Found this while looking through google. Nearly pissed my pants reading it.
Sooooooooooo true. Dates from 2002 so it is obvious Arny has been pissing
people off for a very long time.
Phildo
Friends! Audiophiles! Music Lovers! Sane RAO members! Stolen from the
hacked email box of the great "Arnold Krueger" by friends of the KKS,
here are the Top Ten Debating Tactics to help you argue just like the
ABX M.A.F.I.A director, Arny Krueger!:
-----------------starts here----------------------------------------
ABX M.A.F.I.A. (Michigan Audio Fellow****p Int'l Assoc.)
Memorandum #77100956ABX
1. First things first: DEFINE YOUR TARGET AUDIENCE: It's a war out
there, ABX friends and well wishers. We started the war, and it is up
to us to fight the battle into the 21st century and beyond. What are
we fighting for? Mostly for the hearts and minds of the younger
generations, and any assorted fence-sitters we can pick up along the
way. They haven't been indoctrinated yet, and are basically open to
anything you tell them, as long as you can make it sound good. So
remember the first rule of The ABX War: YOU'RE NOT DEBATING AN
OPPONENT, YOU'RE INDOCTRINATING A TARGET AUDIENCE. So your role on the
audio newsgroups my brothers is to SPEAK to the opponent, but PLAY to
the audience.
2. THINK LIKE A PRO, TALK LIKE A PRO, LOOK LIKE A PRO: When you can't
think of anything else to discredit your opponent, subdue him with
inflated terms like "ad hominem", "excluded middle", "straw man", "red
herring", "emperor has no clothes" and whatever you can find to look
like you honed your debating skills at the Harvard Debating Club,
rather than at the 7-11 across the street from the technical college
you attended. This way, even though you are being raped by your
opponent's superior logic, to the uneducated reader, you may still
sound more 'authoritative' than the other guy. The educated audiophile
will see through that like a torn pair of jeans but then, they're not
your target audience. So hey, don't worry about it.
3. SPIN, LIKE A SPINNING TOP: How do you think president's get elected
today? That's right, they hire the top spin doctors. And what do they
do in a jam? Same spin doctoring, again. Why you could murder someone,
or at least violate an intern not to mention your marriage vows, and
with the right spin doctor, your presidential status will barely show
any change. So learn how to put a SPIN on anything and everything your
opponent says against you. Here's how:
Ex. 1:
YOUR OPPONENT SAYS: "No, what I'm saying is I think you HAVE to be a
responsible parent these days."
YOU SAY: "So we can conclude from this that you believe that aliens
are responsible for the crop circles in Spain? Ooooookkkkkayyyy.......
I think that pretty much says all we need to know about you."
(Well alright, it looks like I'm hearing calls for a more moderate
example of a more typical spin. So how about this):
Ex. 2:
As you can see from the example below, your defense can pretty much go
on forever without you ever having to admit to having fabricated or
distorted anyone's words, thanks to the valuable "spin" technique.
Start with an insinuation your opponent is a thief:
OPPONENT SAYS: "...and yesterday, I won an Aloia power amplifer..."
YOU SAY (or rather, insinuate!): "Did you win that amp or did you
steal it?"
OPPONENT SAYS: "Mr. Krueger! How dare you imply such a thing! I DEMAND
that you retract that statement that I stole the Aloia amp!"
(ABX friends, he's got you by the short and curlies right? WRONG!! )
Remember the third rule: obfuscate. Even though the world watched you
imply your opponent is a thief, pretend that you never made the claim
and ask him to prove it. Usually, they get so worn down by the
process, they give you a "Bah! You're not even worth it!" and move on.
At which point you can add the final two bits for the ABX camp and say
that the subjectivists can never prove their arguments
But what if you've been jerking him around on the issue, and you get
an ornery subjectivist who persists, say, for nearly two years to get
you to admit you falsely implied he was a thief? Should you do the
right thing and finally admit that you lied and slandered his good
name? DON'T BE RIDICULOUS!!! If any of our brothers even dares to
think such a thing, I do not want them to be speaking for the ABX
camp. They will be banished for life from the ABX brotherhood. The
primary first rule of an ABX argument is: NEVER ADMIT YOU'RE WRONG
ABOUT ANYTHING! Don't ever underestimate the stupidity and short
attention span of your target audience. Time is on your side. If the
accusation of your falsehood has been going on for nearly two years,
all the better. Who's going to care what you said two years ago
anyway? And to help that, MAKE them not care by suggesting your
opponent is a loser to be arguing some oblique remark made nearly two
years ago. But of course, you do have to respond to his accusations
that you are a liar and a slanderer. Any effective demonstration
against subjectivist practices will certainly not be scoring any
points for the ABX cause.
