Jenn wrote:

In article .com,
"Andre Jute" wrote:

Jenn wrote:

In article . com,
"Andre Jute" wrote:

More than an hour after I posted the very specific complaint below,
Jenn posted to the thread " WHY ANDREW
JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR" this text: "What do you people have against
bassoons?" That is Jenn's eighth message to a thread calling me a liar.

Tell me, Jenn, are you extraordinarily insensitive even for a poster to
RAO, are you too thick to be a musician, never mind a conductor, or can
you make a case that I ever told less than the truth about bassoons or
any of the other subjects you raised under a headline calling me a
liar?

I certainly wish sincerely that you are able to say your server
delivered my post pointing out your lack of sensitivity after you sent
your last post in that thread. That would leave only your seven earlier
messages to explain.

WTF are you talking about? I've not even read with any care any
evidence that you're a liar. I have to enough to be concerned about
with people saying that I am deaf, stupid, a sockpuppet, lying, etc. as
well as putting words in my mouth, for simply stating what I hear. I
only read the thread when it got into issue about which I'm interested.

Geese!

You signed your name eight times to the accusation "WHY ANDREW JUTE
MCCOY IS A LIAR"

I simply posted replies to specific posts, NONE of which were about your
alleged lying.

And you didn't once have the sensitivity to think that another human
being might object to the headline "WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR"
to which you signed your name *eight* times.

Ooh, Jenn, I think you have richly earned two votes for the trailer
park trash.

Audiophiles 1, Insensitive Clowns 18

and *now* you claim " I've not even read with any care any
evidence that you're a liar" as if that is some kind of an excuse?

Not an excuse, simply a fact.

You read that vicious headline eight times and didn't once wonder what
the words meant, or if you wanted to support the statement with your
signature, or if someone would not be hurt by your apparent approval of
the statement? Gee, man, you're not just insenstive, you're alien to
human feeling.

And you back it up with whining selfpity?

Let's see: You started a thread complaining that people are posting to
a thread with a title that accuses you of lying, even when they are not
involved in a discussion about whether or not you are lying, and are
simply posting about OTHER things are ARE interesting to them. It seems
that the "self pity" is all from you.

You abused me eight times by name. I'm not whining. I'm publicly
exposing you for an ill-mannered lout. You were offered an opportunity
to apologize. You didn't. You blustered. Now you're abusing me for your
own poor manners. Proves my point.

Audiophiles 1, Blustering Egotists 18

I've interviewed leading musicians and conductors

Conductors ARE musicians.

I separated them because conductors need an extra dose of sensitivity,
the subject under discussion here. You clearly haven't got even as much
sensititivy as a decent, normal human being.

for over forty years.
About you I was right in the first instance. You're too insensitive
ever to be a good musician and you'll never make conductor.

I see. Well, thanks for letting me know. Someone should tell my
employers from the past 30 years, I suppose.

I don't have any problem with your employers or I would be expressing
it through the pages of your leading local newspaper; my problem is
with your vile manners, which for the time being I'm taking up in the
place where you exhibited these foul manners.

Okay, we've heard your excuses about how you *carelessly* offended me
*eight* times in a row, including once *after I publicly pointed out
the offense to you*, and in fact you've aggravated the offense by
abuse. Where's your apology?

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.