Newbie question

[Ralph McClusky]

Hi all and tia,

question:
I want to find some software that will compare two 'identical' cd's
(or wav's) and 'measure' their audio quality against each other. Can
anyone suggest anything?

why:
I have a cd/lp/cassette collection and I have burnt the lp's and
cassette's to disk and it sounds ok (the lp's and cassette's are old
and not high quality). I decided to test burn a cd to disk as a wav
using EAC and then burn a copy to a cd-r to use in my car. The
resultant quality is poor. The audio sounds 'brittle' and not clear.
The irony is I am partially frequency deaf (ie problems hearing voices
in a noisy, crowded room), so if I can hear the poor quality then
either I am imagining it or need to measure the burn against the orig.
Or is it the burn program?, the rip program?, the drive? etc, etc

background:
I am in IT, understand the 'guff', have a very powerful PC with good
drives (but not audiophile). Being a tad musiclyxic, I have not
bothered much with the audio tech (for obv. reasons) but have done
much research so far with no luck.

other:
I have been told that the software I use (EAC) is crap, the burn CD's
I use are crap, my hearing is crap etc etc...thus my keeness to
actually measure the various wav's against each other.

Regards

rmcc70

ps: I apologise if I posted in the wrong group, if so can someone
suggest the correct one please.

[Tim Brown]

(Ralph McClusky) wrote in message >...
> Hi all and tia,
>
> question:
> I want to find some software that will compare two 'identical' cd's
> (or wav's) and 'measure' their audio quality against each other. Can
> anyone suggest anything?

Unless there is mistracking or other data corruption two 'identical'
cd's should sound, well, identical. Mistracking or other data
corruption will result in skipping, crackling or really harsh grinding
sounds. It's the conversion to and from analog and digital that can
cause more subtle problems. Once you have a good sounding WAV file the
process of making a CD is an almost all or nothing affair.

> so if I can hear the poor quality then
> either I am imagining it or need to measure the burn against the orig.
> Or is it the burn program?, the rip program?, the drive? etc, etc

If you have a CD with data corruption you'll easily hear it, even with
hearing impairment.

>
> background:
> I am in IT, understand the 'guff', have a very powerful PC with good
> drives (but not audiophile).

Then you'll understand digital data is either right or it's not.

> I have been told that the software I use (EAC) is crap,

EAC is a decent program. maybe some people don't like its look and
feel, but it can certainly transfer a WAV file to a CD without
corruption. It's not a (relatively) complex operation.

> the burn CD's
> I use are crap, my hearing is crap etc etc...thus my keeness to
> actually measure the various wav's against each other.

It could very well be faulty blank CD's, or your car player doesn't
like CD-R's. Do these 'bad' CD's sound bad in different machines?

> ps: I apologise if I posted in the wrong group, if so can someone
> suggest the correct one please.

rec.audio.tech has more intellegent life than here.

TB

[Bruce J. Richman]

Tim Brown wrote:


(Ralph McClusky) wrote in message
>...
>> Hi all and tia,
>>
>> question:
>> I want to find some software that will compare two 'identical' cd's
>> (or wav's) and 'measure' their audio quality against each other. Can
>> anyone suggest anything?
>
>Unless there is mistracking or other data corruption two 'identical'
>cd's should sound, well, identical. Mistracking or other data
>corruption will result in skipping, crackling or really harsh grinding
>sounds. It's the conversion to and from analog and digital that can
>cause more subtle problems. Once you have a good sounding WAV file the
>process of making a CD is an almost all or nothing affair.
>
>> so if I can hear the poor quality then
>> either I am imagining it or need to measure the burn against the orig.
>> Or is it the burn program?, the rip program?, the drive? etc, etc
>
>If you have a CD with data corruption you'll easily hear it, even with
>hearing impairment.
>
>>
>> background:
>> I am in IT, understand the 'guff', have a very powerful PC with good
>> drives (but not audiophile).
>
>Then you'll understand digital data is either right or it's not.
>
>> I have been told that the software I use (EAC) is crap,
>
>EAC is a decent program. maybe some people don't like its look and
>feel, but it can certainly transfer a WAV file to a CD without
>corruption. It's not a (relatively) complex operation.
>
>> the burn CD's
>> I use are crap, my hearing is crap etc etc...thus my keeness to
>> actually measure the various wav's against each other.
>
>It could very well be faulty blank CD's, or your car player doesn't
>like CD-R's. Do these 'bad' CD's sound bad in different machines?
>
>> ps: I apologise if I posted in the wrong group, if so can someone
>> suggest the correct one please.
>
>rec.audio.tech has more intellegent life than here.
>

This is a false claim. Brown has frequently smeared members of this gruop, and
this is just a recent example. There is no evidence to support his
agenda-based, hostile assertion.





>TB
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


Bruce J. Richman

[Arny Krueger]

"Ralph McClusky" > wrote in message


> question:
> I want to find some software that will compare two 'identical' cd's
> (or wav's) and 'measure' their audio quality against each other. Can
> anyone suggest anything?

Both EAC and CDEX have file comparison facilities built-in.

> I have a cd/lp/cassette collection and I have burnt the lp's and
> cassette's to disk and it sounds ok (the lp's and cassette's are old
> and not high quality). I decided to test burn a cd to disk as a wav
> using EAC and then burn a copy to a cd-r to use in my car. The
> resultant quality is poor. The audio sounds 'brittle' and not clear.

Probable cause - your car CD player is having compatibility problems with
CD-Rs. It's probably not the latest model, because car CD players have been
pretty consistently doing a good job with CD-Rs for the past 3 years or so.
I have two cars with CD players, and the older model is picky about the
brand of media I choose and the speed I burn it at. The new one is just a
few months old and could car less - it works well with everything I feed it.

> The irony is I am partially frequency deaf (ie problems hearing voices
> in a noisy, crowded room), so if I can hear the poor quality then
> either I am imagining it or need to measure the burn against the orig.
> Or is it the burn program?, the rip program?, the drive? etc, etc

Since your car's CD player is probably part of the problem, a separate
technical analysis is not going to give you a reliable answer.

