To George Middius
Bill Watkins
Mr. Middius, since your "popularity" here is
at a lower ebb than usual, likely you want to
create a little action with your post RE
assessing me. However you appear to be talking
to Trotsky. Do you want to discuss your
assessment directly with me, or are you too
chicken to do so?
PS to Trotsky. Please relay this to Mr. Middius.
I'll start off giving him the grace of actually
having me killfiled.
Bill Watkins
trotsky
Bill, I'm not sure if you are insane, senile, stupid, or some kind of
combo. George posted a question to YOU, using the euphemism "Booby
Wumpkins". I would think even the most mentally feeble would be able to
recognize a question being asked of them, but in your case I'm not so sure.
Marge
I Ain't Goin' Back" Middiot today is Marge:
"Buck buck buck-aw!!!"
Chicken George
Marge
Hey! They're right! You do exhibit turd-like behaviour!!!
Marge
George M. Middius
> > Mr. Middius,
> Bill, I'm not sure if you are insane, senile, stupid, or some kind of
> combo. George posted a question to YOU, using the euphemism "Booby
> Wumpkins". I would think even the most mentally feeble would be able to
> recognize a question being asked of them, but in your case I'm not so sure.
If "Booby Wumpkins" is a euphemism, then "Arnii the Krooshit" must be
a thick coating of unrefined sugar.
Anyway.... I did amend the subject of the other thread so that Booby
would know I was trolling for him specifically. Is he on meds? Has he
been diagnosed as suffering from Alzheimer's Syndrome? Why did he
attempt to ascend from Radio Shack salesclerk to "speaker designer",
and how did he cope with his resounding failure? Those are the
questions provoked by the triviality we know as Booby Wumpkins.
George M. Middius
Bill Watkins
---
Try again without the ad hominem.
Bill W.
trotsky
Yawn.
Marge
he grows a brain.
:)
Marge
Marge
trotsky
Fuck off.
Goofball Howardson-Etal
wrote:
>
> Try again without the ad hominem.
>
> Bill W.
>
Hi Bill. Got your 8.553143. Nice fiddle!
It is undergoing forensic examination, foul play of hanky-panky type 3
is suspected.
Bollocks!
"THE mark of quality assurance", note.
"Bollocks" is a trademark of Gum.tree Opinions
Bill Watkins
says...
>
>
>I don't quite understand the Booby Wumpkins phenomenon. On some
>topics, he posts with insight, reason, and seeming first-hand
>experience. But on most topics, he's no more lucid than .... than ...
>than Krooger, I guess. Booby clearly knows something about how
>loudspeakers work, even if those Infinity speakers with the woofers he
>designed ended up as something less than a triumphant coup of
>engineering.
I'm not responsible for Infinity's design, Mr. Middius,
my design's carried my own name. This has been discussed
here, so your ignorance of technical matters doesn't serve
you well.
>But in almost any discussion revolving around behavior,
>personality, veracity, etc., Booby is completely out to lunch. This
>business of the baseball bat confession is the purest case in point.
This has been discussed also, with the first comments
on the subject noted. This later comment by your pal
Trotsky stands as a monument to the indecency of you
and Trotsky for continuing with the matter:
http://x63.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=537456722
"What does that mean, Arnii? What proof do you have that
you can't hear differences between digital cables? Are
you talking out of your ass like Annika, without any real
world experiences whatsoever? Yes, I suppose you are.
Quit trolling you piece of shit--no wonder your son
bashed his own head in with a baseball bat."
>It echoes all too strongly the arguments Wumpy put up -- at his own
>debut on RAO -- about the "defunct loudspeaker designer". It's as if
>what Booby does not experience first-hand cannot exist at all.
>Booby did not know of Ferstler's monomania about Roy Allison;
>therefore, the reference must be *proven* to attach to Allison.
Yes, I was somewhat new here at the time, that's the reason
I ask JS directly who he referred to as the "defunct
loudspeaker designer". He responded to me by refusing to
answer my question, leaving me clear in the matter.
>Similarly, Booby did
>not witness Mr. Shit's quasi-confession about the baseball bat;
You appear a sick man, Mr. Middius.
>therefore, it does not exist unless the Kroo tells the truth.
>
>Is Booby suffering from Alzheimer's or some other debility?
No.
>If so, he
>should have our pity, and he should also take comfort that many other
>Americans who command Booby's own respect may suffer similarly.
Save your pity Mr. Middius, you need it for yourself
In article <0be24t04iaom9ghva...@4ax.com>, glan...@ipo.net
says...
>
>If "Booby Wumpkins" is a euphemism, then "Arnii the Krooshit" must be
>a thick coating of unrefined sugar.
OSAF.
>Anyway.... I did amend the subject of the other thread so that Booby
>would know I was trolling for him specifically. Is he on meds?
No.
>Has he been diagnosed as suffering from Alzheimer's Syndrome?
No.
>Why did he attempt to ascend from Radio Shack salesclerk to
>"speaker designer",
False claim.
>and how did he cope with his resounding failure?
Prove I'm a failure, Mr. Middius.
>Those are the questions provoked by the triviality we know as
>Booby Wumpkins.
>
>George M. Middius
A very poor start Mr. Middius.
Bill Watkins
Bill Watkins
Arny Krueger
"trotsky" <gsi...@qwestonline.com> wrote in message
news:3A4145D2...@qwestonline.com...
> Bill Watkins wrote:
> > In article <3A41382D...@qwestonline.com>,
gsi...@qwestonline.com says...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Bill, I'm not sure if you are insane, senile, stupid, or some
kind of
> > >combo. George posted a question to YOU, using the euphemism
"Booby
> > >Wumpkins". I would think even the most mentally feeble would be
able to
> > >recognize a question being asked of them, but in your case I'm
not so sure.
> >
> > ---
>
> > Try again without the ad hominem.
> F*ck off.
Score!
Bill Watkins
says...