So your opponent shows you proof of your statement by including a
Google message ID directly linking to the message wherein you implied
he was a thief. Your ABX goose is cooked now, isn't it? NOT! You find
a way out. When you are adept at the tricks of deception, there's
ALWAYS a way out. For example, he cited the message ID, but there are
other ways to refer to a google message. Did he cite the URL? No? Then
you counter with the argument that he did not cite any Google URL, so
the message couldn't even be referenced. But then what if he responds
with the URL? Doesn't matter! Water off a duck's back. Maybe another
direct example is in order:
YOUR OPPONENT SAYS: "Ok. Arny. I've had enough of your evasiveness and
denial of your libelous attacks on me. Here is the Google URL that
proves that you implied I was a liar about winning the Aloia amp, and
implied that I stole it instead:
http://www.google.com/messageid412200901arnyisafilthyliarandheresthep...
Happy now? Are you read to admit that you called me a thief and submit
that long-awaited apology?
YOU SAY: "The link doesn't work."
YOUR OPPONENT SAYS: "Arrrrggh!!! I KNOW the link doesn't work, I
already *told you* that direct Google links don't work!! "
(Repeat your denial):
YOU SAY: :"Look, don't know why you have this vendetta against me and
are going ballistic* here, but I never made the statement to which you
refer. I searched through all the Google archives and could not find
me ever using the term 'Aloia'. So your story will not hold up in
court."
YOUR OPPONENT SAYS: "That's because you did not call it 'Aloia', you
called it "that amp"!"
(Oh, he's got you there right? Wrong! Keep reading to see the nuances
of the spin...)
YOU RESPOND: "Where is the word 'Aloia' in my posts? You can not prove
your claim, so therefore you are delusional in your remarks about me.
I think that pretty much says all we need to know about you."
Yes, I know the subjectivist already addressed this issue, but that's
precisely the point. Because most people do have lives to get on with,
eventually, even the most persistent enemy will tire of accusing you
of being a dishonest so-and-so and the thread will die out and before
long, people will forget it ever existed. Keep the totally fabriacted
slander on the downlow for a little while after the thread dies to
maintain credibility points, and soon enough you will be able to use
this great little insinuation/character defamation tactic again on the
next subjectivist sucker.
Ex. 3 (advanced techniques)
Here's another example of the insinuation that may just get you out of
a jam with a far superior opponent in a difficult technical debate,
where you have less chance of winning the battle than Bin Laden does
of ever becoming an American citizen:
It's a little tricky, so read carefully. Write a series of 3 points,
two of which were already addressed by your opponent in the
discussion, in which you can not refute his logic. So therefore, you
stand a good chance of losing the debate, if you don't do something.
Something deceitful, of course. Now, if you're addressing a far
superior debater who has a real job and hasn't time for posting
countless messages on Usenet of obfuscatory nonsense, he'll probably
edit your words in his response, elminating the irrelevant BS that was
already disproven by him. That means, he'll be responding only to
point 3 of your response, which is the only point he hadn't responded
to. And guess what? His response to point 3 is so indisputable, it's
pretty much game over for you in the debate. Or is it? It could be...
HOWEVER... remember the deleted points? You can now explain that he
has "tacitly conceded to admitting to your deleted points" by the very
act of not responding to them, and that it was very "unscientific" to
do so. Sure, if you think about it for a nanosecond, this assertion
appears to be based on logic of an absolutely ludicrous nature (which
I proudly call "Kruegerian logic"), and akin to "proving a negative".
But your target audience won't, as they're idiots. To them, you will
have an "air of credibility". An just having an "air" is more than
enough, fellow ABXers.
Now is where the scam gets really interesting.... we follow the
twisted train of logic to this point: the claim that because your
opponent has deleted the first two points in his response and only
addressed the third, and because that action signifies that he has
'conceded' to those first two points (ha!), you now claim that the
third point is made moot. Ergo, you've just won the argument with a
brilliant display of twisted senseless logic! Well, 'brilliant' to the
idiots that make up our target audience, I mean.
This tactic will leave your opponent exasperated, and looking at
another huge time-wasting effort to correct all of your distortions of
his arguments and increasingly twisted, intellectually-deceitful
logic, and he will hopefully leave the debate with few words or none.