> I have been told that the software I use (EAC) is crap,

Don't listen to people who say this, EAC has an excellent reputation and has
been checked over with a figurative fine-tooth comb.

>the burn CD's I use are crap

Could be they are inappropriate for your situation. I get the more
consistently good results with TDK brand blanks, for example.

>, my hearing is crap etc etc..

The nature of the problems with a CD player that has marginal compatibility
with CD-Rs does not take golden ears to hear.

>.thus my keeness to actually measure the various wav's against each other.

It turns out that your best evaluation tool is your ears, listening to the
actual player that is causing you problems.

[Arny Krueger]

"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message

> Tim Brown wrote:

>> rec.audio.tech has more intellegent life than here.

IME, a true fact. RAO is well known for being primarily off-topic, and
dominated by childish flamers.

> This is a false claim. Brown has frequently smeared members of this
> gruop, and this is just a recent example. There is no evidence to
> support his agenda-based, hostile assertion.

Except for the record in google.

Ironic that Richman, who almost habitually abuses his knowlege of
psychological terminology to smear other members of this group, should raise
a point that so clearly applies to him.

[paul packer]

On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 08:11:28 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>I have two cars with CD players, and the older model is picky about the
>brand of media I choose and the speed I burn it at. The new one is just a
>few months old and could car less - it works well with everything I feed it.

Is this a pun, Arnie? If not your typos are better than your puns.

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 08:11:28 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> I have two cars with CD players, and the older model is picky about
>> the brand of media I choose and the speed I burn it at. The new one
>> is just a few months old and could car less - it works well with
>> everything I feed it.
>
> Is this a pun, Arnie? If not your typos are better than your puns.

No, it is an on-topic reply. I knew it would blow right by you, Paul.

[Bruce J. Richman]

Arny Krueger wrote:


>"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message

>> Tim Brown wrote:
>
>>> rec.audio.tech has more intellegent life than here.
>
>IME, a true fact. RAO is well known for being primarily off-topic, and
>dominated by childish flamers.
>
>> This is a false claim. Brown has frequently smeared members of this
>> gruop, and this is just a recent example. There is no evidence to
>> support his agenda-based, hostile assertion.
>
>Except for the record in google.
>
>Ironic that Richman, who almost habitually abuses his knowlege of
>psychological terminology to smear other members of this group, should raise
>a point that so clearly applies to him.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

What is really ironic is that Krueger makes numerous errors above. As is his
almost daily custom, he blatantly lies about the behavior of other people,
including myself. There is no evidence that he knows anything about
psychological terminology. In point of fact, he's demonstrated a remarkable
inability to objectively evaluate his own behavior, which has been
charaqcterized by many as despicable. His 7 year history of character
assassination is well known to almost all RAO posters. In fact, it has been
comprehensively documented in a thread entitled "Have You Had A Bad Krueger
Experience". The Google record indicates that he has engaged in personal
attacks against more individual posters than any other RAO participant.



Bruce J. Richman

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "paul packer" > wrote in message
>
>> On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 08:11:28 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I have two cars with CD players, and the older model is picky about
>>> the brand of media I choose and the speed I burn it at. The new one
>>> is just a few months old and could car less - it works well with
>>> everything I feed it.
>>
>> Is this a pun, Arnie? If not your typos are better than your puns.
>
> No, it is an on-topic reply. I knew it would blow right by you, Paul.
>

You still didn't get it.
My, you certainly are a carless reader.

[Tim Brown]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message >...
> "Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
>
> > Tim Brown wrote:
>
> >> rec.audio.tech has more intellegent life than here.
>
> IME, a true fact. RAO is well known for being primarily off-topic, and
> dominated by childish flamers.
>
> > This is a false claim. Brown has frequently smeared members of this
> > gruop, and this is just a recent example. There is no evidence to
> > support his agenda-based, hostile assertion.
>
> Except for the record in google.
>
> Ironic that Richman, who almost habitually abuses his knowlege of
> psychological terminology to smear other members of this group, should raise
> a point that so clearly applies to him.


Also ironic that Richman repeatedly claims that I make personal
attacks, then attacks me after I make a post that was purely on topic
about audio.

TB

[Bruce J. Richman]

Tim Brown wrote:


>"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>...
>> "Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
>>
>> > Tim Brown wrote:
>>
>> >> rec.audio.tech has more intellegent life than here.
>>
>> IME, a true fact. RAO is well known for being primarily off-topic, and
>> dominated by childish flamers.
>>
>> > This is a false claim. Brown has frequently smeared members of this
>> > gruop, and this is just a recent example. There is no evidence to
>> > support his agenda-based, hostile assertion.
>>
>> Except for the record in google.
>>
>> Ironic that Richman, who almost habitually abuses his knowlege of
>> psychological terminology to smear other members of this group, should
>raise
>> a point that so clearly applies to him.
>
>
>Also ironic that Richman repeatedly claims that I make personal
>attacks, then attacks me after I make a post that was purely on topic
>about audio.
>
>TB
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

It's worth noting that Brown does not have the integrity to reproduce his
original response to the :"newbie's" question. Like his rolke model, Krueger,
he makes false claims while simultaneously avoiding the post in which his
hostility is uncovered.

Here is Brown's response to the newbie:

Message-id: >

(Ralph McClusky) wrote in message
>...
> Hi all and tia,
>
> question:
> I want to find some software that will compare two 'identical' cd's
> (or wav's) and 'measure' their audio quality against each other. Can
> anyone suggest anything?

Unless there is mistracking or other data corruption two 'identical'
cd's should sound, well, identical. Mistracking or other data
corruption will result in skipping, crackling or really harsh grinding
sounds. It's the conversion to and from analog and digital that can
cause more subtle problems. Once you have a good sounding WAV file the
process of making a CD is an almost all or nothing affair.

