George M. Middius wrote:
Andre Jute said:

Let's see who apologizes and who adds abuse to the nauseating
insensitivity and appallingly poor manners they have already displayed
for 10 days and 128 messages.

Does this mean that you are not actually a liar? Just clarifying.

Oh dear, George. Usually you're on the side of the angels but this is
definitely an own goal.

Don't get all twisted. I simply want to see you deny you're a liar. It's
one thing to get huffed about an accusation, and it's another thing to
reject it.

You haven't put your mind in gear, George. I insist on my right, which
I freely grant everyone else, to be innocent until proven guilty. I
don't have to reject anything. (No, Senator, I deny that I was ever a
Communist. -- Eh, George, how does it feel to be the ghost of Joseph
McCarthy resurrected?) The case here is that 28 people *without
investigating the facts* affirmed by posting to a thread "WHY ANDREW
JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR" that they believe this outright lie to be fact.
They either have to prove I'm a liar as they claimed by putting their
signature to that headline (in most cases repeatedly) or apologize.

Audiophiles 1, Trailer Park Trash 1 (after George Middius's own goal)

You should reconsider. I didn't make the accusation and I didn't apologize.
I asked a question. That doesn't seem to merit any score at all.

Once more, George, put your mind in gear. I am innocent until proven
guilty. That's how democracies work. I don't have to deny anything at
all. By casting doubt on my veracity through your demand that I deny I
am a liar, you have kicked an own goal that is counted on the side of
the mannerless trailer park trash. If you want to cancel out your
mistake, kick a goal on the right side.

Decent people have no problem apologizing when they make a mistake.

Andre Jute

Andre Jute wrote:
uk.rec.audio, rec.audio.opinion and rec.audio.tubes are newsgroups
populated by self-declared audiophiles. One would expect those who
boast about their interest in music, one of the arts which express
emotion, to be sensitive. One could excuse those among them who are
"engineers" and hangers-on of engineers for being crudely insensitive
as it is well known that these types lack the finer sensibilities that
distinguish (or are supposed to distinguish) music lovers from the hoi
polloi.

Yet on these three conferences we find a thread "WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY
IS A LIAR" with 128 message from 29 distinct contributors (1). The
thread is about liquor, CD players, and much else. There is a
contributor called Andre Jute well known to regulars on all three these
conferences. No effort was made anywhere in this thread to prove that
he is a liar. Of these 29 contributors, *28* never had the sensitivity
in all of the *10 days* and *128 messages* of this thread to ask if it
isn't poor manners to mangle someone's name, if it isn't poor manners
to discuss many other matters under a headline condemning someone
without proof, if a new thread wouldn't be a courtesy.

So much for the manners of the trailer park trash one finds on
newsgroups.

Only one of these 29 contributors, Iain Churches, remarked that it was
weird to discuss Calvados under such a heading. Another contributor,
Don Pearce, a self-declared "engineer" then insisted the thread was
about proving Andre Jute a liar. In other words, in Don Pearce's mind
this libellous calumny was conducted deliberately. Apparently he spoke
for the rest, as their continued posting to this maliciously named
thread on a wide range of subjects confirms. Thus the excuse of inborn
insensitivity and crudeness in "engineers" falls away: this was a
deliberate crime initiated by Stewart Pinkerton and knowingly supported
by the the "engineers" and their hangers-on, who all thereby become
Pinkerton's accomplices.

Let's see who apologizes and who adds abuse to the nauseating
insensitivity and appallingly poor manners they have already displayed
for 10 days and 128 messages.

Andre Jute

(1) Count conducted at 17.28 GMT on 14 Mar 2006.

Mr. McCoy:

If you state categorically, without reservation and for the record
that:

a) you are not a liar.
b) that you are exactly as you represent yourself to be.
c) that you have not lied in this venue on any item or in any way
either in form or in substance.
d) that the work you show is entirely your own and not adapted in whole
or in part from already tested designs by others.
e) that the substantial and substantiated accusations made against you
are without basis or merit.
f) that every accusation you have made has been based on independently
verified or verifiable evidence.

No proof required. Just that you make these statemets "for the record"
for all to see.

I will be the first to apologize. Short of that, quite your whining and
get a life.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

"Andre Jute" wrote in message oups.com...
I am innocent until proven guilty. That's how democracies work. I don't
have to deny anything at all.