>
>On Wed, 20 Dec 2000 23:17:40 -0000, bwat...@mounet.com (Bill Watkins)
>wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Try again without the ad hominem.
>>
>> Bill W.
>>
>Hi Bill. Got your 8.553143. Nice fiddle!
>It is undergoing forensic examination, foul play of hanky-panky type 3
>is suspected.
---
Glad you like it. How so, hanky-panky type 3 ?
Bill W.
Bill Watkins
says...
>
>In article <t42fgkc...@news.supernews.com>, bwat...@mounet.com says...
>>
>>In article <3A41382D...@qwestonline.com>, gsi...@qwestonline.com
says...
>>
>>>combo.
>>
>>
>> Bill W.
>>
>
>Or, perhaps he could try again when
>he grows a brain.
>
>:)
>
>Marge
---
The heat just got to Mr. Singh and he melted down. Too bad.
Bill W.
Bill Watkins
---
Mr. Singh should stay out of the kitchen.
Bill W.
Marge
BWAHAHAHAHHAHA!
Marge
Marge
And from what we've heard, the restaurants too.
Marge
trotsky
Arny, did you and your brethren kick my ass like good Christians? What
does your pastor think?
Buh-bye!
trotsky
Bill, if you had a vocabulary, you would realize disgust and loathing
are not synonomous with "meltdown."
trotsky
Bill, seriously, are you on medication?
Bill Watkins
>> >> > Bill Watkins wrote:
>> >> >> Mr. Middius, since your "popularity" here is
>> >> >> at a lower ebb than usual, likely you want to
>> >> >> create a little action with your post RE
>> >> >> assessing me. However you appear to be talking
>> >> >> to Trotsky. Do you want to discuss your
>> >> >> assessment directly with me, or are you too
>> >> >> chicken to do so?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> PS to Trotsky. Please relay this to Mr. Middius.
>> >> >> I'll start off giving him the grace of actually
>> >> >> having me killfiled.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Trotsky spewed:
>> >> >Bill, I'm not sure if you are insane, senile, stupid, or some kind of
>> >> >combo. George posted a question to YOU, using the euphemism "Booby
>> >> >Wumpkins". I would think even the most mentally feeble would be able
to
>> >> >recognize a question being asked of them, but in your case I'm not so
>> sure.
>> >>
>> >> Try again without the ad hominem.
>> >> Bill W.
>> >
>> >
>> >Trotsky loses it:
>> >Fuck off.
>>
>
>> Meltdown.
> Bill W.
>
>
>Trotsky said:
>Bill, if you had a vocabulary, you would realize disgust and loathing
>are not synonomous with "meltdown."
---
Bill W. says:
Mr. Singh, IMO you don't have the capacity to
know what should engender respect _or_ disgust.
>> Bill W. said:
>> The heat just got to Mr. Singh and he melted down. Too bad.
>
>
>Trotsky asks:
>Bill, seriously, are you on medication?
Bill W. says:
No
>> >> Middius rants:
>> >> Is Booby suffering from Alzheimer's or some other debility?
>> >> If so, he should have our pity, and he should also take
>> >> comfort that many other Americans who command Booby's own
>> >> respect may suffer similarly.
>> >
>> >
>> >Arny stated:
>> >Nahh, Mr. Watkins suffering from several things that Mr. Middius need
>> >never worry about being "afflicted" with:
>> >
>> >(1) insight
>> >(2) honesty
>> >(3) decency
>> >(4) rationality
>> >(5) maturity
>> >(6) grace
>>
>>
>> Bill W. replied:
>> Thank you.
>
>
>
>Trotsky fantasizes:
>Full ejaculation.
>
>
---
Bill W. says:
Mess up your keyboard, Mr. Singh? Too bad.
Pat Mabottom
>
> Bill, if you had a vocabulary, you would realize disgust and loathing
> are not synonomous with "meltdown."
Just like control and class and clue are not synonymous with Singh.
Bill Watkins
>
>
>Just like control and class and clue are not synonymous with Singh.
---
And he ain't learnin', Mr. A.
Bill W.
George M. Middius
> > Bill, if you had a vocabulary, you would realize disgust and loathing
> > are not synonomous with "meltdown."
> Just like control and class and clue are not synonymous with Singh.
And, quite similarly, as logic and clear thinking are anathema to
the TomYutz approach to Usenet. Much better to support Arnii
Krooshit than try to think your way out of a paper bag.
George M. Middius
Doug Haugen
"Bill Watkins" <bwat...@mounet.com> wrote:
gsi...@qwestonline.com says...
> >Bill, I'm not sure. George posted a question to YOU. I would be
able to
> >recognize a question being asked of them.
Pat Mabottom
Georgie, Georgie, georgie....... I could ask you to provide references
to those posts where I supported Arnii, but it would be like kryptonite
for you. How clearly are you thinking as you're watching your gay man's
XXX-rated videos that are the only source of your sexual gratification?
Huh?
Pat Mabottom
>
> You appear a sick man, Mr. Middius.
What would you be if you were a hugely obese, gay man?
There I went again.......assuming he is a man.
......or was that Singh?????
George, do you like yogurt?
Pat Mabottom
>
> Bill, seriously, are you on medication?
Singh, seriously, are you on your medication?
It' the white ones with the 714 on them......
Pat Mabottom
>
> In article <t42jcrs...@news.supernews.com>, bwat...@mounet.com says...
> >
> >In article <ORb06.15246$bw.12...@news.flash.net>, ar...@pop3free.com says...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> F*ck off.
> >>
> >>Score!
> >
> >---
> >
> > Mr. Singh should stay out of the kitchen.
> >
> > Bill W.
> >
>
> And from what we've heard, the restaurants too.
HEY!!!! It's not his fault he smell's like that!
Pat Mabottom
> Arny, did you and your brethren kick my ass like good Christians? What
> does your pastor think?
He thinks you're an asshole too.
Arny Krueger
"Bill Watkins" <bwat...@mounet.com> wrote in message
news:t42jcrs...@news.supernews.com...