> so if I can hear the poor quality then
> either I am imagining it or need to measure the burn against the orig.
> Or is it the burn program?, the rip program?, the drive? etc, etc

If you have a CD with data corruption you'll easily hear it, even with
hearing impairment.

>
> background:
> I am in IT, understand the 'guff', have a very powerful PC with good
> drives (but not audiophile).

Then you'll understand digital data is either right or it's not.

> I have been told that the software I use (EAC) is crap,

EAC is a decent program. maybe some people don't like its look and
feel, but it can certainly transfer a WAV file to a CD without
corruption. It's not a (relatively) complex operation.

> the burn CD's
> I use are crap, my hearing is crap etc etc...thus my keeness to
> actually measure the various wav's against each other.

It could very well be faulty blank CD's, or your car player doesn't
like CD-R's. Do these 'bad' CD's sound bad in different machines?

> ps: I apologise if I posted in the wrong group, if so can someone
> suggest the correct one please.

rec.audio.tech has more intellegent life than here.

TB
-----------------------------------------------------------

Contrary to the false claim made by Brown, the last sentence of his response
indicates his lack of respect for the intelligence of the posters on
rec.audio.opinion. It is also totally unrelated to audio in any way.
Obviously, he has no evidence to back up his personal attacks re. the
intelligence of RAO posters. And by trying to pretend he wasn't leveling a
personal insult at the members of RAO, he simply illustrates the type of
fraudulent behavior that he and Krueger are known for.







Bruce J. Richman

[Lionel]

Tim Brown wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message >...
>
>>"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message

>>
>>>Tim Brown wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>rec.audio.tech has more intellegent life than here.
>>
>>IME, a true fact. RAO is well known for being primarily off-topic, and
>>dominated by childish flamers.
>>
>>
>>>This is a false claim. Brown has frequently smeared members of this
>>>gruop, and this is just a recent example. There is no evidence to
>>>support his agenda-based, hostile assertion.
>>
>>Except for the record in google.
>>
>>Ironic that Richman, who almost habitually abuses his knowlege of
>>psychological terminology to smear other members of this group, should raise
>>a point that so clearly applies to him.
>
>
>
> Also ironic that Richman repeatedly claims that I make personal
> attacks, then attacks me after I make a post that was purely on topic
> about audio.
>
> TB

Also you ? :-)
Note that I am a kind of dissident since I nearly never produce any
audio posts, just because of a lack of competence.
I know a guy who never made any audio posts (george m&m) who has never
been subject to Richman claims.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
...
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>
>>"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message

>>> Tim Brown wrote:
>>
>>>> rec.audio.tech has more intellegent life than here.
>>
>>IME, a true fact. RAO is well known for being primarily off-topic, and
>>dominated by childish flamers.
>>
>>> This is a false claim. Brown has frequently smeared members of this
>>> gruop, and this is just a recent example. There is no evidence to
>>> support his agenda-based, hostile assertion.
>>
>>Except for the record in google.
>>
>>Ironic that Richman, who almost habitually abuses his knowlege of
>>psychological terminology to smear other members of this group, should
>>raise
>>a point that so clearly applies to him.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> What is really ironic is that Krueger makes numerous errors above. As is
> his
> almost daily custom, he blatantly lies about the behavior of other people,
> including myself. There is no evidence that he knows anything about
> psychological terminology.

When this becomes a NG dedicated to psychology and it's terminology, that
might be worth discussing.

In the meantime, how about if you learn something about audio?

In point of fact, he's demonstrated a remarkable
> inability to objectively evaluate his own behavior, which has been
> charaqcterized by many as despicable.

Sounds like you 2 are peas in a pod, eh?

His 7 year history of character
> assassination is well known to almost all RAO posters.

If you look up redundant, is there a picture of you?

In fact, it has been
> comprehensively documented in a thread entitled "Have You Had A Bad
> Krueger
> Experience". The Google record indicates that he has engaged in personal
> attacks against more individual posters than any other RAO participant.
>
>
>
You mean like you're doing?
>
>

[Tim Brown]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message . net>...
> "Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
> ...

> > What is really ironic is that Krueger makes numerous errors above. As is
> > his
> > almost daily custom, he blatantly lies about the behavior of other people,
> > including myself. There is no evidence that he knows anything about
> > psychological terminology.
>
> When this becomes a NG dedicated to psychology and it's terminology, that
> might be worth discussing.
>
> In the meantime, how about if you learn something about audio?

I wonder if Mr Richman is who he claims he is. I could find no
evidence on the internet that he is in the field of psychology. No
membership in the professional societies, no references at all. He
certainly doesn't act like a person with a PhD. I work at a university
and I interact with PhD's on a daily basis. There are about a dozen of
them in my department (electrical engineering). They can be pompous,
stubborn and lack practical knowledge. We've got a newbie this
semester who has never wielded a soldering iron. His specialty is
simulating communication systems on the computer. None of these
learned men are as shrill, repetitive and one-dimensional as 'doctor'
Richman. How ironic that such a maladjusted individual is or claims to
be a professional in the mental health field. Maybe he's a completely
different person face to face. I've invited him in private email to
meet with me in person. I'd love to set a few things straight, clear
up the true meaning of 'personal attack' being one of them. Not
surprisingly, he didn't respond.