If you're really REALLY lucky, he'll end it in a huff by saying he
refuses to ever respond to you again! Then you always take one last
op****tunity to declare what a loser and incompetent, ineffective
debater he is, after you're sure he won't respond. Another deadly
opponent bites the dust by the Kruegerian "rope-a-dope" trick!
4. YOU'RE AN ARMY OF ONE: Before I came on the scene on RAO, when Gene
Steinberg was pretty much a lone gunner for the ABX cause, and being
attacked by so many evil subjectivists, he would sit alone in his bed
many nights and wish that he had more ABX friends to help him out.
Sometimes he would call me up on the phone and bawl like a baby into
it for a half hour straight, begging me to help him fight it out on
the group, because he was so tired of getting slaughtered like fresh
meat day after day by the subjectivist s*** (SS). But I couldn't
because my wife was having a baby, and she promised that if I didn't
stay away from slandering people in the newsgroups while that our baby
was being born, she would divorce me. It was the hardest decision I
have ever made (sorry Gene!). But, that's all in the past.
Maybe it was the best thing for the cause, because then Gene came up
with the idea that if he could pretend he was more people, maybe he
could BE more people?! And so he started addressing his arguments in
the plural: "one" became "we" and "I" became "us"! Even after I was
free to come in and set up an ABX shop on RAO, I thought this
stratagem could and should still be used, as an effective means of
pretending your words have more weight than they actually do. It's as
though you're soaking your words in water, and now they're twice as
heavy and will have twice as much impact when you knock someone in the
face with them. Here's how to apply the "Plural Principle":
YOU SAY: "Please tell -->"US", Mr. Gildideer, exactly how that CD
players can possibly sound different, when manufacturer's
specifications already PROVE that they all sound the same!"
YOU SAY: ---> ""WE" would really like to know that!"
You see how it plays? Clever, ain't it? It doesn't really matter if
you're the only other person in the thread, or the only other person
posting on the damn NEWSGROUP! You talk in the plural, and it always
sounds like you have a whole chorus of voices behind every inflated
claim you make, and they're all chiming the same tune that you are!
The illusion of a popular voice is so powerful, your ABX-enemy won't
know what hit him!
5. USE BAD SCIENCE AS A WEAPON: Most of your target audience are not
scientists, nor even audio engineers, and don't have a background in
such. Which makes them ripe plums indeed, ready for the brain-picking.
Here's how to go about your harvest: any application of scientific
principles will make you appear to be an authoriatitive figure, and
thus appear to know what you're talking about. Your target audience,
lacking a scientific background to be able to distinguish between good
science and BAD SCIENCE (your weapon), or even know that there IS a
distinction to be made, will be impressed by your perceived scientific
knowledge. Citing bad science articles or links to BAD SCIENCE
websites is often all you need to convince the fence-sitter that ABX
is the road to his or her salvation, and there are no forks in THIS
road. The thinking man may have doubts about your scientific
principles, but then, 'thinkers' are NOT YOUR TARGET AUDIENCE. Here's
how the BAD SCIENCE rule fits in to the grand scheme of things:
In order to promote the consumer mid-fi electronics industry, you have
to convince people that everything in audio sounds the same. So how do
we convince people that everything sounds the same in audio? You
guessed it: convince them that they need to take an ABX test. Thanks
to certain psychoacoustic principles that have been well known since
the earlier part of the 20th century, if not widely published, the ABX
test parameters were designed to exploit these principles, whereby the
brain is fooled into failing to distinguish subtle differences in
audio.
It acheives this goal through many different means, including
psychological as well as technological tomfoolery. Through the use of
either a software or hardware ABX comparator, both designed to degrade
the quality of a direct audio signal heard through normal means, and
subsequently, any subtle sonic differences that exist between two
sources. Through rapid switching techniques, which you can be assured
will blur any distinctions to be made. Through the avoidance of
well-established so-called "GOOD SCIENCE" principles, such as breaking
the 'scientific range rule', which specifies that systems under study
must be evaluated within the parameters that the system was designed
to be used. Through many, and mostly ANY means necessary, to fool your
target audience into believing the ABX myth.
Cite consumer electronics funded studies and articles in consumer
electronics magazines and trade journals to show how BAD SCIENCE can
be made to look like GOOD SCIENCE, and have everyone believe what you
tell them, rather than have them 'look under the hood' so to speak,
and trust what their own ears (or brains) might say. Find ways to
introduce links to ABX web sites and articles during your debates
(note: it doesn't have to be relevant to discussion, per se), AS
FREQUENTLY AS YOU CAN, in order to direct your target audience to an
unfettered source of ABX propaganda.
