>>> somehow know what I read or have read?
>> I have no idea what you've read. I can only base my statement
>> regarding your need to read the great saints on your sinful
>> behavior (i.e., that if you have, it doesn't show). Please
>> recommend some titles.
> Not my job!
But you just appeared to claim you had read some good books. I'm
asking what the titles are. Please tell me. What outside source of
reading/teaching to you engage in? I'm truly interested. As I said in
another post, I read the Yancy book you mentioned some time back.
Maybe we could discuss it.
> Mr. Liar and Hypocrite your bobbing and weaving and selective Bible-
> reading has convinced me that you are self-deceived beyond my
> ability to help you with exhortation and some carefully considered
> and well- documented rebukes. Therefore as always I will pray for
> your soul. However, this means that I probably won't be replying to
> many of your posts because doing so seems to increase your sinful
> behavior.
What is clear is that you have documented nothing except your extreme
paranoia and unusual definitions of such things as "lie", "attack",
"rebuke", etc. As usual, you refuse to explain to me how you can
ignore the 50 passages I sent you and behave in completely contrary
ways. You've also shown the extremes you'll go to to try to win an
argument. You've blustered and ignored and made outlandish claims. Not
a pretty sight.
George M. Middius
> > I don't blame [Jeff Adams] for being perturbed: you make Christianity look
> > like an incredible joke.
> He's doing the same. I guess that is further proof of his hypocrisy.
We'll add it to the other "proof" stuff in your imaginary pile,
how about that? Hey, let's pile up all the "lies" you've "proven"
that everybody on RAO (except you, of course) tells about you.
I'll bet that pile is pretty high and deep, isn't it? Everywhere
you look -- lies, deceptions, hypocracy™, and slancers™ -- and
all directed at Arnii Krooger and his fabulous, world-shaking
religion -- er, I mean business -- that is about to unearth the
foundations of the Evil High End Establishment.
Arnii, now that you've laid waste to your enemies with your
impeccable plying of "the debating trade," you should make some
new priorities. Which is more important to you -- "proving" that
Jeff Adams does all that "lying" and "deceiving", or "proving"
that Stereophile has embarked on a systematic campaign to snuff
out your "business" of "testing" MP3 files? Which would you
rather do -- sell 10,000 copies of your "software" and make a
fortune, or continue to "prove" that Paul Bamborough is the
irrational, obsessed, vengeful, paranoid persecutor you make him
out to be? Which would mean more to you -- finally being able to
afford a decent hi-fi, or "proving" that Zippy and Trotsky are
the paid agents of the dread E.H.E.E. who have made it their life
missions to undercut you as the savior of Consumer Audio?
Difficult choices for a courageous "man," Arnii. Are you up to
the challenge?
George M. Middius
Trotsky
Jeff, Adams wrote:
>
>
> Greg, why do you often make outrageous and reprehensible attacks on
> Arny?
That's an easy one, Mr. Adams: you use honey and I use vinegar. Our
conclusions are the same: that Arnii is snotty, disingenuous,
hypocritical, nasty, obfuscatory, mean-spirited, and dishonest. We've
even both used the religious angle, although it is certainly more
effective on your end. But the conclusions are the same: Arnii is a
dick, and amazes all of us with his lack of self-awareness.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
>Conclusion: fundamental to Arny's argument is that a NOR logic function
>is the same as an AND logic function. This is not true, therefore his
>argument is untrue.
I can't believe we're arguing DeMorgan's theorem :-)
Well, maybe I can.
Ciao!
--
Copyright j...@research.att.com 2000, all rights reserved, except transmission
by USENET and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any
use by a provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this
article and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.
jeff_adams
wrote:
>
>"Paul Bamborough" <pa...@bamborough.com> wrote in message
>news:8u4bql$di7$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
>
>> A long, angry and self-righteous rant, in which he graduated from
>calling Jeff Adams a
>> hypocrite to repeatedly claiming that he is also a liar.
>
>It has something to do with having multiple conclusive pieces of
>evidence showing lies hypocrisy and deception on the part of both
>Adams and Bamborough.
Proven only in your mind, Mr. Krueger. However, the true facts are,
you've not proven any such thing. Please stop the silliness now. No
one could possibly actually believe that what you presented proved
anyone but yourself wrong. Could they?
Arny Krueger
"George M. Middius" <Glan...@pop3free.com> wrote in message
news:6dqb0t89m34v1i2se...@4ax.com...
> Arnii, now that you've laid waste to your enemies with your
> impeccable plying of "the debating trade," you should make some
> new priorities.
Thanks for confirming the obvious, Mr. Middius.
>Which is more important to you -- "proving" tha Jeff Adams does all
that "lying" and "deceiving", or "proving"
> that Stereophile has embarked on a systematic campaign to snuff out
your "business" of "testing" MP3 files?
Please don't put sinful ideas into my mind.
>Which would you rather do -- sell 10,000 copies of your "software"
and make a fortune, or continue to "prove" that Paul Bamborough is
the irrational, obsessed, vengeful, paranoid persecutor you make him
out to be?
Please show how these are mutually exclusive.
>Which would mean more to you -- finally being able to afford a
decent hi-fi, or "proving" that Zippy and Trotsky are the paid
agents of the dread E.H.E.E. who have made it their life missions to
undercut you as the savior of Consumer Audio?
Please explain who the E.H.E.E. are.
> Difficult choices for a courageous "man," Arnii. Are you up to the
challenge?
I have mostly been unaware that I needed to make these choices. If
you would explain them further, perhaps it would help my decision
making process.
Arny Krueger
"jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist" <j...@research.att.com> wrote
in message news:G3Kx2...@research.att.com...
> >Conclusion: fundamental to Arny's argument is that a NOR logic
function
> >is the same as an AND logic function. This is not true, therefore
his
> >argument is untrue.
> I can't believe we're arguing DeMorgan's theorem :-)
> Well, maybe I can.
This is Phil, right? Given his track record for poorly-informed
posting, I also find it easy to believe.
Paul D.
>Based on your behavior Mr. Adams you could easily be a sock-puppet
>manipulated by an atheist or agnostic who knows a little Bible and
>some "church-speak".
This is very disrespectful.
Paul D.
>You need to stop. You are in deep, serious error
>and denial. You need to read books written by some of the great saints
>of the past. You need to admit (at least to yourself) that you may be
>wrong and study these matters seriously and intently.
Jeff.. I don't think you should expend any further energy until you
have confirmed that he doesn't carry the mark of The Beast.
Trotsky
That's our Arnii! He actually said once, "Jesus was a sarcastic son of
a bitch," or words to that effect. Can you believe it?
Arny Krueger
"Paul D." <me...@clara.net> wrote in message
news:icvc0t0f0etqi77fu...@4ax.com...
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@flash.net> wrote:
> >Based on your behavior Mr. Adams you could easily be a sock-puppet
> >manipulated by an atheist or agnostic who knows a little Bible and
> >some "church-speak".
> This is very disrespectful.
Disrespectful of mock Christian sock-puppets manipulated by an
atheist or agnostic who knows a little Bible and some "church-speak"?
Guilty as charged!
Trotsky
When will the stoning commence?
Arny Krueger
"Phil" <ph...@media1.net> wrote in message
news:3A05B679...@media1.net...
> I don't have much time to discuss this but the logic is faulty.
Everybody ready for another one of Phil's world-renowned exercises in
hair-splitting and yet another demonstration of his ignorance of the
issues he purports to discuss? ;-)
<snip headers, prologues, etc.>
Arny wrote:
> > Here is my original claim:
>
> > http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=686808563
"I'll be charitable and say that people like John Atkinson and Paul
Bamborough are just casualties of the fact that a person can get a EE
or any number of good jobs in audio without any training in the
design of subjective experiments, psychoacoustics or perceptual
psychology."
> > Let's look at this statement. It has a list of 3 items:
> > (1) without any training in design of subjective experiments
> > (2) without any training in psychoacoustics
> > (3) without any training in perceptual psychology
> This is an error in the use of the English language the three items
are different endings to the phrase thus it should be:
> (1) design of subjective experiments
> (2) psychoacoustics
> (3) perceptual psychology
As if it makes a difference. OK we agree that there is a list of 3
items and this is what they are.
> > The logical connection between them is the word "or".
> > So their logical form is "Design of subjective experiments" OR
> > "psychoacoustics" OR "perceptual psychology"
> > However they are preceded by a word that negates the
logic"without".
> > Therefore the form of the claim is "not or".
> > Now anybody who knows any combinatorial logic knows that "not or"
=
> > "and".
> Now let's continue, assume that my contention above is untrue and
Arny's
> argument is correct is does as Arny contends "not or" = "and".
> Consider: AND function if A is true and B is true then the AND of A
and
> B is true all other cases false. if 1 = true and 0 = false where
AND(A,
> B) = A and B. AND(0,0)=0, AND(0,1)=0, AND(1,0)=0, AND(1,1)= 1.
> Now consider the OR function, that is if either A or B is true then
the
> OR of A and B is true and all other case false. Therefore:
OR(0,0)=0,
> OR(0,1)=1, OR(1,0)=1, OR(1,1)= 1.
> Now consider Not function, that is if A is false the Not of A is
true.
> NOT(1)=0, NOT(0)=1.
> As stated the NOR function is NOT(OR(A,B)) so let us do the
calculation.