Agreed. He just does not have the proper attitude and disposition for
playing this game.
Arny Krueger
Mr. Singh, you kicked your own ass.
Your gun.
Your bullet.
Your foot.
Arny Krueger
"Pat Mabottom" <su...@goaway.com> wrote in message
news:3A41AF9C...@goaway.com...
More like someone who just isn't suited for playing the game without
first learning more about himself and other people.
Arny Krueger
Under the circumstances, being overwhelmed with disgust and loathing
would actually be more like being overcome with disgust and loathing
of one's own self. That makes it your problem Mr. Singh, not a
problem for the rest of us.
Arny Krueger
"George M. Middius" <glan...@ipo.net> wrote in message
news:87134ts85ij65p0s8...@4ax.com...
> Gummy runs screaming from the mirror into his soul.
>
> > > Bill, if you had a vocabulary, you would realize disgust and
loathing
>
> > Just like control and class and clue are not synonymous with
Singh.
>
>
> And, quite similarly, as logic and clear thinking are anathema to
> the TomYutz approach to Usenet. Much better to support Arnii
> Krooshit than try to think your way out of a paper bag.
Mr. Middius one readily-apparent source of your self-disgust and
self-loathing is that you can't do any of the above.
Arny Krueger
That's the really sad part.
George M. Middius
> How clearly are you thinking as you're watching your gay man's
> XXX-rated videos that are the only source of your sexual gratification?
Don't you have the opportunity to take "business trips" on behalf
of your employer? Just choose the right motel and you won't have
to plead so pathetically in public.
> Huh?
That was you, nimrod.
George M. Middius
trotsky
Why are you afraid to ask your pastor for a second opinion, Arny?
trotsky
Arny, do you think "Pat Mabottom" is an actual person? LOL!
trotsky
Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> "trotsky" <gsi...@qwestonline.com> wrote in message
> news:3A416594...@qwestonline.com...
> >
>
> > Bill, if you had a vocabulary, you would realize disgust and
> loathing
> > are not synonymous with "meltdown."
>
> Under the circumstances, being overwhelmed with disgust and loathing
> would actually be more like being overcome with disgust and loathing
> of one's own self. That makes it your problem Mr. Singh, not a
> problem for the rest of us.
Your logic would be impeccable, Arny, if in fact it existed at all.
That's what I find so disgusting and loathsome. Sorry.
trotsky
The sad part is seeing you ignore the truth from the likes of Adams and
Bamborough. You are really, really disgusting.
Arny Krueger
I simply have no idea who "Pat Mabottom" is.
I can tell you that http://www.411locate.com/people3.htm does not
find any people named "Mabotoom" in several very populous states like
California, Texas, Michigan, New York, or Illinois. Want more states
searched? Be my guest!
Is Mabotoon a "handle"? Probably.
The posting IP address "24.178.199.76" looks like it is a @home
site in or about Denver, Colorado. But @home is known to route
postings all over the place before putting them onto Usenet.
I did find a "mabottom" reference at www.google.com . Seems like its
related to homosexuality or sexual agression.
????
trotsky
Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> "trotsky" <gsi...@qwestonline.com> wrote in message
> news:3A41E8CA...@qwestonline.com...
> >
> >
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> > >
> > > "Pat Mabottom" <su...@goaway.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3A41AF9C...@goaway.com...
> > > > trotsky wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Arny, did you and your brethren kick my ass like good
> Christians?
> > > What
> > > > > does your pastor think?
> > >
> > > > He thinks you're an asshole too.
> > >
> > > More like someone who just isn't suited for playing the game
> without
> > > first learning more about himself and other people.
>
> > Arny, do you think "Pat Mabottom" is an actual person? LOL!
>
> I simply have no idea who "Pat Mabottom" is.
It's Tom Albertz aka "Surfshop" aka "Papa Smurfies".
>
> I can tell you that http://www.411locate.com/people3.htm does not
> find any people named "Mabotoom" in several very populous states like
> California, Texas, Michigan, New York, or Illinois. Want more states
> searched? Be my guest!
>
> Is Mabotoon a "handle"? Probably.
No, "Mabotoon" is gibberish.
>
> The posting IP address "24.178.199.76" looks like it is a @home
> site in or about Denver, Colorado. But @home is known to route
> postings all over the place before putting them onto Usenet.
Who cares.
>
> I did find a "mabottom" reference at www.google.com . Seems like its
> related to homosexuality or sexual agression.
>
> ????
Arny, you have Albertz down to a "T"--thanks for being honest for a change.
Arny Krueger
> > > ---
"...truth from the likes of Adams and Bamborough."??? Oxymoron
alert!
I think Bamborough really tipped his hand yesterday when he refused
to give any rules for "evidence". His game obviously involves moving
the target after someone shoots at it. The closer my aim, the faster
and further he moves the target.
IMO both these guys are trolls. They just want attention, not polite
conversation or exchange of audio ideas.
Mr. Singh, that makes your love for them perfectly predictable. Any
port in a storm?
Goofball Howardson-Etal
wrote:
Bollocks!
"THE mark of quality assurance", note.
"Bollocks" is a trademark of Gum.tree Opinions
Arny Krueger
"Goofball Howardson-Etal" <Illegi...@in.gum.tree> wrote in message
news:3a41fa8f...@news.dircon.co.uk...
> >> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> > > trotsky wrote:
> >related to homosexuality or sexual aggression.
> >????
> Try this:
>
http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/qs.xp?ST=PS&svcclass=dnyr&firstsearch=
yes&preserve=1&QRY=24.178.199.76&defaultOp=AND&DBS=1&OP=dnquery.xp&LN
G=english&subjects=&groups=&authors=&fromdate=&todate=&showsort=score
&maxhits=25
Very interesting, especially after the first 3 pages! Now I want to
know how this guy held onto the same IP address so long... ;-)
(Actually, knowing how @home works, this is pretty obvious, too).
Thanks.
Marge
Pat Mabottom
>
> ..... Just choose the right motel and you won't have
> to plead so pathetically in public.