You were lying when you accused me of emailing pornography to Italian
schoolgirls. (Cripes, what a lame story.) Do you deny it?

-Henry

Andre Jute said:

Don't get all twisted. I simply want to see you deny you're a liar. It's
one thing to get huffed about an accusation, and it's another thing to
reject it.

You haven't put your mind in gear, George. I insist on my right, which
I freely grant everyone else, to be innocent until proven guilty. I
don't have to reject anything.

I have no problem if you want to run for public office. However, such did
not seem to be the thrust of your plea for apologies. You seemed to want
the other participants in these newsgroups to acknowledge that you are not
a liar, and that the accusations therefore wronged you.

Since you raised the issue of "putting one's mind in gear", there's an
overwhelmingly obvious explanation for why few, if any, posters will
apologize as you asked. That explanation being that the details of your
bickering with Wiecky, Pasternack, Pukerton, and who-knows-who-else are not
important to the rest of us. IOW, we don't care if you're a liar or if the
accusation is unfounded. Got that? Nobody cares.

I did care enough, mind you, to ask you to take a stand on the issue.
Instead of simply saying "Of course I'm not a liar!" you've huffed and
puffed and blown up your little teapot swirl into a typical Usenet
attention-grab.

I'd like to reiterate that taking a straw poll on Usenet is several degrees
removed from asserting one's civil rights. Nobody is trying to imprison you
or sue you for the alleged lies. Try to stay within the defined context and
not get all histrionic about your rights. Else I, like almost everybody
else, will stop paying attention to you.

Also, there's no need to append your original post to every reply. The
headers are intact, so anybody can easily retrieve the original post if
they want to read it.

Henry Pasternack said:

I am innocent until proven guilty. That's how democracies work. I don't
have to deny anything at all.

You were lying when you accused me of emailing pornography to Italian
schoolgirls. (Cripes, what a lame story.) Do you deny it?

Some people have the peculiar idea that lying in retaliation to perceived
lies doesn't count. (Don't bother asking Jute if that was his motivation --
he'd just go off on another rant about civil rights.)

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...

George M. Middius wrote:
Andre Jute said:

Let's see who apologizes and who adds abuse to the nauseating
insensitivity and appallingly poor manners they have already
displayed
for 10 days and 128 messages.

Does this mean that you are not actually a liar? Just clarifying.

Oh dear, George. Usually you're on the side of the angels but this is
definitely an own goal.

Don't get all twisted. I simply want to see you deny you're a liar. It's
one thing to get huffed about an accusation, and it's another thing to
reject it.

You haven't put your mind in gear, George. I insist on my right, which
I freely grant everyone else, to be innocent until proven guilty. I
don't have to reject anything. (No, Senator, I deny that I was ever a
Communist. -- Eh, George, how does it feel to be the ghost of Joseph
McCarthy resurrected?) The case here is that 28 people *without
investigating the facts* affirmed by posting to a thread "WHY ANDREW
JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR" that they believe this outright lie to be fact.
They either have to prove I'm a liar as they claimed by putting their
signature to that headline (in most cases repeatedly) or apologize.

Audiophiles 1, Trailer Park Trash 1 (after George Middius's own goal)

You should reconsider. I didn't make the accusation and I didn't
apologize.
I asked a question. That doesn't seem to merit any score at all.

Once more, George, put your mind in gear. I am innocent until proven
guilty. That's how democracies work.

This is not a Democracy. This is usenet and you are guilty.


I don't have to deny anything at
all. By casting doubt on my veracity through your demand that I deny I
am a liar, you have kicked an own goal that is counted on the side of
the mannerless trailer park trash. If you want to cancel out your
mistake, kick a goal on the right side.

Decent people have no problem apologizing when they make a mistake.

Andre Jute



When will you apologize then?

Andre Jute wrote:
uk.rec.audio, rec.audio.opinion and rec.audio.tubes are newsgroups
populated by self-declared audiophiles. One would expect those who
boast about their interest in music, one of the arts which express
emotion, to be sensitive. One could excuse those among them who are
"engineers" and hangers-on of engineers for being crudely insensitive
as it is well known that these types lack the finer sensibilities that
distinguish (or are supposed to distinguish) music lovers from the hoi
polloi.