> NOR(0,0)=1, NOR(0,1)=0, NOR(1,0)=0, NOR(1,1)= 0, now AND function
again:
>
> AND(0,0)=0, AND(0,1)=0, AND(1,0)=0, AND(1,1)= 1. Note, NOR
function does
> not equal the AND function.
> [rest of post snip relevant to point of post]
> Conclusion: fundamental to Arny's argument is that a NOR logic
function
> is the same as an AND logic function. This is not true, therefore
his
> argument is untrue.
LOL! Like JJ said, it's like I need to prove De Morgan's theorum.
However, lets look at the sentence without introducing Boolean logic
since Phil seems to be ignorant of the fundamentals of Boolean logic.
Again, repeating the original statement:
"I'll be charitable and say that people like John Atkinson and Paul
Bamborough are just casualties of the fact that a person can get a
EE
or any number of good jobs in audio without any training in the
design of subjective experiments, psychoacoustics or perceptual
psychology."
Let's look at this statement. It has a list of 3 items:
(1) design of subjective experiments
(2) psychoacoustics
(3) perceptual psychology
<which are direct quotes of Phil's alleged clarification.>
They are joined by the word "or".
That means that whole phrase:
"design of subjective experiments, psychoacoustics or perceptual
psychology."
is true if ANY of the 3 elements are true.
To summarize, I'm saying that if any of them is missing, then there
can be problems.
Therefore, all 3 have to be present for the problem I'm talking about
to be properly addressed.
Since neither John Atkinson nor Paul Bamborough have subsequently
claimed expertiese in ALL 3 of these areas, my claim has not yet been
falsified.
Furthermore the relevance of expertiese in these areas has AFAIK not
been challenged, let alone been falsified.
I have explicitly claimed relevant amounts of practical expertiese in
all 3 of these areas but only because I was public challenged to do
so.
I'm sure that I'm not alone in having expertiese in these areas. But
I remain convinced that a great many people working in the Audio
business lack it.
Just guessing offhand, I suspect that Mr. James Johnston, Dr. John
Feng, and Mr. Ken Kantor for example, could claim expertiese in all
three of these areas.
I believe that anybody who visits www.pcabx.com and takes it
thoroughly and seriously will have non-trivial amounts of relevant
practical experience in the application of the areas of:
Arny Krueger
> > Guilty as charged!
About 2 years ago. ;-)
Trotsky
Have to get some bigger rocks--is your head available?
Arny Krueger
Not detachable - that way I don't lose it! ;-)
Arny Krueger
<Stereophi...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:8u3lla$5pk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <g94a0t8tnenamvej2...@4ax.com>,
> Jeff Adams asked of Arny Krueger:
> > How can you possibly call a potential difference of opinion an
> > attack?
Depends on the object of the difference of opinion, no?
> Mr. Adams, Arny Kruger explained in one of the exchanges I had with
him
> that to for someone to criticize his views or to publicly disagree
with
> them was indeed equivalent to a personal attack.
Mr. Atkinson, that might be how you remember the interchange(s) but I
remember something a little different.
The key to a personal attack is the object of the "discussion". If it
is a web site or a published review then the object of the discussion
is rather obviously not a person unless the skills and work quality
of the person who did the work are brought into the discussion.
If we have a thread whose title is a person's name or a perversion of
it, then the object of the thread seems reasonably clear: The goal is
to attack the person so-named.
If we are discussing a person's stated beliefs and whether or not
their actions conform to them then anybody with a brain will agree
that the object is an integral part of the person.
Arny Krueger
"Stephen McElroy" <smc...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:smcatut-0511...@dial-123-2.ots.utexas.edu...
>
> As for your laughable "proof" that PB hadn't contradicted you
concerning
> qualifications, based on the premise that "or" means "and" based on
an
> unconnected "not" appearing somewhere in the same paragraph, you
live and
> die according to split hairs.
You seem to be a little fact-challenged here, Mr. McElroy.
Here's my origional statement:
>
> > http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=686808563
"I'll be charitable and say that people like John Atkinson and Paul
Bamborough are just casualties of the fact that a person can get a EE
or any number of good jobs in audio without any training in the
design of subjective experiments, psychoacoustics or perceptual
psychology."
It is one sentence that happened to have been as a single paragraph
because of the interactive give-and-take nature of the post.
Mr. McElroy I sense that you just might have used the word
"paragraph" when "sentence would be more accurate" in order to
support your false claim that the word "not" was "unconnected".
Not to split hairs or anything, but as anybody can clearly see word
"not" does not even appear in the text of the sentence you are
critiquing...
Stephen McElroy
Krueger" <ar...@flash.net> wrote:
> "Stephen McElroy" <smc...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> news:smcatut-0511...@dial-123-2.ots.utexas.edu...
> > As for your laughable "proof" that PB hadn't contradicted you
> > concerning qualifications, based on the premise that "or" means "and"
based on
> > an unconnected "not" appearing somewhere in the same paragraph, you
> > live and die according to split hairs.
> You seem to be a little fact-challenged here, Mr. McElroy.
Only one word, a meaningless distinction.
> Here's my origional statement:
> > > http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=686808563
>
> "I'll be charitable and say that people like John Atkinson and Paul
> Bamborough are just casualties of the fact that a person can get a EE
> or any number of good jobs in audio without any training in the
> design of subjective experiments, psychoacoustics or perceptual
> psychology."
Thank you. Change my statement to "without" instead of "not". Perhaps I
was reacting to your inappropriate citing of Boolean operators in a later
part of the post or perhaps a later post. "Not/or", was it?
> It is one sentence that happened to have been as a single paragraph
> because of the interactive give-and-take nature of the post.
The distinction is unimportant.
> Mr. McElroy I sense that you just might have used the word
> "paragraph" when "sentence would be more accurate" in order to
> support your false claim that the word "not" was "unconnected".
"Unconnected"? It isn't even *present*! Can't get less connected than that...
No false claim here, merely a word substitution that doesn't change the
meaning of the statement that remains my opinion.
> Not to split hairs or anything, but as anybody can clearly see word
> "not" does not even appear in the text of the sentence you are
> critiquing...
Thank you for not splitting hairs. Your claim that "without...or" = "and"
is laughable in this context.
Stephen
George M. Middius
outlandishly long post.
Jeff Adams said, in reply to Mr. Sack:
> >>> They'd like to silence me because many of my
> >>> comments make their heads hurt by obliging them to think.
> It is my opinion that people want to silence you (if that's really what
> they want to do) because of your lousy behavior. This is another part
> that you seem to be unwilling to admit. Sure, some of them think your
> PCABX is rediculous, and some people wish you'd let the subjectivists
> talk about their impressions of equipment without you interjecting.
> But why don't you ask your biggest detractors and see what they say
> about why they want to silence you rather than us guessing?
Krooger can't handle the truth.
George M. Middius
George M. Middius
responding to....
Jeff Adams said:
> I guess I just won't get this across to you. I choose to exhort/rebuke
> you because that is commanded. Therefore it is valid. The fact that I
> don't exhort/rebuke the others very often is interesting, but I do in
> fact do it, and the choice as to the ratio of my rebukes is mine.
Cringing and whining by Mr. Sack has become a dominant motif in
this exchange. What kind of person pules, repeatedly and at length,
that he's being picked on, and it's not fair, and the other kids do
it more, and leave me alone you hate me you're not fair?
Furthermore, Mr. Sack has repeatedly, in this thread, rationalized
his own shitful behavior by saying Zippy and I are just as bad, or
worse, and I do this and Zippy does that. What kind of person are
we dealing with here?
(That's mostly a rhetorical question, Jeff.)
And there's this gem:
> >> I haven't justified anyone else's "far more reprehensible acts".
> > LOL! That's the whole point of your attacks Mr. Liar and Hypocrite.
> > People blame their reprehensible behavior on me and you turn around
> > and attack me.
Which is closely related to this, from Jeff:
> But here's the "trick" part of the whole thing. It is my theory that
> you receive the bulk of this reprehensible behavior due to the way you
> conduct yourself here. Can you understand this simple concept?
> Let's ask:
> George, why do you often make outrageous and reprehensible attacks on Arny?
I'll respond to this question by directing my comments at SOS.
Nobody blames their own behavior, reprehensible or laudatory, on
you, Mr. Lying Sack of Shit. This lie of yours might actually be a
simple misunderstanding of something very obvious, what with your
egregiously flawed ability (actually inability) to read and
understand human language.
Let's retrace a simple, even an archetypal, exchange.
1. A Rational posts an opinion about some aspect of audio, either
technical or simply opinion.
2. You, Mr. Sack, respond with a snotty accusation, a hairsplitting
challenge, or a gratuitous snot-missive like "vinyl bigot".
3. Shortly thereafter, you receive a well-deserved rebuke from one
or more RAO regulars.
4. You then whine about being persecuted and proceed to turn all of
your self-hatred outward, usually directing it toward the original
poster. Coming unglued, you emit various false statements.
5. One or more Rationals corrects your errors/lies. You then wheel
out daffynishiuns from your crackbrained reading of dictionaries,
or twist and contort "or" to mean "and", or claim you didn't say
what you're quoted as saying because you said the opposite six
months ago.
6. You cum all over yourself.
7. Various Rationals denounce your vile behavior. Zippy, Felix, I,
or others call you well-deserved names. We make jokes at your
expense. You "rebut" the jokes by such ponderous logic as "Prove
that a sack of sh*t can operate a computer."