And people say you can't learn anything on RAO.
Help me out here. Do go on.
Pat Mabottom
>
> Mr. Middius one readily-apparent source of your self-disgust and
> self-loathing is that you can't do any of the above.
But...... he DOES know how to choose a hotel! What we haven't
learned yet is whether he goes there to shop or to sell.
Arny Krueger
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >
> > Mr. Middius one readily-apparent source of your self-disgust and
> > self-loathing is that you can't do any of the above.
>
> But...... he DOES know how to choose a hotel!
Well, he claims he does. But does he?
>What we haven't learned yet is whether he goes there to shop or to
sell.
First, let's see what hotels he actually recommends... ;-)
trotsky
Arny, you just made some negative comments about "Pat Mabottom." Are
you changing your tune already?
George M. Middius
> I think Bamborough really tipped his hand yesterday when he refused
> to give any rules for "evidence". His game obviously involves moving
> the target after someone shoots at it. The closer my aim, the faster
> and further he moves the target.
> IMO both these guys are trolls. They just want attention, not polite
> conversation or exchange of audio ideas.
I wonder if Gummy Of The Unpatted Bottom has any comment on this bit
of posturing. After all, TomYutz is "not" a supporter of Krooger.
George M. Middius
George M. Middius
you too?
> Help me out here. Do go on.
Get a T-shirt with a picture of your bottom, walk up to every
likely guy you see, and ask him "Do you want to pat me?" Then throw
in a smarmy-winky to show you don't support Krooger. Next thing you
know, you'll have that "big brotherly" attention you crave.
George M. Middius
Bill Watkins
---
Like:
Never drive on a low tire. If you must do so, put air in it first. ;-)
Bill W.
Bill Watkins
>
>> > >Trotsky said:
>> > >Fuck off.
>> >
>> >
>> > Bill W. said:
>> > Meltdown.
>>
>>
>> Trotsky said:
>> Bill, if you had a vocabulary, you would realize disgust and
>> loathing are not synonomous with "meltdown."
>
>Under the circumstances, being overwhelmed with disgust and loathing
>would actually be more like being overcome with disgust and loathing
>of one's own self. That makes it your problem Mr. Singh, not a
>problem for the rest of us.
---
Mr. Singh has a low meltdown point, however his last
one was the highest low he's had in a while.......
Bill W.
Bill Watkins
---
Mr. Middius could put some air in his tire... Hot air?
Bill W.
Jeff Adams
wrote:
> "trotsky" <gsi...@qwestonline.com> wrote in message news:3A41E986.
> C699...@qwestonline.com...
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> The sad part is seeing you ignore the truth from the likes of Adams
>> and Bamborough. You are really, really disgusting.
> "...truth from the likes of Adams and Bamborough."??? Oxymoron
> alert!
Given your unwillingness to explore the possibility that this is a
false claim, don't you think that the right thing to do is to quit
repeating the demonstrably false claim?
> I think Bamborough really tipped his hand yesterday when he refused
> to give any rules for "evidence". His game obviously involves moving
> the target after someone shoots at it. The closer my aim, the faster
> and further he moves the target.
Maybe this could turn into a fruitful discussion. I would suggest that
the rules of evidence have multiple categories. I might need some help
here in getting my thoughts onto "paper", but here it goes:
-----------------------------------------
Scenario 1 - Evidence not subject to interpretation (concrete,
objective evidence)
Example 1: the Revox case. Your picture from Bill Watkins of the
magazine add (http://www.pcabx.com/zipser/a77mag2.jpg). I don't see
how anyone could argue that the A77 was not distributed in America in
at least 1970.
-----------------------------------------
Scenario 2 - Evidence that is subject to _some_ subjective
interpretation but that meets some kind of "generally agreed upon by
reasonable and objective people" level of scrutiny.
Example 1: Your claim that this link
http://x76.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=563230840 contains an
attack on you. The entire message is shown below:
Arny wrote:
>It was for me and all of my audiophile friends. Many of us had been
>occasional listeners to digital before CD, and we were perched on
>the edge of our chairs waiting for digital media to become
>available. Many of us knew from our experience with listening to 2
>track high speed masters that vinyl was trashing the sound.
Jeff wrote:
As kind of a non-sequitor, doesn't the CD seem rather HUGE now
that we've been living with them for a decade or more? To answer the
obvious question, no, I don't currently have a turntable (although my
wife has one that is, now that I think of it, stored in _my_ closet! But my
preamp doesn't have a phono input) so I don't have LP to compare sizes
with...
I think this example meets the "generally agreed upon by reasonable
and objective people" level of evidence. There is no attack on you
that I can see. I am making a comment that is off the topic of the
thread I was posting to (that's why I said it was a "non-sequitor"). I
am not saying your comments were a non-sequitor.
I think the above "evidence" meets the test of "generally agreed upon
by reasonable and objective people" level of scrutiny.
Example 2: Your claim that Paul Bamborough attributed the term "hard
drugs" to you.
I posted the question regarding the usage of the term "hard drugs" in
http://x69.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=704200399.1&mhitnum=1&CONTEXT=976908857.163315719
"So - Paul D. - are you talking about Arny's post regarding
the 10x rule? And where did the "hard drugs" thing come
in to this?
Paul Bamborough answered my question by saying in
http://x69.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=704554076.1&mhitnum=3&CONTEXT=976908857.163315719
"The "hard drugs" thing comes from another of Krüger's attacks
on me: he has several times suggested that I take drugs.
Now, I would suggest that what caused your misunderstanding in this
case was that Paul Bamborough chose to answer my question (which was a
question to Paul D., but nevertheless it was a question that Paul B.
was able to answer) through your post at
http://x69.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=704440705.1&mhitnum=2&CONTEXT=976908857.163315719
It would appear that the reason he did this was so that he could go on
to ask _you_ a question as well. The reason I think this is quite
clear is that the attributions for who wrote what are completely
intact. Here is the entire post with the attributions:
Arny Krueger wrote in message ...