Yet on these three conferences we find a thread "WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY
IS A LIAR" with 128 message from 29 distinct contributors (1). The
thread is about liquor, CD players, and much else. There is a
contributor called Andre Jute well known to regulars on all three these
conferences. No effort was made anywhere in this thread to prove that
he is a liar. Of these 29 contributors, *28* never had the sensitivity
in all of the *10 days* and *128 messages* of this thread to ask if it
isn't poor manners to mangle someone's name, if it isn't poor manners
to discuss many other matters under a headline condemning someone
without proof, if a new thread wouldn't be a courtesy.

So much for the manners of the trailer park trash one finds on
newsgroups.

Only one of these 29 contributors, Iain Churches, remarked that it was
weird to discuss Calvados under such a heading. Another contributor,
Don Pearce, a self-declared "engineer" then insisted the thread was
about proving Andre Jute a liar. In other words, in Don Pearce's mind
this libellous calumny was conducted deliberately. Apparently he spoke
for the rest, as their continued posting to this maliciously named
thread on a wide range of subjects confirms. Thus the excuse of inborn
insensitivity and crudeness in "engineers" falls away: this was a
deliberate crime initiated by Stewart Pinkerton and knowingly supported
by the the "engineers" and their hangers-on, who all thereby become
Pinkerton's accomplices.

Let's see who apologizes and who adds abuse to the nauseating
insensitivity and appallingly poor manners they have already displayed
for 10 days and 128 messages.

Andre Jute

(1) Count conducted at 17.28 GMT on 14 Mar 2006.

Careful, George...

You will begin to sound reasonable... We can't have that!

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...
uk.rec.audio, rec.audio.opinion and rec.audio.tubes are newsgroups
populated by self-declared audiophiles. One would expect those who
boast about their interest in music, one of the arts which express
emotion, to be sensitive. One could excuse those among them who are
"engineers" and hangers-on of engineers for being crudely insensitive
as it is well known that these types lack the finer sensibilities that
distinguish (or are supposed to distinguish) music lovers from the hoi
polloi.

Yet on these three conferences we find a thread "WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY
IS A LIAR" with 128 message from 29 distinct contributors (1). The
thread is about liquor, CD players, and much else. There is a
contributor called Andre Jute well known to regulars on all three these
conferences. No effort was made anywhere in this thread to prove that
he is a liar. Of these 29 contributors, *28* never had the sensitivity
in all of the *10 days* and *128 messages* of this thread to ask if it
isn't poor manners to mangle someone's name, if it isn't poor manners
to discuss many other matters under a headline condemning someone
without proof, if a new thread wouldn't be a courtesy.

So much for the manners of the trailer park trash one finds on
newsgroups.

Only one of these 29 contributors, Iain Churches, remarked that it was
weird to discuss Calvados under such a heading. Another contributor,
Don Pearce, a self-declared "engineer" then insisted the thread was
about proving Andre Jute a liar. In other words, in Don Pearce's mind
this libellous calumny was conducted deliberately. Apparently he spoke
for the rest, as their continued posting to this maliciously named
thread on a wide range of subjects confirms. Thus the excuse of inborn
insensitivity and crudeness in "engineers" falls away: this was a
deliberate crime initiated by Stewart Pinkerton and knowingly supported
by the the "engineers" and their hangers-on, who all thereby become
Pinkerton's accomplices.

Let's see who apologizes and who adds abuse to the nauseating
insensitivity and appallingly poor manners they have already displayed
for 10 days and 128 messages.

Andre Jute

(1) Count conducted at 17.28 GMT on 14 Mar 2006.



Too much crossposting - *Binned and removed*...

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"Andre Jute" said:


Let's see who apologizes and who adds abuse to the nauseating
insensitivity and appallingly poor manners they have already displayed
for 10 days and 128 messages.


I apologize for any post I may have made in a thread with your or any
other member's name in an abusive header. There was no intention on my
part.
I usually don't notice thread headers, I merely respond to the
message.

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you
with experience. -


Too much crossposting - *Binned and removed*...

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Andre Jute said:

Let's see who apologizes and who adds abuse to the nauseating
insensitivity and appallingly poor manners they have already displayed
for 10 days and 128 messages.

Does this mean that you are not actually a liar? Just clarifying.






Too much crossposting - *Binned and removed*...