8. You whine, "Stop picking on me!" We tell you you brought it on
yourself. You twist that simple statement and claim that we "blame
their reprehensible behavior on me".
Now, as to Jeff's question, there is no simple answer. First off,
nobody "blames" any behavior on Mr. Sack because nobody who calls
him names, points out his horridness, etc., believes we are
behaving reprehensibly. We believe we are fighting fire with fire.
Furthermore, we fully accept that the conflict appears differently
to others who have different values. For example, there is the
egregiously stupid Booby Wumpkins, who thinks nothing of Filthy's
lying and hypocrisy but is greatly disturbed by something he calls
"OTT profanity". Then there is toony balloons, who has actually
said he "has no problem with arnii krooger". Of course, the two of
them both failed in the audio business (Booby as a designer and
toony as a salesclerk), so they probably share the kinship of being
obsessed with envy over the "success" of Trotsky, Zippy, and the
other Real Audio Players who post here.
My point of view is that if the likes of toony and Booby, and
several others, refuse to acknowledge the problems caused by
Krooger, then I have no responsibility to acknowledge their
revulsion at "dirty" language or whatever else offends them. The
Krooger problem transcends language, smutty jokes (of which Arnii
Krooger is the prime source on RAO, of course), and repetitions of
the Beast's gaffes. Arnii F. Krooger is a sick, disgusting "person"
whose illness demands he make himself the center of attention. He
does this by throwing snot, lies, and the mental equivalent of
feces at virtually everyone on RAO.
The Krooger problem has been documented so thoroughly, with
testimony from so many individuals, that it does not bear
repeating. How many people have a problem with me, Trotsky, Zippy,
Dormer, Bamborough, and Shain? Add them all up. Include one tally
mark for each of us from Big Bwian. Now compare that total to the
number of individuals who have had a Bad Krooger Experience. The
comparison is far from parity.
So, finally, the answer is that I am deeply offended, sometimes
even mortified, by the vileness that is Krooger. I respond out of
pure emotion -- anger, disgust, indignation, and contempt. I do not
"blame" my behavior on Krooger. Krooger is a problem that I attempt
to counteract. Some few sick and twisted individuals view my "cure"
as worse than the disease, and that is their prerogative. I accept
that as the price of giving voice to my feelings.
George M. Middius
Steve Zipser
Glan...@pop3free.com says...
> Then there is toony balloons, who has actually
> said he "has no problem with arnii krooger". Of course, the two of
> them both failed in the audio business (Booby as a designer and
> toony as a salesclerk), so they probably share the kinship of being
> obsessed with envy over the "success" of Trotsky, Zippy, and the
> other Real Audio Players who post here.
George:
Are you feeling OK? Are you having a good day for a change? You
mentioned my name in a positive light, must be a strange phase of the
moon.
Zip
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Arny Krueger <ar...@flash.net> wrote:
>Disrespectful of mock Christian sock-puppets manipulated by an
>atheist or agnostic who knows a little Bible and some "church-speak"?
Hey.
Most of the atheists I know, myself included, know quite a bit
about bible studies and church-speak.
George M. Middius
yesterday's error-free post was drafted by some alter-ego you keep
chained up most of the time.
> > Then there is toony balloons, who has actually
> > said he "has no problem with arnii krooger". Of course, the two of
> > them both failed in the audio business (Booby as a designer and
> > toony as a salesclerk), so they probably share the kinship of being
> > obsessed with envy over the "success" of Trotsky, Zippy, and the
> > other Real Audio Players who post here.
> Are you feeling OK? Are you having a good day for a change? You
> mentioned my name in a positive light, must be a strange phase of the
> moon.
Is success the same as "success"?
George M. Middius
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Arny Krueger <ar...@flash.net> wrote:
>This is Phil, right? Given his track record for poorly-informed
>posting, I also find it easy to believe.
Unh, er, oh, no comment. :-(
George M. Middius
> > > I guess that is further proof of his hypocrisy.
> > We'll add it to the other "proof" stuff in your imaginary pile,
> > how about that? Hey, let's pile up all the "lies" you've "proven"
> > that everybody on RAO (except you, of course) tells about you.
> > I'll bet that pile is pretty high and deep, isn't it? Everywhere
> > you look -- lies, deceptions, hypocracy™, and slancers™ -- and
> > all directed at Arnii Krooger and his fabulous, world-shaking
> > religion -- er, I mean business -- that is about to unearth the
> > foundations of the Evil High End Establishment.
> > Arnii, now that you've laid waste to your enemies with your
> > impeccable plying of "the debating trade," you should make some
> > new priorities. Which is more important to you -- "proving" that
> > Jeff Adams does all that "lying" and "deceiving", or "proving"
> > that Stereophile has embarked on a systematic campaign to snuff
> > out your "business" of "testing" MP3 files? Which would you
> > rather do -- sell 10,000 copies of your "software" and make a
> > fortune, or continue to "prove" that Paul Bamborough is the
> > irrational, obsessed, vengeful, paranoid persecutor you make him
> > out to be? Which would mean more to you -- finally being able to
> > afford a decent hi-fi, or "proving" that Zippy and Trotsky are
> > the paid agents of the dread E.H.E.E. who have made it their life
> > missions to undercut you as the savior of Consumer Audio?
> > Difficult choices for a courageous "man," Arnii. Are you up to
> > the challenge?
> I have mostly been unaware that I needed to make these choices. If
> you would explain them further, perhaps it would help my decision
> making process.
Certainly. Anything to help you overcome your massive debilities and
continue the preposterous charade you carry on every day of your
"life". (The charade in question being that you are something other
than a disgusting, twisted, demented sack of shit.)
When you read those few lines of mine again, Mr. Filth, bear in mind
that I think you are a foul and repulsive liar, a hypocrite nonpareil,
the most intellectually bankrupt purveyor of verbal feces I have ever
seen, and someone whose delusions and self-deceptions run so deep they
are right off of any conventional scale.
With all that in mind, you digusting turd of a person, wouldn't you
assume that every word in my post is sarcastic, ironic, or outright
hostile? If not, you are insane beyond measure. Come to think of it,
that's probably the case. For example, when I said
> > Arnii, now that you've laid waste to your enemies with your
> > impeccable plying of "the debating trade,"
you actually thought I meant that sincerely. You are the only one who
did not understand my meaning.
Then you asked what E.H.E.E. stands for. I guarantee I've used that
expression at least twenty times on RAO, and possibly as many as 100
times! How could you possibly not know my little pet name for that
group of dastardly warriors who spend all day and all night trying to
make your "life" into a living hell?
Hey, one last thing before I go: Can you please give us a score, in
your estimation, of your current exchange with Jeff Adams? Put it in
percentage terms, like, e.g., Jeff is winning 65-35, or you are
winning 58-42. TIA.
George M. Middius
Stereophi...@compuserve.com
smc...@mail.utexas.edu (Stephen McElroy) wrote:
> In article <tbzN5.82961$hD4.19...@news1.rdc1.mi.home.com>, "Arny
> Krueger" <ar...@flash.net> wrote:
> > Not to split hairs or anything, but as anybody can clearly see word
> > "not" does not even appear in the text of the sentence you are
> > critiquing...
>
> Thank you for not splitting hairs. Your claim that "without...or" =
> "and" is laughable in this context.
But understandable given Mr. Krueger's claim in another posting he made
today that the Boolean "or" is the same as "and." Perhaps he sincerely
does believe this to be true. Doesn't make it true.
--
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophi
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Arny Krueger
Arny wrote:
> > I have mostly been unaware that I needed to make these choices.
If
> > you would explain them further, perhaps it would help my decision
> > making process.
> Certainly. Anything to help you overcome your massive debilities
and
> continue the preposterous charade you carry on every day of your
> "life". (The charade in question being that you are something other
> than a disgusting, twisted, demented sack of shit.)
I think I'm a quart low again... ;-)
> When you read those few lines of mine again, Mr. Filth, bear in
mind
> that I think you are a foul and repulsive liar, a hypocrite
nonpareil,
> the most intellectually bankrupt purveyor of verbal feces I have
ever
> seen, and someone whose delusions and self-deceptions run so deep
they
> are right off of any conventional scale.
Gorge, I didn't know you cared for me so deeply.
> With all that in mind, you digusting(sic) turd of a person,
wouldn't you
> assume that every word in my post is sarcastic, ironic, or outright
> hostile? If not, you are insane beyond measure. Come to think of
it,
> that's probably the case. For example, when I said
> > > Arnii, now that you've laid waste to your enemies with your
> > > impeccable plying of "the debating trade,"
> you actually thought I meant that sincerely. You are the only one
who
> did not understand my meaning.
Gorge, not only am I impressed with your truthfulness, I'm in awe of
your omniscience. Did you sell your soul to the Devil to obtain these
supernatural powers?
> Then you asked what E.H.E.E. stands for. I guarantee I've used that
> expression at least twenty times on RAO, and possibly as many as
100
> times! How could you possibly not know my little pet name for that
> group of dastardly warriors who spend all day and all night trying
to
> make your "life" into a living hell?
Gorge, I just had a "stupid" shot, you know the ones they give you
every 3 hours to make the headaches go away? Next time you get your
wits back, please spell the words out if you can.
> Hey, one last thing before I go: Can you please give us a score, in
> your estimation, of your current exchange with Jeff Adams? Put it
in
> percentage terms, like, e.g., Jeff is winning 65-35, or you are
> winning 58-42. TIA.