>
>"Jeff Adams" <jeff....@gdfeg-es.com> wrote in message
>news:i33d3tcqdo1blg21d...@4ax.com...
>
>> So - Paul D. - are you talking about Arny's post regarding the 10x
>> rule? And where did the "hard drugs" thing come in to this?
The "hard drugs" thing comes from another of Krüger's attacks on
me: he has several times suggested that I take drugs.
>They melted down.
>
>The thing I find fascinating is how the two Paul's melted down in
>almost perfect synchronization. It is almost as if...
As a matter of mild interest, what do you mean by "melted down"?
In this thread you completely forgot that you had written something,
attacked your own opinion, demanded that I prove that you really
wrote it, accused me of "OSAF", "creative reading", and "posturing".
That strikes me as something approaching a melt-down.
The truth was that you *had* written what I said you had, and I pointed
that out with references.
Is that what *you* mean by a "melt-down"? If so, what does that
make your false attacks? And if not, what *do* you actually mean?
p
I would again submit that this "evidence" requires some amount of
subjective interpretation but that it meets the "generally agreed upon
by reasonable and objective people" level of scrutiny.
-----------------------------------------
Scenario 3 - Evidence that is subject to _considerable_ subjective
interpretation. I'm not sure what to say the level of scrutiny of
proof would be. I think we're into a gray area of here of trying to
prove intent, and I think that's often not possible.
An example of this might be the whole business of the "10x rule"
between you and Paul Bamborough. While you did indeed post a
description of what the "10x rule" was in
http://x75.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=678241979.1&CONTEXT=977431068.1982595086&hitnum=6
A partial quote of that post appears below:
Paul Bamborough wrote:
> Though the redigitising is nominally to a 24-bit word, the
> practical limits ofthe ADC are less than that: perhaps 20
> bits - and that assumes that full scale is being used. The
> differences are therefore actually quite close to the
> accuracy of the ADC - perhaps an order of magnitude.
> Further, there are filters involved which will have some
> timing effects.
> The result now has to be played through a second DAC,
> with its own errors. These cannot be assumed not to be
> cumulative, so the total errors of the round-trip are now
> even closer to the magnitude under test.
> So, will the differences definitely not be masked, in any
> way, by this two-way conversion? Maybe. Maybe not.
> Given that we are looking for subtle differences, and
> given how close the resolution of the test-instrument is to
> those differences, it would be dangerous to make that an
> assumption.
Arny Krueger wrote:
This problem is similar to the question: "How accurate
does my voltmeter have to be for me to measure something
with a certain tolerance? Accepted practice seems to be
that if your voltmeter is accurate with a tolerance of say 1%,
and if your measurement shows that a certain voltage is off
by 10%, then it is safe to believe that the voltage is off by
10%. OTOH, if your measurement shows that the voltage is
off by 1%, you are very uncertain as to whether that is due
to the voltmeter's lack of precision or that the voltage you
are measuring is really off by 1%.
This is the time-honored 10x rule.
In every test of a 16 converter with a 20 bit converter there
are four major sources of imprecision:
(1) The fact that the test signal applied to the UUT was digitized
with 16 bit resolution,
(2) the errors in the converter under test (UUT),
(3) the errors in the converter used to perform the test,
(4) the errors inherent in 24 bit digitization.
The reason I think this exchange falls into this third category (at
least for me) for the following reason:
a) I'm not sure of what your intent was in your response
b) I'm not sure that Paul B. could have fully understood
your intent without asking for clarification
c) enough time has passed and so many more posts have
been made that I've lost track of what the initial argument
was and what it has become (yes, we have Deja, but Deja
can't prove intent).
-----------------------------------------
So, what do you say? What would YOU say regarding the rules of
evidence?
-
=== 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. |
=============================================================================
Goofball Howardson-Etal
wrote:
>In article <3a414831...@news.dircon.co.uk>, Illegi...@in.gum.tree
>says...
>>
>>On Wed, 20 Dec 2000 23:17:40 -0000, bwat...@mounet.com (Bill Watkins)
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Try again without the ad hominem.
>>>
>>> Bill W.
>>>
>>Hi Bill. Got your 8.553143. Nice fiddle!
>>It is undergoing forensic examination, foul play of hanky-panky type 3
>>is suspected.
>
>---
>
> Glad you like it. How so, hanky-panky type 3 ?
>
> Bill W.
>
I need some more time on it but I hear the same positions as you and
I, like Howard, am immune to the placebo effect due to being highly
trained and all. The violin images like a star, centre front, about
10-20 degrees up. It is as dry as a desicated witch (who shall remain
nameless). The guitar is slightly right and about 0-10 degrees down.
It images like a large inflatable doll called "Mr. Blobby" with the
listener inside. If I was to speculate uncontrollably, I would say it
was multimiked with the violin miked close in mono with a small amount
of stereo mixed in and the guitar with mics in every orifice just for
starters. Call me a cynic or something.
trotsky
Bill, don't you think it's fair to ask Arny for his pastor's opinion?
trotsky
Translation from the horsepucky, please?
Bill Watkins
>
>Bill Watkins wrote:
>>
>> In article <ovk06.15491$bw.12...@news.flash.net>, ar...@pop3free.com
says...
>> >
>> >"Pat Mabottom" <su...@goaway.com> wrote in message
>> >news:3A41AF9C...@goaway.com...
>> >> trotsky wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Arny, did you and your brethren kick my ass like good Christians?
>> >> > What does your pastor think?
>> >
>> >> He thinks you're an asshole too.
>> >
>> >More like someone who just isn't suited for playing the game without
>> >first learning more about himself and other people.
>>
>>
>> Never drive on a low tire. If you must do so, put air in it first. ;-)
>
>
>
>Bill, don't you think it's fair to ask Arny for his pastor's opinion?
>
---
About whether it's Christian to "kick your ass"?
