Re: Kroopologism on the rise? Oh no!

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 18:44:15 -0500, George M. Middius
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
>
>Scott Gardner said:
>
>> >For one thing, they were written as actual fiction by people in order
>> >to earn money. For another, they were packaged as fiction,
>> >recognizable as fiction, and sold as fiction. Krooger's efforts,
>> >however, are intended to be earnest impersonations of reality. Mr.
>> >Shit has always claimed they were true. Also, even after having been
>> >exposed as a liar, Krooger continued to insist the emails existed.
>> >Further, Krooger has zero sense of humor, zero sense of style, and
>> >zero self-awareness. Everything he posts is an attempt to "state
>> >facts" or "prove" something. 
>> 
>>      So you don't necessarily have any deviant tendencies if you
>> intend for your writing to be fiction?  
>
>As I've stated repeatedly, if by "you", you mean "a sane person other
>than Krooger", then I would answer yes.
>
>> Okay, I claim that putting
>> together a disgusting e-mail with the purpose of passing it off as the
>> work of a third person is fiction as well.
>
>That might be true of you, but it's not true of Krooger.
>
>
>> >Krooger is not capable of conceiving, imagining, designing, or
>> >executing the frippery you have in mind.
>> 
>> Okay.  If you are claiming that Krueger lacks the mental capacity to
>> string together words in English to intentionally craft an e-mail to
>> be as horrid as possible, I can't refute that.  There's no way for me
>> to argue as to his capabilities.
>
>Once again, you're putting words in my mouth. The word "horrid" has
>many possible manifestations. It was Krooger who chose to animate the
>presumed horror with pedophiliac fantasies. 
>
>The Kroogerness of Krooger is the nub of the argument. If somebody
>else did it, like you for example, it's possible it could all be a
>ploy. A truly disgusting ploy, in my opinion, because it has zero
>chance of attracting sympathy. If I were doing something like that, I
>would never produce "excerpts" that disgust people. I would simply say
>that anybody who sends pornographic emails including dirty pictures
>involving children is sick. The fact that Krooger made up "excerpts"
>of a twisted and sexually perverted nature should speak volumes. Just
>imagine doing something like that yourself, and see if you come up
>with anything as revolting as what Krooger posted.
>
>
>> >> I disagree.  Every point I've made in this thread has been in response
>> >> to either a direct statement or a clear implication.  Show me
>> >> otherwise, and I'll retract and apologize as necessary.
>> >
>> >I already did show you. I pointed them out explicitly.
>> 
>> Uh, no - you didn't.  You made the above accusation at the tail end of
>> your post.  Show me one example of my putting words in your mouth.  
>
>Aside from the one cited a few 'graphs above, here are the others I
>previously cited in earlier posts today:
>
>==================================================
>
>> Or are you claiming that even being able to
>> form the required words into a sentence would prove his "pedophilic
>> tendencies"?
>
>No, and please don't ply Krooger's "debating trade" when you're
>talking to normal people. I didn't go that far. My implication is that
>Krooger's posting them on a public forum reinforces what we believe to
>be the truth about Mr. Shit.
>
>==================================================
>
>>      Would you claim that the writers of the screenplay for "Seven"
>> (or "Se7en", whichever is correct) are "proven" to have deviant
>> tendencies because of the writing in the screenplay?
>
>Nope.
>
>>      Your standard of "proof" is pitifully low.
>
>Your standard for understanding what is plain as day is equally as low
>as what you *imagine* my "standards" to be.
>
>==================================================
>
>
>> >I can't believe that in this day and age, when Krooger's insanity has
>> >been proven hundreds of times, an apparently rational person is still
>> >afflicted with a persistent infection of Kroopologism. 
> 
>>      Geez, you're as bad as Krueger.  Do you have an 'enemies' list
>> too?  I wasn't apologizing for Krueger or anyone else.  
>
>You certainly are apologizing for Krooger. You're trying to mask his
>pedophiliac tendencies (I hope you appreciation the mollification),
>and you're ridiculously claiming that his behavior is rational and
>reasonable.

So you'll give him enough credit to write a disgusting e-mail and try
to pass it off as someone else's work, but not credit him with enough
imagination to craft a disgusting piece of fiction?
>
>
>> I was pointing
>> out the fallacy of your claims of "proven pedophile".  I swear, I've
>> heard the phrase "proven pedophile" so often here on RAO that it's
>> almost like some kind of motto.
>
>Your explanation for Krooger's behavior is unbelievable. That you
>continue to insist on its reasonableness shows you haven't done your
>homework.
>
>
>>      Your "proof" doesn't satisfy any reasonable definition of the
>> word, and wouldn't stand up in any forum that required real "proof".
>
>Possibly not. This is not a court of law, however, and you are
>deliberately, and obtusely, attributing to Krooger an intelligence he
>does not have, and even worse, ignoring the hideous behavior of that
>disgusting piece of shit for many years.
>
>I will admit that my judgment of Turdy's behavior in this instance
>(the pedophiliac fantasies) is colored by my overall opinion of him,
>formed by watching him be a monstrous and disgusting sociopath for
>years.

        In my points, I was asking *if* you would extend your
arguments to cover the similar examples you gave.  You said you
wouldn't.  Fine.  That's not the same as putting words in your mouth.
I was asking you if your broad, general statement applies to a
particular case.  You also said that my arguments made sense, if we
were dealing with a person other than Krueger.  I don't have near the
experience that you do with Krueger.  If you are saying that he would
not and could not come up with the scenario I proposed - you're in a
better position to say, but I still don't think it qualifies as
"proof" of anything.

>
>Your idea that one shouldn't say anything in public that one wouldn't
>say in a court of law is bizarre. That is what you meant, right?

No, that's *not* what I meant.  I meant that, to me, the words "proof"
and "proven" have a very specific meaning.  I say things every day
that I can't prove in a court of law.  Some of them are merely
opinions, others are unverifiable facts. 
        Not every statement should have to be backed up with
courtroom-worthy evidence, but I personally feel an accusation of
pedophilia (or "pedophilic tendencies", to use your term) is one of
those things that does.

Scott Gardner