Now, if we have done our jobs and all the pieces fit together, the end
result will be that NO ONE will trust their own ears to decide whether
one audio source sounds better than another, turning instead to what
the consumer industry (and its foot soldiers, the ABX propagandists)
tells them to think. Since revealing these subtle differences in audio
often requires that the audio enthusiast have some degree of
experience utilizing their own ears in order to learn what these
differences are and sound like, before learning to appreciatie them
for their signficance, they may already be biased to believe there
aren't any significant differences. SAS (short attention span)
syndrome in the younger generations is an added benefit to our cause,
as long as it helps little Jimmy to believe that the two minute
listening evaluation he made of interconnect cables on his boom box
revealed no appreciable differences.
Therefore, if no one trusts their own ears to decide for themselves
what differences are to be found among the various audio related
products or media, true high fidelity audio, aka "hi-fi", will not be
seen by most as a necessary investment at some point in the lifelong
pursuit of musical enjoyment. This of course, means more money for our
friends and backers, the consumer electronics industry (CEI). Have
faith in me now brothers, I pledge my life to you that ABX will be the
NEW WORLD ORDER! Here ye! Sorry, <sniff> I get a little carried away
sometimes...
6 HYPOCRISY IS YOUR FRIEND: Learn all you can about him, and exploit
him for all he's worth. It's fun too. Here's how: First, take an
overview of all the rotten, dirty, underhanded tricks that you have
pulled off during the course of your debate. Second, begin to accuse
your opponent of all of that. He'll respond likewise of course, but
with all these accusations flying around, the poor hapless readers,
who are the REAL target of your messages, will be so confused they
won't know WHAT'S going on. Phew! Can you feel some of the pressure on
you has already been relieved?
Putting the principle into action: To show indignance, in an attempt
to falsely discredit your opponent, or at least bring his integrity
into question, make up something to say like this:
YOU SAY: "This attempt to blackmail me is typical of your high-handed,
reprehensible, morally and ethically deficient behavior!"
THE HYPOCRITICAL LIE: Of course, the name "Arny Krueger" has quite a
reputation attached to it, and so many already know me as the audio
internet's most reprehensible, morally and ethically deficient
debater. But screw them, this is for the people that don't. As long as
it introduces doubt or confusion in their minds, the hypocritical lie
above has done its job well.
Another example of the hypocritrical attack, with the intent of
implying your opponent's word on anything is worthless. This
particular one's a classic of mine and one of my favorite tricks,
which I've used so many times I forget, but every time I do, I always
get a chuckle out of it...
YOU SAY: "As the good reader will note, upon dredging through years of
his writings, my opponent can be seen to have used a different
spelling of his first name not ONCE, but TWICE! THIS very act, I
propose, invalidates anything he says about audio or especially me,
because as you can see, he is a natural LIAR.
THE HYPOCRITICAL LIE: So where's the hypocrisy here? Well, number one,
twice so easily becomes "four times" when you start adding spellings
your opponent never used, including names from another gender. Number
two is where you conveniently "forgot" to mention the fact that you've
changed the spelling of your name SIX times over, both first AND last.
Oh sweet deceit! Ha!
7. DECEIT HAS MANY FACES. LEARN THEM ALL: When you fail to denounce
your opponent's arguments, you will need to denounce the person. But
how do you this? You go for the gonads. Find out where he keeps his
belt and then hit him below it. WAY below. If you can, throw sand in
his eyes when he's not looking. Every grain of that virtual "sand"
that you will be throwing, will be misrepresentations of the truth. If
you do this right, the sand will blind both your opponent and your
target audience. Your reader****p will be blinded to the truth because
they are too lazy to sift through a lot of words to find it (remember:
MTV generation...). And your opponent? Well obviously he'll be too
busy picking sand out of his eyes to be much of a threat. Here are
some examples to help get you started:
7a) TRUTH AS A BALLOON ANIMAL: Use your opponent's own words against
him. Because they originally came from his own mind, they already
carry the authority of truth. The only problem is, they don't say what
you want them to say. Which isn't really a problem at all, when you
learn to manipulate your opponent's words, to have them work for you.
Remember kids; the truth can be twisted, bent, stretched, reshaped,
distorted and otherwise manipulated into more forms than silly putty.