If so doesn't the Bible say "An eye for an eye,
and a tooth for a tooth"? I say, you're a turd.
Bill Watkins
Bill Watkins
>
>Bill Watkins wrote:
>> Mr. Singh has a low meltdown point, however his last
>> one was the highest low he's had in a while.......
>
>
>Translation from the horsepucky, please?
---
A joke Mr. Singh. BTW aren't you the tallest short man on RAO?
Bill W.
trotsky
Bill, I don't wish to have to explain the difference between the Old and
New Testaments to you. Apparently you share Arny's penchant for turning
religious doctrines into a perverse game of "pot luck". Too bad.
trotsky
I don't know, Bill. Your oxymorons tend to lack the "oxy" part.
Marc Phillips
> If so doesn't the Bible say "An eye for an eye,
>> and a tooth for a tooth"? I say, you're a turd.
Please show where it says in the Bible, "And eye for an eye, a tooth for a
tooth."
It doesn't. That came from Hammurabi. You know, the guy Sean Connery played
in "Time Bandits."
LOL!
Boon
Bill Watkins
says...
>
>On Fri, 22 Dec 2000 01:33:22 -0000, bwat...@mounet.com (Bill Watkins)
>wrote:
>
>> About whether it's Christian to "kick your ass"?
>> If so doesn't the Bible say "An eye for an eye,
>> and a tooth for a tooth"? I say, you're a turd.
>
>he or she is working during Sabbath. Should you follow the Bible?
>
>Lev. 20:20 states that thou shalt not approach the altar of God if thou
>have a sighting defect. Should all people wearing glasses or contact
>lenses be banned from church?
>
>Exodus 21:7 suggests that thou may sell thy daughter in slavery. Would
>you follow the Bible?
>
>:-)
---
Hello Francois. I'm afraid I'm not an expert on the
Bible, notice the ? above. Nor did I bring up the
religious aspect of the issue, so I'll beg off here.
I will say, I try to treat others with fairness, and
like to see it returned.
Bill Watkins
`
Bill Watkins
Too bad for you, since you got the ass-kickin'.
Bill Watkins
Bill Watkins
>
>
>
>Bill Watkins wrote:
>>
>> In article <3A42ABA9...@qwestonline.com>, gsi...@qwestonline.com
says...
>> >
>> >Bill Watkins wrote:
>> >> Mr. Singh has a low meltdown point, however his last
>> >> one was the highest low he's had in a while.......
>> >
>> >
>> >Translation from the horsepucky, please?
>>
>> ---
>>
>> A joke Mr. Singh. BTW aren't you the tallest short man on RAO?
>
>
>
>I don't know, Bill. Your oxymorons tend to lack the "oxy" part.
---
Mr. Singh, read the above again and look for a little
humor. Maybe not George Carlin class humor, but humor
nonetheless. You need to lighten up, ol' buddy. :-)
Bill W.
Bill Watkins
boon...@aol.comatose says...
---
I defer to you on this, Boon. As I told Francois
I'm not an expert, just jabbing with Trots, so
I'll bow out.
Bill Watkins
Arny Krueger
"Marc Phillips" <boon...@aol.comatose> wrote in message
news:20001221210945...@ng-fc1.aol.com...
> Booby said:
> > If so doesn't the Bible say "An eye for an eye,
> >> and a tooth for a tooth"? I say, you're a turd.
> Please show where it says in the Bible, "And eye for an eye, a
tooth for a tooth."
> It doesn't.
Mr. Phillips, I take it that your Bible does not contain Exodus
31:24, Leviticus 24:20, Deuteronomy 19:21 and Matthew 4:38.
George M. Middius
> That came from Hammurabi. You know, the guy Sean Connery played
> in "Time Bandits."
Wait a sec -- he played King Agamemnon, didn't he?
George M. Middius
Bill Watkins
---
So it was BS as usual, from Mr. Phillips. I should
have known. Perhaps he would like to discuss lying
with me and become both a proven liar and hypocrite.
BTW, thanks for the references.
Bill W.
Trotsky
Bill Watkins wrote:
>
> In article <3A42B586...@qwestonline.com>, gsi...@qwestonline.com says...
> >
> >
> >
> >Bill Watkins wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <3A42ABA9...@qwestonline.com>, gsi...@qwestonline.com
> says...
> >> >
> >> >Bill Watkins wrote:
> >> >> Mr. Singh has a low meltdown point, however his last
> >> >> one was the highest low he's had in a while.......
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Translation from the horsepucky, please?
> >>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> A joke Mr. Singh. BTW aren't you the tallest short man on RAO?
> >
> >
> >
> >I don't know, Bill. Your oxymorons tend to lack the "oxy" part.
>
> ---
>
> Mr. Singh, read the above again and look for a little
> humor. Maybe not George Carlin class humor, but humor
> nonetheless. You need to lighten up, ol' buddy. :-)
Bill, as usual, I'm the guy with the wit, and you don't have shit.
Trotsky
Arny, are you saying it's customary for you to get your ass kicked
first? I'd have to agree!
Jeff Adams
wrote:
>
A couple of minor corrections: Exodus _21_:24 and Matthew _5_:38 (for
those that don't have a concordance handy and might be checking).
A common interpretation of Matthew 5:38 is that the concept of "an eye
for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" is an Old Testament concept that
is no longer valid in the New Testament. See
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new?id=RsvMatt&images=images/modeng&data=/lv2/english/relig/rsv&tag=public&part=5%20&division=div1
or
http://www.cforc.com/kjv/Matthew/5.html
sandmanj
"George M. Middius" <glan...@ipo.net> wrote in message
news:bvg54t4na7l08i0ea...@4ax.com...
No -- that was Kirk Douglas.
Sandman
Arny Krueger
> In article <8vz06.16113$bw.13...@news.flash.net>,
ar...@pop3free.com says...
> >
> >
> >"Marc Phillips" <boon...@aol.comatose> wrote in message
> >news:20001221210945...@ng-fc1.aol.com...