TB

[Give me a break]

In article >,
(Bruce J. Richman) writes:
> Tim Brown wrote:
>
>
>>"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>...
>>> "Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> > Tim Brown wrote:
>>>
>>> >> rec.audio.tech has more intellegent life than here.
>>>
>>> IME, a true fact. RAO is well known for being primarily off-topic, and
>>> dominated by childish flamers.
>>>
>>> > This is a false claim. Brown has frequently smeared members of this
>>> > gruop, and this is just a recent example. There is no evidence to
>>> > support his agenda-based, hostile assertion.
>>>
>>> Except for the record in google.
>>>
>>> Ironic that Richman, who almost habitually abuses his knowlege of
>>> psychological terminology to smear other members of this group, should
>>raise
>>> a point that so clearly applies to him.
>>
>>
>>Also ironic that Richman repeatedly claims that I make personal
>>attacks, then attacks me after I make a post that was purely on topic
>>about audio.
>>
>>TB
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> It's worth noting that Brown does not have the integrity to reproduce his
> original response to the :"newbie's" question. Like his rolke model, Krueger,
> he makes false claims while simultaneously avoiding the post in which his
> hostility is uncovered.
>
> Here is Brown's response to the newbie:
>
> Message-id: >
>
> (Ralph McClusky) wrote in message
> >...
>> Hi all and tia,
>>
>> question:
>> I want to find some software that will compare two 'identical' cd's
>> (or wav's) and 'measure' their audio quality against each other. Can
>> anyone suggest anything?
>
> Unless there is mistracking or other data corruption two 'identical'
> cd's should sound, well, identical. Mistracking or other data
> corruption will result in skipping, crackling or really harsh grinding
> sounds. It's the conversion to and from analog and digital that can
> cause more subtle problems. Once you have a good sounding WAV file the
> process of making a CD is an almost all or nothing affair.
>
>> so if I can hear the poor quality then
>> either I am imagining it or need to measure the burn against the orig.
>> Or is it the burn program?, the rip program?, the drive? etc, etc
>
> If you have a CD with data corruption you'll easily hear it, even with
> hearing impairment.
>
>>
>> background:
>> I am in IT, understand the 'guff', have a very powerful PC with good
>> drives (but not audiophile).
>
> Then you'll understand digital data is either right or it's not.
>
>> I have been told that the software I use (EAC) is crap,
>
> EAC is a decent program. maybe some people don't like its look and
> feel, but it can certainly transfer a WAV file to a CD without
> corruption. It's not a (relatively) complex operation.
>
>> the burn CD's
>> I use are crap, my hearing is crap etc etc...thus my keeness to
>> actually measure the various wav's against each other.
>
> It could very well be faulty blank CD's, or your car player doesn't
> like CD-R's. Do these 'bad' CD's sound bad in different machines?
>
>> ps: I apologise if I posted in the wrong group, if so can someone
>> suggest the correct one please.
>
> rec.audio.tech has more intellegent life than here.
>
> TB
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Contrary to the false claim made by Brown, the last sentence of his response
> indicates his lack of respect for the intelligence of the posters on
> rec.audio.opinion. It is also totally unrelated to audio in any way.
> Obviously, he has no evidence to back up his personal attacks re. the
> intelligence of RAO posters. And by trying to pretend he wasn't leveling a
> personal insult at the members of RAO, he simply illustrates the type of
> fraudulent behavior that he and Krueger are known for.

So a post that is 99% audio is a personal attack? And where does he
mention any "person"? I would think a personal attack would have to
either mention a specific person or persons, or followup a person's
post?

You are really reaching here and only displaying your own paranoia.

[Bruce J. Richman]

Tim Brown wrote:


>"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
. net>...
>> "Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>> > What is really ironic is that Krueger makes numerous errors above. As is
>
>> > his
>> > almost daily custom, he blatantly lies about the behavior of other
>people,
>> > including myself. There is no evidence that he knows anything about
>> > psychological terminology.
>>
>> When this becomes a NG dedicated to psychology and it's terminology, that
>> might be worth discussing.
>>
>> In the meantime, how about if you learn something about audio?
>
>I wonder if Mr Richman is who he claims he is. I could find no
>evidence on the internet that he is in the field of psychology. No
>membership in the professional societies, no references at all. He
>certainly doesn't act like a person with a PhD. I work at a university
>and I interact with PhD's on a daily basis. There are about a dozen of
>them in my department (electrical engineering). They can be pompous,
>stubborn and lack practical knowledge. We've got a newbie this
>semester who has never wielded a soldering iron. His specialty is
>simulating communication systems on the computer. None of these
>learned men are as shrill, repetitive and one-dimensional as 'doctor'
>Richman. How ironic that such a maladjusted individual is or claims to
>be a professional in the mental health field. Maybe he's a completely
>different person face to face. I've invited him in private email to
>meet with me in person. I'd love to set a few things straight, clear
>up the true meaning of 'personal attack' being one of them. Not
>surprisingly, he didn't respond.
>
>TB
>
>
>
>
>
>

Tim Brown is lying again, as is his custom. He has never communicated with me
via email, and his claims of "invitations" are pure hokum. He has also claimed
to have killfiled me, yet appears to respond to my posts with a series of
unprovoked personal attacks filled with his typical brand of smears and false
statements.

Obviously, his usage of the Internet is relatively limited, since it is a
rather trivial matter to verify that I'm a licensed psychologist in the State
of Florida. Therefore, Brown's delusional perceptions of myself as "shrill" or
"unprofessional" represent nothing more than Ferstler-copied attempts to defame
a person whoe professional reputation is excellent. His ignorance about
psychologists is a matter of public record.

I have a theory about hatemongers such as Brown when it comes to psychologists.
Unfortunately, since psychologists are trained to evaluate the personal
characteristics (both positive and negative) as well as the abnormal behavior
of other people, we bear the cross of being somewhat threatening and feared at
times by people such as Brown, Ferstler & Krueger, who have an obvious need to
use Usenet NGs as a vehicle for attacking others to puff up their insecure
little minds. And when degrees are mentioned and ridiculed by people like
these 3 anti-subjective-opinion, anti-preference zealots, it's pretty obvious
that more than a little jealousy is involved. Those things are there problems,
not mine.