So you don't HAVE to lie to get your (false) point across. You can
also be evasive during an argument and insinuate to no end.
7b) THE ART OF DESIGNING TRUTH: But what if your opponent doesn't give
you any op****tunity to distort his meaning for the target audience,
because it is so far from the shape you need it to be in, it can't
just be distorted or "reinterpreted"? No problem. Make **** up. What
do you do when you want to make a statement, and you just KNOW that
everyone else going to the party will be buying their clothes off the
rack, and you will just DIE if you show up with something that the
next one is wearing? That's right, you have to get out the raw fabric
and design your own clothes. Or in other words, you have to CREATE IT
OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH.
You can do the same in the newsgroup and you are guaranteed to be the
hit of the ABX party. Rely on the old magician's sleight of hand
tricks to introduce the fabricated accusation against your opponent,
at a time in the debate when things are getting hairier and who knows
WHO said WHAT any longer... Now you've got the perfect "statement"
that you always wanted your opponent to say, and then you can go to
work by arguing against the claim you just fabricated, and guess who's
credibility will be reduced to nothing? For those keeping score,
that's ABXers: 1 HIGH QUALITY AUDIO FREAKS: ZIP.
7c) "CONTEXT? WHAT'S THAT?": Things are getting hot and heavy in the
debate? Here's a trick to try: take your opponents words out of
CONTEXT. Treat them like they're a painting you're working on. Don't
like the original look? Add a splash of colour, why don't you? Change
some form here, some texture there, sign your name in a discreet spot
in the corner, step back to admire your work for a second and VOILA!
You have a quote that the opponent might never have uttered in a
million years, but which you have cleverly manipulated to make it LOOK
like he is making a claim that you have fabricated. Who can tell the
difference? Your opponent whines and complains about your mistreatment
of his words? WHO CARES! The stupid target audience won't, that's for
sure. Their attention span is too short to even FOLLOW context in a
debate, in the first place.
Here's what I mean:
OPPONENT SAYS: "If you claim that I am not sane Arny, then offer your
evidence or offer your apology!"
YOU SAY: "My rabid opponent has clearly gone BALLISTIC* here,
admitting he is insane! Check out his very words from the thread "Re:
Is Krueger the Offspring of a Madwoman Raped by 1000 Maniacs?" where
he says, and I quote:
"... ...I am not sane.."
Okay, note the ellipses in the above quote, folks? Your stupid target
audience won't. It's merely there as your backup excuse to show that
you aren't *completely* misrepresenting your opponent's words. After
all, he *did* utter those very words, right? We all saw this, right?
We don't *have* to include every word of every sentence, right? We're
only paring things down to make them more readable, right? Right! Now
you're getting it...
*By the way, did anyone make note of my continued use of the term
"ballistic"? Pat yourselves on the back, because you guys are on the
ball. As you may have guessed, it's a *key term*, and a very handy
literary weapon to use, because if you can convince your target
audience that your opponent is "CRRRRAZZZYYY!", no one will ever
realize how nuts that *you* are! It's a cheap attack, but it won't
cost you a dime...
8. KEEP YOUR EYE ON THE BOTTOM LINE: Okay folks, fun and games are
great, but let's not forget what we are doing all this for: promoting
the ABX way. The CEI doesn't pay us just to sit on our duff's and
slander people all day long for no good reason. We need to show
RESULTS. We need CONVERTS, like a vampire needs fresh blood. So
remember the three P's people: PROMOTE! PROMOTE! PROMOTE! This
requires that you use every op****tunity you can find to include a web
site in your debate that linkes to an ABX propaganda site to create
new converts to the ABX religion. The result of which will then lead
them, wallet in hand, straight into Circuit City and other mid-fi
affiliates, as directed by our CEI backers. You say you can't find an
op****tunity to include a link during the discourse? Bullcrackers! If
you don't see an op****tunity, you MAKE IT buddy. I don't care WHAT
your opponent is talking about, there is ALWAYS room to squeeze an ABX
link in the conversation. e.g.:
NON-ABX'ER: "There was a restaurant next to the hi-fi shop that we ate
at, and they made the most wonderful Linguine with Clam Sauce that you
ever tasted! My wife said it was the closest thing to heaven on
earth."