> >> Booby said:
> >
> >> > If so doesn't the Bible say "An eye for an eye,
> >> >> and a tooth for a tooth"? I say, you're a turd.
> >
> >> Please show where it says in the Bible, "And eye for an eye, a
> >tooth for a tooth."
> >
> >> It doesn't.
> >
> >Mr. Phillips, I take it that your Bible does not contain Exodus
> >31:24, Leviticus 24:20, Deuteronomy 19:21 and Matthew 4:38.
> ---
> So it was BS as usual, from Mr. Phillips.
Yes, Mr. Phillips was acting true to form. He was lying again. He
obviously knew that knew nothing about the Bible, but he tried to
speak authoritatively about it. His lie was the implicit claim that
he knew what he was talking about.
> I should have known.
One might think that a person would be smart enough not to make false
claims about the Bible.
> Perhaps he would like to discuss lying
> with me and become both a proven liar and hypocrite.
IMO that is already proven.
> BTW, thanks for the references.
The Bible is now on MP3 and is freely downloadable from
http://www.audiotreasure.com/ .
You can search an online Bible at many places. Here is one of them
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?
Enjoy!
Zip
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@pop3free.com> wrote
> Yes, Mr. Phillips was acting true to form. He was lying again. He
> obviously knew that knew nothing about the Bible, but he tried to
> speak authoritatively about it. His lie was the implicit claim that
> he knew what he was talking about.
Oy, what he said!
Arny Krueger
"Francois Yves Le Gal" <fle...@free.fr> wrote in message
news:26h64t0du5268l3s0...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 22 Dec 2000 04:09:03 -0000, bwat...@mounet.com (Bill
Watkins)
> wrote:
> > So it was BS as usual, from Mr. Phillips.
> No, it wasn't BS.
Marc Phillips wrote:
"Please show where it says in the Bible, "And eye for an eye, a tooth
for a tooth."
Mr. Phillips clearly thinks that this is not in the Bible.
and then Marc Phillips gratuitously added this snot:
"It doesn't."
I showed otherwise: Exodus 31:24, Leviticus 24:20, Deuteronomy 19:21
and Matthew 4:38.
>The "Talion law" was developed in Babylon, and the Bible mentions
are incidental *and* not original.
But that doesn't mean that the Bible references don't exist, now does
it Francois?
Mr. Phillips was wrong about what the Bible says about this.
Francois, you are being deceptive as is regrettably your usual habit.
Why is that?
François , please try to stay with the discussion in the future and
please don't descend into ad hominem, which seems to be your habit.
Arny Krueger
> >31:24, Leviticus 24:20, Deuteronomy 19:21 and Matthew 4:38.
>
as
> chapter 31 stops at 18... And would you be so kind enough as to
supply a
> quote from Matthew 4:38, as I've been unable to find it anywhere?
"Exodus 31:24" is a typographic error. The correct reference is
"Exodus 21:24"
"Matthew 4:38" is a typographic error. The correct reference is
"Matthew 5:38"
Thanks for pointing out the errors.
Arny Krueger
> On Fri, 22 Dec 2000 12:43:18 GMT, "Arny Krueger"
<ar...@pop3free.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I showed otherwise: Exodus 31:24, Leviticus 24:20, Deuteronomy
19:21
> >and Matthew 4:38.
>
I've already posted the corrections and thanked you for pointing out
the errors.
> >François , please try to stay with the discussion in the future
and
> >please don't descend into ad hominem, which seems to be your
habit.
> Mr. Krueger, I never resort to any kind of ad hominem attacks, only
in response to such.
Dream on!
>Would you be kind enough as to quote ad hominem
> attacks from me in this thread or withdraw the above incorrect
> statement? Thank you.
Not this thread. Not yet. But if I get to pick the threads and if it
weren't for your other deceptive practices, there would be no problem
at all.
Again, Francois you are up to tricks. By restricting the question to
a thread where you haven't yet blown up as you often do, you are
trying to create the impression that you don't make ad hominem
attacks.
Also, Francois we know that you make a practice of preventing DN from
recording your posts. Thus you minimize your accountability.
Deceptive is as deceptive does, and Francois, you are deceptive!
Marge
done it again. What on earth does the idiot
think the Code was...it was their Bible!!!
Marge
Marge
One would imagine The Thug
doesn't own one...
Marge
Arny Krueger
> On Fri, 22 Dec 2000 13:13:51 GMT, "Arny Krueger"
<ar...@pop3free.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I've already posted the corrections and thanked you for pointing
out
> >the errors.
>
> Krueger?
Look at the time stamps, Francois.
>
> >Not this thread. Not yet. But if I get to pick the threads and if
it
> >weren't for your other deceptive practices, there would be no
problem
> >at all.
>
> Oh, a lot of if's and but's, Mr. Krueger.
I see you aren't denying it, Francois.
> >Again, Francois you are up to tricks. By restricting the question
to
> >a thread where you haven't yet blown up as you often do, you are
> >trying to create the impression that you don't make ad hominem
> >attacks.
> Blown up as I often do? This is ad hominem, Mr. Krueger, and you're
the hypocrite here.
LOL!
> >Also, Francois we know that you make a practice of preventing DN
from
> >recording your posts. Thus you minimize your accountability.
> Mr. Krueger, Deja earns money thru advertising thanks to content
freely
> supplied to them thru Usenet, something inacceptable in my book.
Deja
> isn't Usenet, and a number of other Usenet archives do exist.
LOL!
> >Deceptive is as deceptive does, and Francois, you are deceptive!
> Another unsusbtantiated (sic) ad hominem attack, Mr. Krueger, as
usual with you.
Actually, you've agreed with my claim Francois. You intentionally
keep your posts from being archived at DN.
> End of thread for me, as I'm not going to waste any more time
dealing with Mr. Krueger's hypocrisy.
Again LOL François! You've been cornered again, and caught looking
stupid because you didn't look at the time stamps of the posts you
were comparing.