[Bruce J. Richman]

Give me a break wrote:

>In article >,
> (Bruce J. Richman) writes:
>> Tim Brown wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>...
>>>> "Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> > Tim Brown wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> rec.audio.tech has more intellegent life than here.
>>>>
>>>> IME, a true fact. RAO is well known for being primarily off-topic, and
>>>> dominated by childish flamers.
>>>>
>>>> > This is a false claim. Brown has frequently smeared members of this
>>>> > gruop, and this is just a recent example. There is no evidence to
>>>> > support his agenda-based, hostile assertion.
>>>>
>>>> Except for the record in google.
>>>>
>>>> Ironic that Richman, who almost habitually abuses his knowlege of
>>>> psychological terminology to smear other members of this group, should
>>>raise
>>>> a point that so clearly applies to him.
>>>
>>>
>>>Also ironic that Richman repeatedly claims that I make personal
>>>attacks, then attacks me after I make a post that was purely on topic
>>>about audio.
>>>
>>>TB
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It's worth noting that Brown does not have the integrity to reproduce his
>> original response to the :"newbie's" question. Like his rolke model,
>Krueger,
>> he makes false claims while simultaneously avoiding the post in which his
>> hostility is uncovered.
>>
>> Here is Brown's response to the newbie:
>>
>> Message-id: >
>>
>> (Ralph McClusky) wrote in message
>> >...
>>> Hi all and tia,
>>>
>>> question:
>>> I want to find some software that will compare two 'identical' cd's
>>> (or wav's) and 'measure' their audio quality against each other. Can
>>> anyone suggest anything?
>>
>> Unless there is mistracking or other data corruption two 'identical'
>> cd's should sound, well, identical. Mistracking or other data
>> corruption will result in skipping, crackling or really harsh grinding
>> sounds. It's the conversion to and from analog and digital that can
>> cause more subtle problems. Once you have a good sounding WAV file the
>> process of making a CD is an almost all or nothing affair.
>>
>>> so if I can hear the poor quality then
>>> either I am imagining it or need to measure the burn against the orig.
>>> Or is it the burn program?, the rip program?, the drive? etc, etc
>>
>> If you have a CD with data corruption you'll easily hear it, even with
>> hearing impairment.
>>
>>>
>>> background:
>>> I am in IT, understand the 'guff', have a very powerful PC with good
>>> drives (but not audiophile).
>>
>> Then you'll understand digital data is either right or it's not.
>>
>>> I have been told that the software I use (EAC) is crap,
>>
>> EAC is a decent program. maybe some people don't like its look and
>> feel, but it can certainly transfer a WAV file to a CD without
>> corruption. It's not a (relatively) complex operation.
>>
>>> the burn CD's
>>> I use are crap, my hearing is crap etc etc...thus my keeness to
>>> actually measure the various wav's against each other.
>>
>> It could very well be faulty blank CD's, or your car player doesn't
>> like CD-R's. Do these 'bad' CD's sound bad in different machines?
>>
>>> ps: I apologise if I posted in the wrong group, if so can someone
>>> suggest the correct one please.
>>
>> rec.audio.tech has more intellegent life than here.
>>
>> TB
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Contrary to the false claim made by Brown, the last sentence of his
>response
>> indicates his lack of respect for the intelligence of the posters on
>> rec.audio.opinion. It is also totally unrelated to audio in any way.
>> Obviously, he has no evidence to back up his personal attacks re. the
>> intelligence of RAO posters. And by trying to pretend he wasn't leveling a
>> personal insult at the members of RAO, he simply illustrates the type of
>> fraudulent behavior that he and Krueger are known for.
>
>So a post that is 99% audio is a personal attack? And where does he
>mention any "person"? I would think a personal attack would have to
>either mention a specific person or persons, or followup a person's
>post?
>
>You are really reaching here and only displaying your own paranoia.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thanks fror demonstrating that you support and engage in personal attacks. The
last line of a post - and in fact, the only one that Brown even posted in his
latest personal attack - is often one that readers remember. This phenomenon
is covered under a perceptual rule known as the Law of Recency. Claiming that
there is less intelligent life in RAO than in another news group is an attack
similar to those that Brown's role model, Krueger, is known for.

Your use of the term "paranoia" simply illustrates your ignorance and
desperation to smear others that actually know what terms like this mean.




Bruce J. Richman

[browntimdc]

Give me a break wrote in :

>
> So a post that is 99% audio is a personal attack? And where does he
> mention any "person"? I would think a personal attack would have to
> either mention a specific person or persons, or followup a person's
> post?
>
> You are really reaching here and only displaying your own paranoia.

Perhaps somebody wrote a BOT and named it Bruce Richman. When certain
people post the Richman BOT assembles a few slogans (personal attack,
hostile, etc.) chosen at random into an all purpose flame out.

Tim

--

"The strongest human instinct is to impart information,
and the second strongest is to resist it."

Kenneth Graham

[Bruce J. Richman]

Tim Brown responds to a sockpuppet:


>Give me a break wrote in :
>
>>
>> So a post that is 99% audio is a personal attack? And where does he
>> mention any "person"? I would think a personal attack would have to
>> either mention a specific person or persons, or followup a person's
>> post?
>>
>> You are really reaching here and only displaying your own paranoia.
>
>Perhaps somebody wrote a BOT and named it Bruce Richman. When certain
>people post the Richman BOT assembles a few slogans (personal attack,
>hostile, etc.) chosen at random into an all purpose flame out.
>
>Tim
>
>--
>
>"The strongest human instinct is to impart information,
>and the second strongest is to resist it."
>
>Kenneth Graham
>
>
>
>
>
>

It's perfectly fitting that a pathological liar who calls himself "Tim Brown"
would respond to a sockpuppet and spew more delusional fantasies. These 2
individuals, whoever they are, clearly like to feed into each other's psychotic
rantings. Folie a deux has found a home on RAO.

LOL !!!