YOU SAY: "Well, I was at Lorenzo's the other day, and they specialize
in Italian fare, and we tried the Salmon Bruschetta with Pignoli Nuts
and well, you just have to be there, because I can't really describe
it. In fact, you don't have to be there, you can even order the
Pastafazool right from Lorenzo's website! I ordered some garlic bread
from the site once, and it came in 20 minutes. The site is a bit hard
to navigate, so it isn't as easy to get around as my ABX site, which
is: HTTP://WWW.PC-ABX-UP-THE-WAZOO-FOREVER.COM.
Okay, any questions? No? Good. Next.
9. SIZE UP YOUR OPPONENT, THEN SHRINK HIM DOWN:
SIZING UP: Sizing up your opponent may require that you do a lot of
night time research to find out everything you can about him. What
you're looking for is DIRT. Real gritty muddy DIRT, the muddier the
better. Because you will soon be slinging it in his eye. Now Mr.
Google will become your friend and lover during these days and weeks
of research, so you two should become acquainted now. Does your
opponent own an AMC Pacer? Find some way to use THAT against him, if
you can't find anything else. Is his daughter a punk rocker? Is his
wife a communist? Does he own a rabbit? It's ALL grist for the dirt
mill, folks. Lob these little gems at your opponent when he leasts
expect it, during the course of the debate, and be the envy of all
your ABX friends.
SHRINKING DOWN: Remember, you want to try to BELITTLE your opponent in
every way possible. So when you are losing, getting nervous, don't
know what to do because you can't defeat his arguments, it's time to
whip out the ol' degrees, people... If you have an engineering degree,
let the reader KNOW you have an engineering degree. Don't just SIT on
the damn thing, take it off the wall of your home office and THROW IT
IN PEOPLE'S FACES ALREADY! To the uneducated mindless reader****p, this
will give you an air of authority and make you sound like you know
what you're talking about, even if you just pulled it all out of your
ass two minutes ago during a cold sweat while you were backed into a
corner. The readers will HAVE to believe you. You have a "degree". To
them, you are a technological superhero. To them, anything you have to
say on the subject of audio must be true, because you "studied it in
college". It might help to imagine that the majority of your target
audience probably never even stepped into a college to use the
bathroom, So they'll be impressed just by the fact that you said you
went to college.
If your credentials are big enough, USE THEM TO BASH YOUR OPPONENT
WITH INTO SUBMISSION! He will beg for mercy as you bash him with the
Bsc's, and probably lapse into a coma if you can hit him with a PhD.
Have you been cited somewhere in a publication? Hit him with that too,
as he is crying for you to stop your "attack of credentials". Do you
have an audio related website perhaps? Poke him in the eye with THAT
fact, and watch him whimper away, defenseless! Do you write in a
commercial audio publication? Really? Oh that's good. That's REALLY
good. You can whomp your opponent with that until he's blue in the
face. I assure you, he will crawl into a fetal position and die there
on the floor as you hold your gut in laughter, while your target
audience starts wetting their pants at how authoritative you sound
when you bring out your credentials during the debate.
If HE has a few credentials, remember this rule: claim that YOUR
credientials are always bigger than HIS credentials, claim that your
web site is always bigger and has more hits than HIS web site, your
publication citations or articles are always more numerous than HIS
citations or articles, etc. It's true there are "some" people who
think that gratuitous citations of credentials to bolster one's
position in an argument is a very disgraceful thing to do, but don't
worry folks. We've done the studies and it shows that they are not in
the target audience (in any great number).
10. And the NUMBER ONE Arny Krueger debating tactic.... When all else
fails you, LIE. That's right - "LIE". Fib, falsify, fabricate, tell a
tall one, read out a cock and bull story, take liberties with the
truth, 'fictionalize' - it's all good. Note that we're not talking
about simple little "misrepresentations". We're talking deliberate,
thoughtfully executed bald-faced LIES. Try not to get caught doing it
of course, because it can be a risk and backfire against you, so save
it for when you really need it. But when you're really desperately
losing the debate, and your credibility has already been stretched so
far it's begging to be put out of its own misery, it might help you
out of a pickle. The hope is that the reader will be so confused about
the facts and not knowing who to believe in the debate, he won't be
able to tell fact from fiction any longer, and a well placed lie may
be all you need to knock your opponent out of the ring.
Follow all of these tactics and before too long, anyone debating or
practicing audio without adhereing to ABX principles will be so
marginalized, and ridiculed, they will no longer be a threat to the
ABX empire. ABX world domination is coming, my brothers!
---------------------message ends
here------------------------------------
This message brought to you by the KKS (Kill Krueger Society).
|