I think that it is either Mr. Phillips or Felix who is in charge of
dick-measuring. I think you need to call one or both of them for a
free estimate.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
George M. Middius <Glan...@pop3free.com> wrote:
>Now, as to Jeff's question, there is no simple answer. First off,
>nobody "blames" any behavior on Mr. Sack because nobody who calls
>him names, points out his horridness, etc., believes we are
>behaving reprehensibly.
Religious statement!
>We believe we are fighting fire with fire.
Could be, so it's moral relativity if not a religious statement
as well.
>My point of view is that if the likes of toony and Booby, and
>several others, refuse to acknowledge the problems caused by
>Krooger,
I'm sure I'm of the "several others".
>then I have no responsibility to acknowledge their
>revulsion at "dirty" language or whatever else offends them.
It is up to you how you offend people, and it reflects on
no one but you. You can choose not to accept responsibility
but the reasonable human will do as they see fit.
>So, finally, the answer is that I am deeply offended, sometimes
>even mortified, by the vileness that is Krooger.
As you wish!
>I respond out of
>pure emotion -- anger, disgust, indignation, and contempt.
Unfortunately, you extend your hatred far beyond Arny.
>Some few sick and twisted individuals view my "cure"
>as worse than the disease, and that is their prerogative. I accept
>that as the price of giving voice to my feelings.
So, those who regard your behavior as worse the the problem are
"sick and twisted"?
Sorry, George, you're stewing in that mania again.
Arny Krueger
<Stereophi...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:8u6sfu$kmd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <smcatut-0611...@dial-51-7.ots.utexas.edu>,
> smc...@mail.utexas.edu (Stephen McElroy) wrote:
> > In article <tbzN5.82961$hD4.19...@news1.rdc1.mi.home.com>,
"Arny
> > Krueger" <ar...@flash.net> wrote:
> > > Not to split hairs or anything, but as anybody can clearly see
word
> > > "not" does not even appear in the text of the sentence you are
> > > critiquing...
> > Thank you for not splitting hairs. Your claim that "without...or"
=
> > "and" is laughable in this context.
> But understandable given Mr. Krueger's claim in another posting he
made
> today that the Boolean "or" is the same as "and." Perhaps he
sincerely
> does believe this to be true. Doesn't make it true.
False claim. That isn't what I said. You're off by a sign.
As jj pointed out it's a well-known theorem.
I tried to explain it to Phil far less technically this morning. You
might try to find that explanation...
Paul Bamborough
Yet more confused thinking. I'll deal with the actual truth first, then
turn to his confusion, on the assumption that it is sadly real rather
than unpleasantly deliberate:
> Since neither John Atkinson nor Paul Bamborough have subsequently
> claimed expertiese in ALL 3 of these areas, my claim has not yet been
> falsified.
False. I noted yesterday, on Krüger's nasty attempt to attack
Jeff Adams on these grounds, that I do have training in all three, and
Krüger should have known this before he wrote this post.
Not 'expertise', by the way, training - which was the word at issue.
I wonder why Krüger should suddenly want to change his own word, the
one that he made the false assertion about, at this late stage? Could
it perhaps be because he is claiming merit for *himself*, in this post,
but doesn't strictly have *training* in all three subjects? Of
course, nobody but him has attempted to argue that it *matters*, so he
is only trying to convince himself..
No matter. His original assertion that I have no training in these
subjects is wrong, he is in error, and I again ask him to retract it.
Now, the confused logic. Yesterday, he said that his statement
> "I'll be charitable and say that people like John Atkinson and Paul
> Bamborough are just casualties of the fact that a person can get a EE
> or any number of good jobs in audio without any training in the
> design of subjective experiments, psychoacoustics or perceptual
> psychology."
was true (or at least unfalsified) asl long as we are without training in
*any*
of the three subjects.
This argument was *entirely false*, and the result of
an elementary logical error in Krüger's formulation of his statements. As
it happens, the problem was not de Morgan's theorem, but that he used
it on a different statement from the one above, and then pretended that
its results applied to the original statement.
Wrong. Extremely wrong. The error is actually very easy to dispose of
using symbolic logic, and I'll do it if I have to. Meanwhile, Krüger has
made
no answer to the point I made yesterday, and which I'll rework now:
*If* Krüger's argument is right, these statements are also true:
"Krüger is without reason, logic, honesty, the ability to speak the
truth or a diamond as big as the Ritz"
"Bamborough does not have errors, defects, problems, a mean bone in his
body or wings"
How about it, Krüger? In what way do you think that these are wrong,
but yours was right?
Now, this time round Krüger actually *almost* gets it right, and then
slides off into trouble again:
> Let's look at this statement. It has a list of 3 items: (1) design of
> subjective experiments (2) psychoacoustics (3) perceptual psychology
> They are joined by the word "or". That means that whole phrase:
> "design of subjective experiments, psychoacoustics or perceptual
> psychology."
> is true if ANY of the 3 elements are true.
This is, finally, correct. BUT, it also destroys Krüger's own bogus
argument of yesterday.
When a statement is true if ANY of its elements are true, then the
statement is false only if ALL those elements are false. (That 's de
Morgan, by the way).
Krüger's original sentence asserts that the statement is false:
> WITHOUT ANY training in the design of subjective experiments,
> psychoacoustics or perceptual psychology."
My emphasis. Now, when Krüger made his previous bogus argument, he
*agreed* that at least two of the elements were true;
therefore, he also agreed that the statement was true;
therefore his claim that it wasn't ("without any") is plain wrong.
His logical confusion is actually trivially fixed by the judicious use
of brackets, and any junior programmer should know this.
Let's put it to bed now, shall we?
p
PS The rest of Krger's post was devoted to arguing a *brand-new* point
as if it was the original assertion. I think that this is less than
honest, and intend to finish with the old false ones.
George M. Middius
> > Hey, one last thing before I go: Can you please give us a score, in
> > your estimation, of your current exchange with Jeff Adams? Put it in
> > percentage terms, like, e.g., Jeff is winning 65-35, or you are
> > winning 58-42. TIA.
> I think that it is either Mr. Phillips or Felix who is in charge of
> dick-measuring. I think you need to call one or both of them for a
> free estimate.
Obviously™ since you did not falsify™ my claim™, you admit that
Jeff has you whipped 100 to 0.
A toast to you, Mr. Sack:
For he's a sorry-ass cyborg,
For he's a sorry-ass cyborg,
For he's a sorry-ass cyborg,
That never the truth can speak.
George M. Middius
[This post reformatted by the Resistance, laboring tirelessly
to de-Kroogerize Usenet.]
Arny Krueger
"Paul Bamborough" <pa...@bamborough.com> wrote in message
news:8u6u45$2j8$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@flash.net> wrote...
>
> Yet more confused thinking. I'll deal with the actual truth first,
then
> turn to his confusion, on the assumption that it is sadly real
rather
> than unpleasantly deliberate:
>
> > Since neither John Atkinson nor Paul Bamborough have subsequently
> > claimed expertiese in ALL 3 of these areas, my claim has not yet
been
> > falsified.
>
> False. I noted yesterday, on Krüger's nasty attempt to attack
> Jeff Adams on these grounds, that I do have training in all three,
The truth outs after how many days of you beating around the bush Mr.
Bamborough?
> and Krüger should have known this before he wrote this post.
Sorry, you've confused Usenet postings with a relaible form of
communications.
> Not 'expertise', by the way, training - which was the word at
issue.
It was only an issue in your mind, and then with the word "Formal"
attached. Besides The word "training" is almost meaningless. After
all on-the-job-training is a valid term, but describes an intensely
variable and often very uncontrolled process.
> I wonder why Krüger should suddenly want to change his own word,
the
> one that he made the false assertion about, at this late stage?
Because I didn't.
>Could it perhaps be because he is claiming merit for *himself*, in
this post,
> but doesn't strictly have *training* in all three subjects?
As I said the word "training" is pretty meaningless all by itself.
>Of
> course, nobody but him has attempted to argue that it *matters*, so
he
> is only trying to convince himself..
I feel no obligation to convince *anybody* including myself. I am
trying to be responsive when reasonable questions are asked.
> No matter. His original assertion that I have no training in these
> subjects is wrong, he is in error, and I again ask him to retract
it.
Mr. Bamborough since you've finally, after what 9 days of shucking
and jiiving and lying and deceiving finally made a clear, concise
statement, I'll let you have the gold star you seem to lust after:
"I was poorly informed when I claimed that Mr. Bamborough lacks
certain training even though everybody should know that I'm now
making the gross mistake of accepting a proven liar and deceiver at
his word."
> Now, the confused logic. Yesterday, he said that his statement
> > "I'll be charitable and say that people like John Atkinson and
Paul
> > Bamborough are just casualties of the fact that a person can get
a EE
> > or any number of good jobs in audio without any training in the
> > design of subjective experiments, psychoacoustics or perceptual
> > psychology."
>
> was true (or at least unfalsified) as long as we are without
training in
> *any*
> of the three subjects.
> This argument was *entirely false*, and the result of
> an elementary logical error in Krüger's formulation of his
statements. As
> it happens, the problem was not de Morgan's theorem, but that he
used
> it on a different statement from the one above, and then pretended
that
> its results applied to the original statement.
At this time Mr. Bamborough, any reader who is trying to make sense
of what you are saying is scurrying about looking for antecedents.