Bruce J. Richman

[Give me a break]

In article >,
(Bruce J. Richman) writes:
> Give me a break wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> (Bruce J. Richman) writes:
>>> Tim Brown wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> rec.audio.tech has more intellegent life than here.
>>>
>>> TB
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Contrary to the false claim made by Brown, the last sentence of his
>>response
>>> indicates his lack of respect for the intelligence of the posters on
>>> rec.audio.opinion. It is also totally unrelated to audio in any way.
>>> Obviously, he has no evidence to back up his personal attacks re. the
>>> intelligence of RAO posters. And by trying to pretend he wasn't leveling a
>>> personal insult at the members of RAO, he simply illustrates the type of
>>> fraudulent behavior that he and Krueger are known for.
>>
>>So a post that is 99% audio is a personal attack? And where does he
>>mention any "person"? I would think a personal attack would have to
>>either mention a specific person or persons, or followup a person's
>>post?
>>
>>You are really reaching here and only displaying your own paranoia.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Thanks fror demonstrating that you support and engage in personal attacks. The
> last line of a post - and in fact, the only one that Brown even posted in his
> latest personal attack - is often one that readers remember. This phenomenon
> is covered under a perceptual rule known as the Law of Recency. Claiming that
> there is less intelligent life in RAO than in another news group is an attack
> similar to those that Brown's role model, Krueger, is known for.

But I ask again, where did he mention any person in this group? He
alluded to some people, but no specific person was mentioned. How can
it be a personal attack if he did not mention one specific person?
You really have a strange definition of "personal attack". And why
bring Krueger into this discussion? Can you not ever make a post
without bringing him up? Why the fixation on him? And how dare he
think there might be more intellegent life on another news group. But
then again, he did not actaully say there was no intellegent life
here, just more elsewhere. Sounds like paranoia on your part again,
becuase I didn't see your name mentioned. Why the need to take it so
personal on your part?

> Your use of the term "paranoia" simply illustrates your ignorance and
> desperation to smear others that actually know what terms like this mean.

So how better to demonstrate paranoia than to assume it was you he was
speaking of when your name was not mentioned? Please explain oh master
psychologist and inveterate libeler.

[Bruce J. Richman]

Sockpuppet "give me a break" wrote:

>In article >,
> (Bruce J. Richman) writes:
>> Give me a break wrote:
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> (Bruce J. Richman) writes:
>>>> Tim Brown wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> rec.audio.tech has more intellegent life than here.
>>>>
>>>> TB
>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Contrary to the false claim made by Brown, the last sentence of his
>>>response
>>>> indicates his lack of respect for the intelligence of the posters on
>>>> rec.audio.opinion. It is also totally unrelated to audio in any way.
>>>> Obviously, he has no evidence to back up his personal attacks re. the
>>>> intelligence of RAO posters. And by trying to pretend he wasn't leveling
>a
>>>> personal insult at the members of RAO, he simply illustrates the type of
>>>> fraudulent behavior that he and Krueger are known for.
>>>
>>>So a post that is 99% audio is a personal attack? And where does he
>>>mention any "person"? I would think a personal attack would have to
>>>either mention a specific person or persons, or followup a person's
>>>post?
>>>
>>>You are really reaching here and only displaying your own paranoia.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Thanks fror demonstrating that you support and engage in personal attacks.
>The
>> last line of a post - and in fact, the only one that Brown even posted in
>his
>> latest personal attack - is often one that readers remember. This
>phenomenon
>> is covered under a perceptual rule known as the Law of Recency. Claiming
>that
>> there is less intelligent life in RAO than in another news group is an
>attack
>> similar to those that Brown's role model, Krueger, is known for.
>
>But I ask again, where did he mention any person in this group? He
>alluded to some people,

He impugned the intelligence of a large group of regular posters, similar to a
tactic employed by others whom he often joins in smear individuals - e. Krueger
&
Ferstler.



but no specific person was mentioned. How can
>it be a personal attack if he did not mention one specific person?
>You really have a strange definition of "personal attack".

Actually, much less strange than your transparent attempt to engage in labeling
people as paranoid with no evidence to suuprot your ridiculous satement. In
point of fact, your pathetic attempts to defame me are contradicted by massive
Google evidence in which Brown & Krueger's personal attacks against me and
others are documented.



And why
>bring Krueger into this discussion? Can you not ever make a post
>without bringing him up?

Another false inference you've drawn. In a very recent post, Krueger joined
Brown in a personal attack directly against me - in this same thread. It is in
the Google record. Why are you so determined to defend these 2 flamers by
making false claims about me?

Why the fixation on him?

Can't you tell the truth about your obvious suipport for Brown & Krueger?
Making silly statements about "fixations" with no evidence to back them up just
exposes you as having no credibility.

And how dare he
>think there might be more intellegent life on another news group. But
>then again, he did not actaully say there was no intellegent life
>here, just more elsewhere.

Which was is way of smearing the group in general. And like you, he makes
statements without any facts to back them up.


Sounds like paranoia on your part again,
>becuase I didn't see your name mentioned. Why the need to take it so
>personal on your part?
>

Has your fixation with "paranoia" as evidenced by your lying about it been a
frequent tacting you've used to insult others, or am I fhe first you've
attempted to smear in this way? Don't bother to answer. You simiply don't
know what you're talking about when you throw around terms like this.


> Your use of the term "paranoia" simply illustrates your ignorance and
>> desperation to smear others that actually know what terms like this mean.
>
>So how better to demonstrate paranoia than to assume it was you he was
>speaking of when your name was not mentioned? Please explain oh master
>psychologist and inveterate libeler.
>

You are a chronic pathological liar, apparently, who likes to make meaningless
statements about others. Where's the evidence to support your self-serving
hokum?

For all we know, you could well be just another delusional sockpuppet created
by one of the few people that would be stupid enough to support your idiotic
statements - such as the two already mentioned.

Your flaming away in this thread helps to destroy your credibility. And your
choice of people to defend is also quite helpful in that regard. You're a
fool.






>
>


Bruce J. Richman

[Ralph McClusky]

Hi All,

big tx for some answers. I was expecting maybe one or two at the most.
That is my experience from software groups.

But then...most of the answer thread seemed to be troll fighting. A
pity cause the direct answers I got made me think about what I might
be doing wrong.

I will try out the suggestions, ie try a different CD
player...duh...how obv` in retrospect! ;) and if you don't mind repost
here.