>
Arny Krueger
"Marge" <bigges...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:t46l4sd...@news.supernews.com...
He doesn't have to. There are oodles of them on the web.
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible is just one of many.
IME, the whole idea of reference works seems to have escaped him.
trotsky
There are a lot more errors in the Bible than that.
George M. Middius
> > I will say, I try to treat others with fairness, and
> > like to see it returned.
> Agreed.
In normal human terms, that's a reasonable sentiment. However,
Booby's on his own wavelength, as any RAOer with medium or longer
tenure will tell you. To translate from Wumpy's natterings into a
standard language framework, substitute "stupidity" for "fairness".
George M. Middius
Marc Phillips
>Mr. Phillips, I take it that your Bible does not contain Exodus
>31:24, Leviticus 24:20, Deuteronomy 19:21 and Matthew 4:38.
No, it doesn't! LOL!
Boon
Marc Phillips
Yes, indeed, Arny...after noting your subsequent corrections to your rather
hastily prepared effort to prove me wrong once again, you are right. I stand
corrected.
As it has been explained to me by some theologians, however, the eye for an eye
code was never a direct edict from God, but rather a confirmation of the code
set by Hammurabi. Remember, the Bible was not wriiten by God, but rather men.
Men, I might add, who had no concept of the world around them and how it
worked.
I've actually heard one minister say that "an eye for an eye" is NOT in the
Bible. He was wrong, and so am I.
You see how that works, Arny? When someone is wrong, they admit it. They
don't twist and turn and evade and obfuscate. I thought about stringing you
along for a while with this, but then I'd just be lowering myself to your
level.
Boon
Bill Watkins
>
>
>ill, as usual, I'm the guy with the wit, and you don't have shit.
---
So you say.
Bill W.
Bill Watkins
>
>
>"Bill Watkins" <bwat...@mounet.com> wrote in message
>news:t45kuv2...@news.supernews.com...
>> In article <8vz06.16113$bw.13...@news.flash.net>,
>ar...@pop3free.com says...
>> >
>> >
>> >"Marc Phillips" <boon...@aol.comatose> wrote in message
>> >news:20001221210945...@ng-fc1.aol.com...
>> >> Booby said:
>> >
>> >> > If so doesn't the Bible say "An eye for an eye,
>> >> >> and a tooth for a tooth"? I say, you're a turd.
>> >
>> >> Please show where it says in the Bible, "And eye for an eye, a
>> >tooth for a tooth."
>> >
>> >> It doesn't.
>> >
>> >Mr. Phillips, I take it that your Bible does not contain Exodus
>> >31:24, Leviticus 24:20, Deuteronomy 19:21 and Matthew 4:38.
From a later post by Arny:
"Exodus 31:24" is a typographic error. The correct reference is
"Exodus 21:24"
"Matthew 4:38" is a typographic error. The correct reference is
"Matthew 5:38"
>> So it was BS as usual, from Mr. Phillips.
>
>Yes, Mr. Phillips was acting true to form. He was lying again. He
>obviously knew that knew nothing about the Bible, but he tried to
>speak authoritatively about it. His lie was the implicit claim that
>he knew what he was talking about.
Mr. Phillips may discuss lying with me anytime.
The invitation remains open.
>> I should have known.
>
>One might think that a person would be smart enough not to make false
>claims about the Bible.
>
>> Perhaps he would like to discuss lying
>> with me and become both a proven liar and hypocrite.
>
>IMO that is already proven.
>
>> BTW, thanks for the references.
>
>
>The Bible is now on MP3 and is freely downloadable from
>http://www.audiotreasure.com/ .
>
>You can search an online Bible at many places. Here is one of them
>http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?
>Enjoy!
Thank you for the references.
I deferred out of respect for the Bible, not for Mr. Phillips.
Apparently Mr. Phillips doesn't hold respect for the Bible,
otherwise he is ignorant of the matter.
Bill W.
Bill Watkins
Bill Watkins
says...
>
>Bible mentions are incidental *and* not original.
>
>criminals should receive as punishment precisely those injuries and
>damages they had inflicted upon their victims. Many early societies
>applied this "eye-for-an-eye and tooth-for-a-tooth" principle quite
>literally.
>
>In early Palestine, injury and bodily mutilation as well as theft were
>considered private wrongs. It was not for the state to punish the
>offender; the matter was to be settled between the person who inflicted
>the injury and the one injured. The same attitude prevailed in early
>Rome. Talion was the ultimate satisfaction a plaintiff might demand, but
>not mandatory; the injured person could obtain satisfaction with money
>if he wished.
>.../..."
>
>From the Encyclopaedia Britannica
---
Thanks for the info. Still, Boon was in error,
and has acknowledged such.
Bill W.
Bill Watkins
says...
---
Actually I deferred out of respect for the Bible,
not for Mr. Phillips. You are likely correct RE
him bluffing, since he was wrong.
Bill W.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
And thus did Iphegenia come to Aulis prepared
--
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.
Bill Watkins
says...
>
>Francois Yves Le Gal said:
>
>> > I will say, I try to treat others with fairness, and
>> > like to see it returned.
>
>> Agreed.
>
>
>In normal human terms, that's a reasonable sentiment. However,
>Booby's on his own wavelength, as any RAOer with medium or longer
>tenure will tell you.
It's a wavelength IMO you don't understand, Mr. Middius.
>To translate from Wumpy's natterings into a standard language
>framework, substitute "stupidity" for "fairness".
>
>George M. Middius
Just go back and continue the discussion by answering
my reply to you Mr. Middius. We'll see who's stupid.
Your "standard language framework" of feces etc. is
about half of your problem.
Bill W.
trotsky
QED.
Bill Watkins
Singh:
Bill, as usual, I'm the guy with the wit,
and you don't have shit.
Watkins:
So you say.
Singh:
QED.
Watkins:
A game, Mr. Singh? We alternate providing
examples of wit and/or witty humor. Deal?
I'll go first, with one of my old favorites:
Things are more like they used to be than they are now.