Could you try to be a little more clear?
> Wrong. Extremely wrong. The error is actually very easy to
dispose of
> using symbolic logic, and I'll do it if I have to. Meanwhile,
Krüger has made
> no answer to the point I made yesterday, and which I'll rework now:
> *If* Krüger's argument is right, these statements are also true:
> "Krüger is without reason, logic, honesty, the ability to speak the
truth or a diamond as big as the Ritz"
> "Bamborough does not have errors, defects, problems, a mean bone in
his body or wings"
> How about it, Krüger? In what way do you think that these are
wrong,
> but yours was right?
I decline to try to untangle your intentionally clouded statements,
Mr. Bamborough.
Why don't you go do something on-topic and useful like defend your
now-falsified claims about the applicability of PCABX to CD players?
<Mr. Bamborough's alleged "logic" snipped in an attempt to reduce the
amount of deception in the universe so close to the US election day>
Arny Krueger
<Jeff Adams> wrote in message
news:f5cc0tordbg9h39ar...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 05 Nov 2000 22:20:31 GMT, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@flash.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Paul Bamborough" <pa...@bamborough.com> wrote in message
> >
> >> A long, angry and self-righteous rant, in which he graduated
from
> >calling Jeff Adams a
> >> hypocrite to repeatedly claiming that he is also a liar.
> >
> >It has something to do with having multiple conclusive pieces of
> >evidence showing lies hypocrisy and deception on the part of both
> >Adams and Bamborough.
> Proven only in your mind, Mr. Krueger.
Oh Mr. Adams you are claiming to be omniscient?
> However, the true facts are,
> you've not proven any such thing.
"only in your mind, Mr. Adams" ;-)
> Please stop the silliness now.
I lack the power to make you do that, Mr. Adams!
> No > one could possibly actually believe that what you presented
proved
> anyone but yourself wrong. Could they?
Oh, then you are now questioning your former claims of omniscience,
Mr. Adams?
LOL!
Paul Bamborough
(one that was probably libellous, by the way), is indeed false. And with
what sweetness and typical grace he concedes his error:
> "I was poorly informed when I claimed that Mr. Bamborough lacks
> certain training even though everybody should know that I'm now
> making the gross mistake of accepting a proven liar and deceiver at
> his word."
Krüger, thank you very much. I shan't bother with your new scurrilous
assertions, because they are proven only in your own mind. But, in that
context, when you replie to my statement
>> and Krüger should have known this before he wrote this post.
with
> Sorry, you've confused Usenet postings with a relaible form of
> communications.
are you saying that you haven't received the relevant post? If that were
the case, I'd be in error to say you should have known that you were wrong.
Is it?
Just one or two other points:
------
Me:
>> Not 'expertise', by the way, training - which was the word at issue.
You:
> It was only an issue in your mind, and then with the word "Formal"
> attached.
No, this is completely false. You *started* this entire ding-dong by using
the specific word "training" in your original assertion which you have
quoted repeatedly. I certainly modified it by using "Formal
qualifications", which would have made your assertion less scurrilous though
just as wrong. But you kindly corrected me, by calling me a "liar" for
attempting to interpret your attack as being less nasty than you meant it to
be.
------------
With respect to your major logical error, which I dealt with by example:
> I decline to try to untangle your intentionally clouded statements,
> Mr. Bamborough.
My statements were, of course, not clouded but *identical* in structure to
yours. If you are able to understand this, then you are dissimulating. If
you are not able to understand it, may I suggest that you read a first
primer on logic. If you are not able to understand *that*, there is nothing
I can do to help you.
> Why don't you go do something on-topic and useful like defend your
> now-falsified claims about the applicability of PCABX to CD players?
My claim has *not* been falsified. I note your new post, and am glad that
you have decided actually to discuss the topic instead of insulting and then
defaming me. Regrettably, you addressed my first post, rather than the
later ones where I refined my argument, and if you try to read those later
posts you will see that I have already dealt with much of what you say.
However, as a courtesy I'll revisit the argument and describe again why I
believe that you are wrong. I'll do that some time tomorrow - my time is
limited at the moment, and after dealing with your personal attacks there is
little left.
> <Mr. Bamborough's alleged "logic" snipped in an attempt to reduce the
> amount of deception in the universe so close to the US election day>
I think we can take this statement as an admission that you were wrong and I
was right. Twice I have explained what was wrong in your logic, and twice
you have completely failed to address a single word of what I said.
Instead, you add a new insult. Pretty obvious why, I think we can all agree.
p
> Mr. Bamborough since you've finally, after what 9 days of shucking
> and jiiving and lying and deceiving finally made a clear, concise
> statement, I'll let you have the gold star you seem to lust after:
I have done none of these things, and I defy to to prove that I have, All I
wanted was a retraction of a false slur, which I have finally got in a style
that speaks such volumes about you. Thank you for your unusual kindness.
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:qfDN5.7438$pq3.5...@news.flash.net...
>
> "Paul Bamborough" <pa...@bamborough.com> wrote in message
Arny Krueger
> Well, Krüger has finally admitted that one of his false assertions
about me
> (one that was probably libelous, by the way), is indeed false. And
with
> what sweetness and typical grace he concedes his error:
> > "I was poorly informed when I claimed that Mr. Bamborough lacks
> > certain training even though everybody should know that I'm now
> > making the gross mistake of accepting a proven liar and deceiver
at
> > his word."
> Krüger, thank you very much. I shan't bother with your new
scurrilous
> assertions, because they are proven only in your own mind. But, in
that
> context, when you replie(sic) to my statement
Is that the new Mantra over there at "Resistance" headquarters:
"Proven only in your own mind"?
You guys surely believe in your own omniscience, don't you? ;-)
Gene Lyle
<pa...@bamborough.com> wrote:
>"Arny Krueger" <ar...@flash.net> wrote...
>
>Yet more confused thinking. I'll deal with the actual truth first, then
>turn to his confusion, on the assumption that it is sadly real rather
>than unpleasantly deliberate:
>
>> Since neither John Atkinson nor Paul Bamborough have subsequently
>> claimed expertiese in ALL 3 of these areas, my claim has not yet been
>> falsified.
>
>False. I noted yesterday, on Krüger's nasty attempt to attack
>Jeff Adams on these grounds, that I do have training in all three, and
>Krüger should have known this before he wrote this post.
>
>Not 'expertise', by the way, training - which was the word at issue.
>I wonder why Krüger should suddenly want to change his own word, the
>one that he made the false assertion about, at this late stage? Could
>it perhaps be because he is claiming merit for *himself*, in this post,
>but doesn't strictly have *training* in all three subjects? Of
>course, nobody but him has attempted to argue that it *matters*, so he
>is only trying to convince himself..
>
>No matter. His original assertion that I have no training in these
>subjects is wrong, he is in error, and I again ask him to retract it.
>
>Now, the confused logic. Yesterday, he said that his statement
>
>
>> "I'll be charitable and say that people like John Atkinson and Paul
>> Bamborough are just casualties of the fact that a person can get a EE
>> or any number of good jobs in audio without any training in the
>> design of subjective experiments, psychoacoustics or perceptual
>> psychology."
>
>was true (or at least unfalsified) asl long as we are without training in
>*any*
>of the three subjects.
>
>This argument was *entirely false*, and the result of
>an elementary logical error in Krüger's formulation of his statements. As
>it happens, the problem was not de Morgan's theorem, but that he used
>it on a different statement from the one above, and then pretended that
>its results applied to the original statement.
>
>Wrong. Extremely wrong. The error is actually very easy to dispose of
>using symbolic logic, and I'll do it if I have to. Meanwhile, Krüger has
>made
>no answer to the point I made yesterday, and which I'll rework now:
>
>*If* Krüger's argument is right, these statements are also true:
>
>"Krüger is without reason, logic, honesty, the ability to speak the
>truth or a diamond as big as the Ritz"
>
>"Bamborough does not have errors, defects, problems, a mean bone in his
>body or wings"
>
>How about it, Krüger? In what way do you think that these are wrong,
>but yours was right?
>
>Now, this time round Krüger actually *almost* gets it right, and then
>slides off into trouble again:
>
>> Let's look at this statement. It has a list of 3 items: (1) design of
>> subjective experiments (2) psychoacoustics (3) perceptual psychology
>> They are joined by the word "or". That means that whole phrase:
>> "design of subjective experiments, psychoacoustics or perceptual
>> psychology."
>> is true if ANY of the 3 elements are true.
>
>This is, finally, correct. BUT, it also destroys Krüger's own bogus
>argument of yesterday.
>
>When a statement is true if ANY of its elements are true, then the
>statement is false only if ALL those elements are false. (That 's de
>Morgan, by the way).
>
>Krüger's original sentence asserts that the statement is false:
>
>> WITHOUT ANY training in the design of subjective experiments,
>> psychoacoustics or perceptual psychology."
>
>My emphasis. Now, when Krüger made his previous bogus argument, he
>*agreed* that at least two of the elements were true;
>therefore, he also agreed that the statement was true;
>therefore his claim that it wasn't ("without any") is plain wrong.
>
>His logical confusion is actually trivially fixed by the judicious use
>of brackets, and any junior programmer should know this.
>
>Let's put it to bed now, shall we?
>
>p
>
>PS The rest of Krger's post was devoted to arguing a *brand-new* point
>as if it was the original assertion. I think that this is less than
>honest, and intend to finish with the old false ones.