Now just ignore them trolls.

rmcc70

ps: tx agn

[Give me a break]

In article >,
Paranoid Bruce J. Richman writes: (if you can do it, I can too)
> Sockpuppet "give me a break" wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> (Bruce J. Richman) writes:
>>> Give me a break wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article >,
>>>> (Bruce J. Richman) writes:
>>>>> Tim Brown wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> rec.audio.tech has more intellegent life than here.
>>>>>
>>>>> TB
>>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Contrary to the false claim made by Brown, the last sentence of his
>>>>response
>>>>> indicates his lack of respect for the intelligence of the posters on
>>>>> rec.audio.opinion. It is also totally unrelated to audio in any way.
>>>>> Obviously, he has no evidence to back up his personal attacks re. the
>>>>> intelligence of RAO posters. And by trying to pretend he wasn't leveling
>>a
>>>>> personal insult at the members of RAO, he simply illustrates the type of
>>>>> fraudulent behavior that he and Krueger are known for.
>>>>
>>>>So a post that is 99% audio is a personal attack? And where does he
>>>>mention any "person"? I would think a personal attack would have to
>>>>either mention a specific person or persons, or followup a person's
>>>>post?
>>>>
>>>>You are really reaching here and only displaying your own paranoia.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks fror demonstrating that you support and engage in personal attacks.
>>The
>>> last line of a post - and in fact, the only one that Brown even posted in
>>his
>>> latest personal attack - is often one that readers remember. This
>>phenomenon
>>> is covered under a perceptual rule known as the Law of Recency. Claiming
>>that
>>> there is less intelligent life in RAO than in another news group is an
>>attack
>>> similar to those that Brown's role model, Krueger, is known for.
>>
>>But I ask again, where did he mention any person in this group? He
>>alluded to some people,
>
> He impugned the intelligence of a large group of regular posters, similar to a
> tactic employed by others whom he often joins in smear individuals - e. Krueger
> &
> Ferstler.

How do you know he wasn't talking about them too since he mentioned no
names? Seems quite paranoid to me.


> but no specific person was mentioned. How can
>>it be a personal attack if he did not mention one specific person?
>>You really have a strange definition of "personal attack".
>
> Actually, much less strange than your transparent attempt to engage in labeling
> people as paranoid with no evidence to suuprot your ridiculous satement. In
> point of fact, your pathetic attempts to defame me are contradicted by massive
> Google evidence in which Brown & Krueger's personal attacks against me and
> others are documented.

So show me where he mentioned names, otherwise I'd have to say my
statements have plenty of facts to support them.

> And why
>>bring Krueger into this discussion? Can you not ever make a post
>>without bringing him up?
>
> Another false inference you've drawn. In a very recent post, Krueger joined
> Brown in a personal attack directly against me - in this same thread. It is in
> the Google record. Why are you so determined to defend these 2 flamers by
> making false claims about me?
>
> Why the fixation on him?
>
> Can't you tell the truth about your obvious suipport for Brown & Krueger?
> Making silly statements about "fixations" with no evidence to back them up just
> exposes you as having no credibility.

I think it would be quite interesting to see how many of your posts
mention him. Would the fact that many if not most of your posts
mention him indicate a fixation?

> And how dare he
>>think there might be more intellegent life on another news group. But
>>then again, he did not actaully say there was no intellegent life
>>here, just more elsewhere.
>
> Which was is way of smearing the group in general. And like you, he makes
> statements without any facts to back them up.

Seems that this is an opinion group and so he stated an opinion.

> Sounds like paranoia on your part again,
>>becuase I didn't see your name mentioned. Why the need to take it so
>>personal on your part?
>>
>
> Has your fixation with "paranoia" as evidenced by your lying about it been a
> frequent tacting you've used to insult others, or am I fhe first you've
> attempted to smear in this way? Don't bother to answer. You simiply don't
> know what you're talking about when you throw around terms like this.

It's more likely that you are unable to see it in your own actions.
Don't they say that doctors are the worst patients?

>> Your use of the term "paranoia" simply illustrates your ignorance and
>>> desperation to smear others that actually know what terms like this mean.
>>
>>So how better to demonstrate paranoia than to assume it was you he was
>>speaking of when your name was not mentioned? Please explain oh master
>>psychologist and inveterate libeler.
>>
>
> You are a chronic pathological liar, apparently, who likes to make meaningless
> statements about others. Where's the evidence to support your self-serving
> hokum?

Everything your write just proves my case over and over again. It's
clear to all but you yourself. Have you ever shown your newsgroup
rantings to a colleague?

> For all we know, you could well be just another delusional sockpuppet created
> by one of the few people that would be stupid enough to support your idiotic
> statements - such as the two already mentioned.

More obvious paranoia. Lookout, they're all after you!

> Your flaming away in this thread helps to destroy your credibility. And your
> choice of people to defend is also quite helpful in that regard. You're a
> fool.

This wouldn't be so damn ironic if everything you wrote above didn't
apply to everything you yourself have written above.

Physician, heal thyself.

[browntimdc]

Give me a break wrote in :

>
> In article >,
> Paranoid Bruce J. Richman writes: (if you can do it, I can too)
>> Another false inference you've drawn. In a very recent post, Krueger
>> joined Brown in a personal attack directly against me - in this same
>> thread. It is in the Google record.

> I think it would be quite interesting to see how many of your posts
> mention him. Would the fact that many if not most of your posts
> mention him indicate a fixation?

Richman's rant above is pure fantasy. Both Krueger and I posted about
audio in this thread, then Richman barged in with the flamethrowers.

>> Your flaming away in this thread helps to destroy your credibility.
>> And your choice of people to defend is also quite helpful in that
>> regard. You're a fool.
>
> This wouldn't be so damn ironic if everything you wrote above didn't
> apply to everything you yourself have written above.
>
> Physician, heal thyself.
>

Hey GMAB, you'll never get the last word with this guy. My strategy now
is to never have the first word with him.

Tim

--

"The strongest human instinct is to impart information,
and the second strongest is to resist it."