>
>
This is quite beautiful reasoning which certainly exceeds Arnold's
capacity to grasp it. Watch and see ( if not already demonstrated.
I've just returned from a business trip late today and haven't made my
way through this exceedingly lengthy shattering of Arnold's
"positions.")
Gene Lyle
Paul Bamborough
>
> >Well, Krüger has finally admitted that one of his false assertions
false. And with what sweetness and typical grace he concedes his error:
>>> "I was poorly informed when I claimed that Mr. Bamborough lacks
>>> certain training even though everybody should know that I'm now
>>> making the gross mistake of accepting a proven liar and deceiver at
>>> his word."
>> Krüger, thank you very much. I shan't bother with your new
>> scurrilous assertions, because they are proven only in your own
>> mind. But, in that context, when you replie(sic) to my statement
> Is that the new Mantra over there at "Resistance" headquarters: "
> Proven only in your own mind"?
> You guys surely believe in your own omniscience, don't you? ;-)
What are you talking about, Krüger? " 'Resistance' headquarters?" Is it
your claim that Jeff Adams and I are part of some organisation within this
newsgroup? I am certainly not, and I am not aware that Jeff Adams is
either. We both can see that your alleged "proof" of my lies and deceptions
is purely a fantasy in your own mind, so we both say it. We say it becuase
it is *true*, Krüger, not because we are colluding. Are you capable of
understanding that?
If you actually believe the fantasy about "headquarters" as well, then
*what* organisation? Your proof with respect to me and Jeff Adams? Any
evidence at all? Or are you just hurling free-form accuastions about - as
has become your horrible habit whenever you are shown to be utterly,
comprehensively wrong in your vile attacks, by the efforts of reasonable
people.
Which happens more and more often, incidentally.
And what is this nonsense about "omniscience". *You* have made the claim,
over and over and over again, that I am a "proven liar and deceivcer".
You have completely failed to prove that very strong claim. You failed to
prove it with anything I have said, you failed to prove it with your
*interpretation* of what I said, and you have even failed to prove it by
simply *making up* your own words and putting them in my mouth, as you have
done repeatedly.
And *nobody* but you, Krüger, *nobody* has ever said that I am a liar and
deceiver, let alone that your sad efforts have succeeded in proving me one.
Not only have you failed to produce the evidence to back your nasty and
dishonest claims about me, you have failed to produce anybody who supports
you on them. And yet you bleat, over and over again, that your solipsistic
claims are 'proven'.
So, Krüger, who is claiming "omniscience"? You have no proof, you have no
backing, but you claim to *know* that I am a proven liar and deceiver. If
anyone is claiming omniscience, it is surely you.
But you are not a deity, Krüger, whatever your increasingly pathological
delusions.
p
PS. And by the way, you failed to answer any of my points and questions
again. Does this mean that you accept that you are wrong? Do you agree
the following:
You did receive the post - the one where I said that I had all the
trainings you demanded as a refutation of your fallacious logic - *before*
saying that I hadn't done so?
You do accept that you introduced the word 'training' into your original
calumny, that your claim that the issue was only in my mind is *false*, and
you do retract it?
You accept that your attempt at combinatorial logic on the structure of your
attack was a complete mess, and that you were hopelessly wrong?
Phil
Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Phil" <ph...@media1.net> wrote in message
> news:3A05B679...@media1.net...
>
> > I don't have much time to discuss this but the logic is faulty.
>
> Everybody ready for another one of Phil's world-renowned exercises in
> hair-splitting and yet another demonstration of his ignorance of the
> issues he purports to discuss? ;-)
>
> <snip headers, prologues, etc.>
>
> Arny wrote:
>
> > > Here is my original claim:
> >
> > > http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=686808563
>
> "I'll be charitable and say that people like John Atkinson and Paul
> Bamborough are just casualties of the fact that a person can get a EE
> or any number of good jobs in audio without any training in the
> design of subjective experiments, psychoacoustics or perceptual
> psychology."
>
> > > Let's look at this statement. It has a list of 3 items:
>
> > > (1) without any training in design of subjective experiments
>
> > > (2) without any training in psychoacoustics
>
> > > (3) without any training in perceptual psychology
>
> > This is an error in the use of the English language the three items
> are different endings to the phrase thus it should be:
>
> > (1) design of subjective experiments
>
> > (2) psychoacoustics
>
> > (3) perceptual psychology
>
> As if it makes a difference. OK we agree that there is a list of 3
> items and this is what they are.
>
> > > The logical connection between them is the word "or".
>
> > > So their logical form is "Design of subjective experiments" OR
> > > "psychoacoustics" OR "perceptual psychology"
>
> > > However they are preceded by a word that negates the
> logic"without".
>
> > > Therefore the form of the claim is "not or".
>
> > > Now anybody who knows any combinatorial logic knows that "not or"
> =
> > > "and".
>
> > Now let's continue, assume that my contention above is untrue and
> Arny's
> > argument is correct is does as Arny contends "not or" = "and".
> > Consider: AND function if A is true and B is true then the AND of A
> and
> > B is true all other cases false. if 1 = true and 0 = false where
> AND(A,
> > B) = A and B. AND(0,0)=0, AND(0,1)=0, AND(1,0)=0, AND(1,1)= 1.
> > Now consider the OR function, that is if either A or B is true then
> the
> > OR of A and B is true and all other case false. Therefore:
> OR(0,0)=0,
> > OR(0,1)=1, OR(1,0)=1, OR(1,1)= 1.
> > Now consider Not function, that is if A is false the Not of A is
> true.
> > NOT(1)=0, NOT(0)=1.
> > As stated the NOR function is NOT(OR(A,B)) so let us do the
> calculation.
> > NOR(0,0)=1, NOR(0,1)=0, NOR(1,0)=0, NOR(1,1)= 0, now AND function
> again:
> >
> > AND(0,0)=0, AND(0,1)=0, AND(1,0)=0, AND(1,1)= 1. Note, NOR
> function does
> > not equal the AND function.
> > [rest of post snip relevant to point of post]
>
> > Conclusion: fundamental to Arny's argument is that a NOR logic
> function
> > is the same as an AND logic function. This is not true, therefore
> his
> > argument is untrue.
>
> LOL! Like JJ said, it's like I need to prove De Morgan's theorum.
>
> However, lets look at the sentence without introducing Boolean logic
> since Phil seems to be ignorant of the fundamentals of Boolean logic.
>
> Again, repeating the original statement:
>
> "I'll be charitable and say that people like John Atkinson and Paul
> Bamborough are just casualties of the fact that a person can get a
> EE
> or any number of good jobs in audio without any training in the
> design of subjective experiments, psychoacoustics or perceptual
> psychology."
>
> Let's look at this statement. It has a list of 3 items:
>
> (1) design of subjective experiments
>
> (2) psychoacoustics
>
> (3) perceptual psychology
>
> <which are direct quotes of Phil's alleged clarification.>
>
> They are joined by the word "or".
>
> That means that whole phrase:
>
> "design of subjective experiments, psychoacoustics or perceptual
> psychology."
>
> is true if ANY of the 3 elements are true.
>
> To summarize, I'm saying that if any of them is missing, then there
> can be problems.
>
> Therefore, all 3 have to be present for the problem I'm talking about
> to be properly addressed.
>
> Since neither John Atkinson nor Paul Bamborough have subsequently
> claimed expertiese in ALL 3 of these areas, my claim has not yet been
> falsified.
>
> Furthermore the relevance of expertiese in these areas has AFAIK not
> been challenged, let alone been falsified.
>
> I have explicitly claimed relevant amounts of practical expertiese in
> all 3 of these areas but only because I was public challenged to do
> so.
>
> I'm sure that I'm not alone in having expertiese in these areas. But
> I remain convinced that a great many people working in the Audio
> business lack it.
>
> Just guessing offhand, I suspect that Mr. James Johnston, Dr. John
> Feng, and Mr. Ken Kantor for example, could claim expertiese in all
> three of these areas.
>
> I believe that anybody who visits www.pcabx.com and takes it
> thoroughly and seriously will have non-trivial amounts of relevant
> practical experience in the application of the areas of:
>
> (1) design of subjective experiments
>
> (2) psychoacoustics
>
> (3) perceptual psychology
Note: that Arny claims I do not understand logic. Let's test his
statement. What I said and showed was that Mr. Krueger's statement which
you can get from above. Arny said:
Now anybody who knows any combinatorial logic knows that "not or"
= "and". This is not true by DeMorgan's law. That is what I said. You,
Mr. Krueger, made the statement as a bases of your argument by removing
the truth of your base statement your argument as stated falls. Don't
call me stupid because you made a bad argument and also don't blame me
because you miss stated DeMorgan's law.
Phil
Phil
Arny Krueger wrote:
What you said was "nor" ="and" this is a misstatement of DeMorgan's law
which states:
NOR(not A, not B) = AND(A,B) not NOR(A,B) = AND(A,B) which I show with a
rather simplistic demonstration that even the most mathematically
challenge show have been able to follow.
I may add that JJ did not agree with you, that "nor" ="and", but only
noted, that the argument was about DeMorgan's Law, which was true, you,
Mr. Krueger had misused it.
As for the rest of the argument you made, it was immaterial. My comment
was about the original post's argument which was based on the statement
"nor" = "and" which is not true. Thus, my statements of argument
conclusion being untrue were valid.
I realize it is embarrassing to be caught in such an obvious and basic
error, especially for someone in the computer business. An adult accepts
responsibility for there mistakes and does not call other names or try to
hid behind flummery. Unfortunately, Mr. Krueger has not reach this level
of maturity.
Phil
Doug Haugen
> That's our Arnii! He actually said once, "Jesus was a sarcastic son
of
> a bitch," or words to that effect. Can you believe it?
So when was the last time you were in church? Are you a regular?
Sales training meetings don't count, Trots.;-)
Doug Haugen
> George:
> Are you feeling OK? Are you having a good day for a change? You
> mentioned my name in a positive light, must be a strange phase of
the
> moon.
No, just someone who's watched his base of power erode to virtual
nonexistence. People like that will grab at anyone who might keep them
afloat a bit longer.
Even you.
Doug Haugen
> Perhaps he sincerely does believe this to be true. Doesn't make it
true.
So when can we expect Stereophile to publish the results of DBTs?
I suppose the next best thing would be a published disclaimer about
ignoring fact.
Trotsky
Doug Haugen wrote:
>
> "Trots" <gsi...@enteract.com> wrote:
>
> > That's our Arnii! He actually said once, "Jesus was a sarcastic son
> of
> > a bitch," or words to that effect. Can you believe it?
>
> So when was the last time you were in church? Are you a regular?
What does that have to do with Arnii's bizarre comments about his
"religion"? Be specific, please.
>
> Sales training meetings don't count, Trots.;-)
Neither do Pella retreats, Doogly.
The Devil
>Now anybody who knows any combinatorial logic knows that "not or"
>= "and". This is not true by DeMorgan's law. That is what I said. You,
>Mr. Krueger, made the statement as a bases of your argument by removing
>the truth of your base statement your argument as stated falls. Don't
>call me stupid because you made a bad argument and also don't blame me
>because you miss stated DeMorgan's law.
Arnii really said that? 'Not Or' is NOR, and its truth table is not
the same as an AND logic gate.
--
The Devil
The Devil
>Now anybody who knows any combinatorial logic knows that "not or"
>= "and". This is not true by DeMorgan's law. That is what I said. You,
>Mr. Krueger, made the statement as a bases of your argument by removing
>the truth of your base statement your argument as stated falls. Don't
>call me stupid because you made a bad argument and also don't blame me
>because you miss stated DeMorgan's law.
Arnii really said that? 'Not Or' is NOR, and its truth table is not
the same as an AND logic gate's.
--
The Devil
Arny Krueger
"The Devil" <ink...@EATSPAMbreathe.com> wrote in message
news:htsf0to5274018mq3...@4ax.com...
> >= "and". This is not true by DeMorgan's law. That is what I said.
You,
> >Mr. Krueger, made the statement as a bases of your argument by
removing
> >the truth of your base statement your argument as stated falls.
Don't
> >call me stupid because you made a bad argument and also don't
blame me
> >because you miss stated DeMorgan's law.
>
>
Not OR is not NOR. NOR is more like OR NOT.
Arny Krueger
news:29ve0tc9pi302c1el...@4ax.com...
> This is quite beautiful reasoning which certainly exceeds Arnold's
capacity to grasp it.
...or Mr. Bamborough's incessant obsession with irrelevant nits
simply bores me. Where is the beef? All this smoke that is coming
from Bamborough's ears is obviously due to the fact that his primary
mission is going nowhere.
Face, the man is a stuffed shirt! Most people lack the patience to
work through his tortured logic and irrelevant whining. The guy is so
upset he's even forgot how to spell and I have to keep correcting
him!
Mr. Bamborough has been straining at the stool for weeks and weeks
trying to lay just one technical finger on www.pcabx.com . His
pathetic attempts at completing his propaganda seem to be failing
because of his inability to clearly demonstrate relevant technical
knowledge and produce an irrefutable technical argument.
It's been said in public that people aren't getting whatever he's
trying to do except that they think he looks classy (while he is
spinning his wheels). That may impress people who buy audio based on
front panel aesthetics and other hype, but it does little for people
who are interested in "good sound" in terms of the face value
meanings of those words.
>Watch and see ( if not already demonstrated.
> I've just returned from a business trip late today and haven't made
my
> way through this exceedingly lengthy shattering of Arnold's
> "positions.")
IOW Mr. Lyle, you were a day late and a dollar short with your
shilling because you missed responding to Mr. Bamborough's pleas for
help and moral support in a timely fashion. Do try to do better next
time?
Stereophi...@compuserve.com
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@flash.net> wrote:
> <Stereophi...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> news:8u6sfu$kmd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > today that the Boolean "or" is the same as "and."
>
Hmmm. Perhaps I am confused because your "True" statement involves a
negative concept: "If someone does _not_ have training..." = "True."
But your reasoning is still not correct, as I assume others will already
have pointed out to you.
Your first statement was:
> a person can get a EE or any number of good jobs in audio without any
> training in the design of subjective experiments, psychoacoustics or
> perceptual psychology."
Which you clarified by saying that:
> That means that [the] whole phrase...is true if ANY of the 3 elements
> are true.
Both statements have the form: "If A or B or C is true then X is true."
(Remembering that your "true" on the left of the equation is equivalent
to "someone _not_ having training.")
You then stated:
> To summarize, I'm saying that if any of them is missing, then there
> can be problems.
If it is allowed that your "missing" in this statement has the same
effect as "without" in your first statement, this has the same
structure: "If A or B or C is true then X is true."
However, your final statement was:
> all 3 have to be present for the problem I'm talking about to
> be properly addressed.
Assuming that by "properly addressed," you are still talking about
the same outcome of your first statements (that people without/missing
training can get "good jobs" in audio), this has the form: "If A and B
and C are true, then X is true."
In other words, you are now saying that _all three_ conditions have to
be satisfied compared with just one of three in your original statement.
To sum up:
Statements 1 and 2: "If A or B or C is True, Then X is True."
Statement 3: "If A and B and C are True, Then X is True."
The form of 3 is not the same as that of 1/2. That is all I am saying,
that you are wrong to equate OR with AND. It hardly seems to be a false
claim. And the situation is not changed if you change the "trues" on the
left side of the equations to "not trues" (ie, having training equals
"true"), which is one interpretation of your phrase "off by a sign." The
two forms now become:
Statements 1 and 2: "If A or B or C is Not True, Then X is True."
Statement 3: "If A and B and C are Not True, Then X is True."
3 is still not the same as 1/2.
There is one more possibility, that by "properly addressed," you are now
talking about the _opposite_ outcome of your first statements, ie, that
people without/missing training should _not_ be able to get "good jobs"
in audio). This has the following forms, again taking either of the two
interpretations of your "without/missing" descriptor, respectively:
Statement 3: "If A and B and C are True, Then X is Not True."
compared with Statements 1 and 2: "If A or B or C is True, Then X is
Not True."
or
Statement 3: "If A and B and C are Not True, Then X is Not True."
compared with Statements 1 and 2: "If A or B or C is Not True, Then X is
Not True."
Is this what you meant by "off by a sign"? Either way of presenting your
final statement is still not equivalent to your first two statements
when reworked with the same conventions.
To address your original comment with respect to Paul Bamborough, if Mr.
Bamborough had any training at all in even one of the three disciplines
you mentioned, your statement was incorrect. And as Paul does indeed
have such training, it now behoves you to admit that you were wrong.
> As jj pointed out it's a well-known theorem.
>
> I tried to explain it to Phil far less technically this morning. You
> might try to find that explanation...
I think the real problem here, Mr. Krueger, that your use of words is
haphazard: that while you know what you meant to say, the rest of us can
only go by the literal meanings of those words. And as I have attempted
to show above, the literal meanings of the words you use give
conflicting results. But thank you for the advice to find your
explanation to Phil. I shall now delve into the rest of the new postings
to find it and to see if others have commented on your mistaken ideas
about logic.
--
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
George M. Middius
I for one didn't think you could get more outrageous, but I was
wrong.
> ...or Mr. Bamborough's incessant obsession with irrelevant nits
> simply bores me.
What is your stance on the irrelevant, immaterial, obfuscatory,
exceedingly petty, and downright dishonest nits that you like to
pick? Are they Kristian nits, by any chance?
> Where is the beef? All this smoke that is coming
> from Bamborough's ears is obviously due to the fact that his primary
> mission is going nowhere.
Nobody can guess what "mission" you are referring to, but his
actual "primary mission" has succeeded brilliantly. The proof of
that is the shambles he makes of your every lie, every deception,
every bit of hypocrisy, and every dram of slander you direct at
Mr. B. Your destruction at Bamborough's hands has been utter and
complete, a testament to the man's dispassionate dissection of a
krazy, ranting fool while remaining patient and far more composed
than reasonable discourse demands.
> Face, the man is a stuffed shirt! Most people lack the patience to
> work through his tortured logic and irrelevant whining. The guy is so
> upset he's even forgot how to spell and I have to keep correcting
> him!
I think we can all see this is another figment of your depraved
fantasy world, Mr. Sack, quite akin to your odious labeling of
Jeff Adams with your own sinfulness. Consider it ignored by all
thinking people.
> Mr. Bamborough has been straining at the stool for weeks and weeks
> trying to lay just one technical finger on www.pcabx.com . His
> pathetic attempts at completing his propaganda seem to be failing
> because of his inability to clearly demonstrate relevant technical
> knowledge and produce an irrefutable technical argument.
Another Kroo-figment. Pure mental feces. No response is suitable.
> It's been said in public that people aren't getting whatever he's
> trying to do except that they think he looks classy (while he is
> spinning his wheels). That may impress people who buy audio based on
> front panel aesthetics and other hype, but it does little for people
> who are interested in "good sound" in terms of the face value
> meanings of those words.
So your humiliations on Usenet are related to high-end audio?
Interesting theory. Did Phoebe tell you to say that? The number
of idiots who buy into your class warfare borgma is pretty few,
Boogers. I'd say that little coterie of losers define themselves
aptly by preferring to keep silent about you rather than behave
with reason and measure. Even on Usenet, it's normal for humans
to judge others, at least in part, by the company they keep. And
God knows you don't keep company with any decent audio equipment.
> you missed responding to Mr. Bamborough's pleas for
> help and moral support in a timely fashion.
You've got Mr. Bamborough confused with the Resistance. We're the
ones urging you to off yourself. Paul has been silent on the
subject of your overall value to human society.
George M. Middius
The Devil
wrote:
>> Arnii really said that? 'Not Or' is NOR, and its truth table is not
>> the same as an AND logic gate's.
>Not OR is not NOR. NOR is more like OR NOT.
Shut the fuck up, you idiot. It is not 'more like' anything; it just
is NOR. NOR is the inverse result of OR. It certainly isn't AND, which
you originally claimed, you dumb idiot.
--
The Devil
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
The Devil <ink...@EATSPAMbreathe.com> wrote:
>Shut the fuck up, you idiot. It is not 'more like' anything; it just
>is NOR. NOR is the inverse result of OR. It certainly isn't AND, which
>you originally claimed, you dumb idiot.
Well ...
not ( (not a) or (not b)) is what, Graham? (writing it out
so as to not have any chance of notation confusion, that is.)
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Francois Yves Le Gal <fle...@free.fr> wrote:
>On Tue, 7 Nov 2000 17:22:01 GMT, j...@research.att.com (jj, curmudgeon and
>tiring philalethist) wrote:
>
>>not ( (not a) or (not b)) is what, Graham? (writing it out
>>so as to not have any chance of notation confusion, that is.)
>
>Could the answer be NOR?
>:-)
Well, no. Not quite.
Paul D.
>> >Based on your behavior Mr. Adams you could easily be a sock-puppet
>> >manipulated by an atheist or agnostic who knows a little Bible and
>> >some "church-speak".
>>
>> This is very disrespectful.
>
>
>
>That's our Arnii! He actually said once, "Jesus was a sarcastic son of
>a bitch," or words to that effect. Can you believe it?
Yes.
S i g n a l . . . . .
Dan
> The Devil <ink...@EATSPAMbreathe.com> wrote:
>> Shut the fuck up, you idiot. It is not 'more like' anything; it just
>> is NOR. NOR is the inverse result of OR. It certainly isn't AND, which
>> you originally claimed, you dumb idiot.
> Well ...
> so as to not have any chance of notation confusion, that is.)
a AND b. Do I win a prize or what?
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
No, you fail to win the prize offered here, which is a
good thing, methinks. :-)
Dan
>>> not ( (not a) or (not b)) is what, Graham? (writing it out
>>> so as to not have any chance of notation confusion, that is.)
>> a AND b. Do I win a prize or what?
> No, you fail to win the prize offered here, which is a
> good thing, methinks. :-)
Why, what is it? <insert name of choice here>'s brain?
'Lost the plot' Dan
--
http://www.dur.ac.uk/d.c.buchan
Gene Lyle
wrote:
>IOW Mr. Lyle, you were a day late and a dollar short with your
>shilling because you missed responding to Mr. Bamborough's pleas for
>help and moral support in a timely fashion. Do try to do better next
>time?
>
Atta boy, Arnold! Keep the delusion alive! You're a stitch!
Gene Lyle
Mike McKelvy
> smc...@mail.utexas.edu (Stephen McElroy) wrote:
> > Krueger" <ar...@flash.net> wrote:
> > > Not to split hairs or anything, but as anybody can clearly see word
> > > "not" does not even appear in the text of the sentence you are
> > > critiquing...
> >
> > Thank you for not splitting hairs. Your claim that "without...or" =
> > "and" is laughable in this context.
>
> today that the Boolean "or" is the same as "and." Perhaps he sincerely
> does believe this to be true. Doesn't make it true.
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophi
>
Like your claims that subtle differences can be discerned through sighted
comparisons?
The Devil
>not ( (not a) or (not b)) is what, Graham? (writing it out
>so as to not have any chance of notation confusion, that is.)
a | b | NOTa | NOTb | NOTa OR NOTb | NOT (NOTa OR NOTb)
0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0
0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0
1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0
1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1
An AND gate. But not a NOR gate!
--
The Devil
The Devil
<fle...@free.fr> wrote:
>Back to De Morgan! Is everybody ready for a truth table?
>Could the answer be NOR?
No, it's AND.
--
The Devil
The Devil
and tiring philalethist) wrote:
>>Back to De Morgan! Is everybody ready for a truth table?
>>Could the answer be NOR?
>Well, no. Not quite.
As I'm sure you already know, you can build any of the seven logic
gates from the NAND gate.
--
The Devil
Doug Haugen
>
> Doug Haugen wrote:
> >
> > "Trots" <gsi...@enteract.com> wrote:
> >
> > > That's our Arnii! He actually said once, "Jesus was a sarcastic
son
> > of
> > > a bitch," or words to that effect. Can you believe it?
> >
> > So when was the last time you were in church? Are you a regular?
> What does that have to do with Arnii's bizarre comments about his
> "religion"? Be specific, please.
Specifically, I am trying to see why you seem to have some sense of
injury about it, Trots.
I think you're just ankle-biting again.
BTW, Jesus WAS a sarcastic person.
> > Sales training meetings don't count, Trots.;-)
> Neither do Pella retreats, Doogly.
Windows are based on science and technology. No voodoo there, as it's
too easy to prove wrong, and people don't have vested reasons to think
they believe something.;-)
Phil
"jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist" wrote:
> In article <dqag0tskn9ur7j9bu...@4ax.com>,
> The Devil <ink...@EATSPAMbreathe.com> wrote:
> >Shut the fuck up, you idiot. It is not 'more like' anything; it just
> >is NOR. NOR is the inverse result of OR. It certainly isn't AND, which
> >you originally claimed, you dumb idiot.
>
> Well ...
>
> not ( (not a) or (not b)) is what, Graham? (writing it out
> so as to not have any chance of notation confusion, that is.)
> --
> Copyright j...@research.att.com 2000, all rights reserved, except transmission
> by USENET and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any
> use by a provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this
> article and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.
JJ, by deMorgan's law the results is the same as an AND but isn't the question.
the devil was responding to Arny's remark of as follows:
On Tue, 07 Nov 2000 12:34:29 GMT, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@flash.net>
wrote:
Not OR is not NOR. NOR is more like OR NOT.
I'm not to sure what this means but he seems to imply that NOR(A,B) =
OR(not(A),not(B)) this is obviously untrue. The devil's remark, although unkind,
is correct given this interpretation of what Arny said. Since the normal
definition of NOR is: NOR(A,B)=not OR(A,B).
Your remark is a bit relevant and acts as a smokescreen for Arny. It makes it
appear that you are saying his statements are correct. Letting him hid behind your
technical reputation. This is not a good idea. If Arny is right by all means
support him, but don't cloud the issue with irrelevancies.
Arny stated a "nor" = "and" . He did not state that a nor(not(a), not(b)) =
and(a,b). Also following standard method of decoding his statement above, Arny
said NOR(A,B)=OR(not(A),not(B)). This is also untrue and easily checked in any
logic book.
Phil
Arny Krueger
"Phil" <ph...@media1.net> wrote in message
news:3A08BEF9...@media1.net...
Phil I'm glad to see that you are learning the Bamboroughian
methodology for deception.
It's a simple method, but I'll lay it out anyway:
(Phase 1) Misstate Arny's words convincingly (well at least
convincingly for the easily-deceived).
(Phase 2) Disprove the intentional misstatement of Arny's words.
(this can be done without additional deception).
(Phase 3) Claim that Arny was wrong. (this can be done without
additional deception).
The beauty of this procedure is that when the false conclusion is
published, the deception is already 2 steps back.
Paul D.
>Phil I'm glad to see that you are learning the Bamboroughian
>methodology for deception.
>
>It's a simple method, but I'll lay it out anyway:
>
>(Phase 1) Misstate Arny's words convincingly (well at least
>convincingly for the easily-deceived).
>
>(Phase 2) Disprove the intentional misstatement of Arny's words.
>(this can be done without additional deception).
>
>(Phase 3) Claim that Arny was wrong. (this can be done without
>additional deception).
>
>The beauty of this procedure is that when the false conclusion is
>published, the deception is already 2 steps back.
"I am a liar" - A. Krooger
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
>JJ, by deMorgan's law the results is the same as an AND but isn't the question.
Yes, I knew that. The devil knew that.
>the devil was responding to Arny's remark of as follows:
I'm not following that part.
I don't see any point to it.
Nor, frankly, at this point, do I give an aerial intercourse with a
tumbling frosted dough torus.
No, this is not exasperation with you, at least mostly not.