Kenneth Graham

[Lionel]

browntimdc wrote:
> Give me a break wrote in :
>
>
>>In article >,
>> Paranoid Bruce J. Richman writes: (if you can do it, I can too)
>>
>>>Another false inference you've drawn. In a very recent post, Krueger
>>>joined Brown in a personal attack directly against me - in this same
>>>thread. It is in the Google record.
>
>
>>I think it would be quite interesting to see how many of your posts
>>mention him. Would the fact that many if not most of your posts
>>mention him indicate a fixation?
>
>
> Richman's rant above is pure fantasy. Both Krueger and I posted about
> audio in this thread, then Richman barged in with the flamethrowers.


LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>
>
>>>Your flaming away in this thread helps to destroy your credibility.
>>>And your choice of people to defend is also quite helpful in that
>>>regard. You're a fool.
>>
>>This wouldn't be so damn ironic if everything you wrote above didn't
>>apply to everything you yourself have written above.
>>
>>Physician, heal thyself.
>>
>
>
> Hey GMAB, you'll never get the last word with this guy. My strategy now
> is to never have the first word with him.

LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

> Tim

Welcome to the club Tim.

[Lionel]

Bruce J. Richman wrote:
> Sockpuppet "give me a break" wrote:
>
>
>>In article >,
>> (Bruce J. Richman) writes:
>>
>>>Give me a break wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article >,
>>>> (Bruce J. Richman) writes:
>>>>
>>>>>Tim Brown wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>rec.audio.tech has more intellegent life than here.
>>>>>
>>>>>TB
>>>>>-----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>Contrary to the false claim made by Brown, the last sentence of his
>>>>
>>>>response
>>>>
>>>>>indicates his lack of respect for the intelligence of the posters on
>>>>>rec.audio.opinion. It is also totally unrelated to audio in any way.
>>>>>Obviously, he has no evidence to back up his personal attacks re. the
>>>>>intelligence of RAO posters. And by trying to pretend he wasn't leveling
>>
>>a
>>
>>>>>personal insult at the members of RAO, he simply illustrates the type of
>>>>>fraudulent behavior that he and Krueger are known for.
>>>>
>>>>So a post that is 99% audio is a personal attack? And where does he
>>>>mention any "person"? I would think a personal attack would have to
>>>>either mention a specific person or persons, or followup a person's
>>>>post?
>>>>
>>>>You are really reaching here and only displaying your own paranoia.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Thanks fror demonstrating that you support and engage in personal attacks.
>>
>>The
>>
>>>last line of a post - and in fact, the only one that Brown even posted in
>>
>>his
>>
>>>latest personal attack - is often one that readers remember. This
>>
>>phenomenon
>>
>>>is covered under a perceptual rule known as the Law of Recency. Claiming
>>
>>that
>>
>>>there is less intelligent life in RAO than in another news group is an
>>
>>attack
>>
>>>similar to those that Brown's role model, Krueger, is known for.
>>
>>But I ask again, where did he mention any person in this group? He
>>alluded to some people,
>
>
> He impugned the intelligence of a large group of regular posters, similar to a
> tactic employed by others whom he often joins in smear individuals - e. Krueger
> &
> Ferstler.
>
>
>
> but no specific person was mentioned. How can
>
>>it be a personal attack if he did not mention one specific person?
>>You really have a strange definition of "personal attack".
>
>
> Actually, much less strange than your transparent attempt to engage in labeling
> people as paranoid with no evidence to suuprot your ridiculous satement. In
> point of fact, your pathetic attempts to defame me are contradicted by massive
> Google evidence in which Brown & Krueger's personal attacks against me and
> others are documented.
>
>
>
> And why
>
>>bring Krueger into this discussion? Can you not ever make a post
>>without bringing him up?
>
>
> Another false inference you've drawn. In a very recent post, Krueger joined
> Brown in a personal attack directly against me - in this same thread. It is in
> the Google record. Why are you so determined to defend these 2 flamers by
> making false claims about me?
>
> Why the fixation on him?
>
> Can't you tell the truth about your obvious suipport for Brown & Krueger?
> Making silly statements about "fixations" with no evidence to back them up just
> exposes you as having no credibility.
>
> And how dare he
>
>>think there might be more intellegent life on another news group. But
>>then again, he did not actaully say there was no intellegent life
>>here, just more elsewhere.
>
>
> Which was is way of smearing the group in general. And like you, he makes
> statements without any facts to back them up.
>
>
> Sounds like paranoia on your part again,
>
>>becuase I didn't see your name mentioned. Why the need to take it so
>>personal on your part?
>>
>
>
> Has your fixation with "paranoia" as evidenced by your lying about it been a
> frequent tacting you've used to insult others, or am I fhe first you've
> attempted to smear in this way? Don't bother to answer. You simiply don't
> know what you're talking about when you throw around terms like this.
>
>
>
>>Your use of the term "paranoia" simply illustrates your ignorance and
>>
>>>desperation to smear others that actually know what terms like this mean.
>>
>>So how better to demonstrate paranoia than to assume it was you he was
>>speaking of when your name was not mentioned? Please explain oh master
>>psychologist and inveterate libeler.
>>
>
>
> You are a chronic pathological liar, apparently, who likes to make meaningless
> statements about others. Where's the evidence to support your self-serving
> hokum?

One more "chronic pathological liar" to Richman's score.
The good doctor will be soon published to the "Guiness world records".

Do you want to share a little "Folie à deux" with me Sir.
It's a kind of waltz with Bruce J. Richman between you and me... :-D


>
> For all we know, you could well be just another delusional sockpuppet created
> by one of the few people that would be stupid enough to support your idiotic
> statements - such as the two already mentioned.
>
> Your flaming away in this thread helps to destroy your credibility. And your
> choice of people to defend is also quite helpful in that regard. You're a
> fool.

LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!

[Bruce J. Richman]

Tim Brown wrote:


>Give me a break wrote in :
>
>>
>> In article >,
>> Paranoid Bruce J. Richman writes: (if you can do it, I can too)
>>> Another false inference you've drawn. In a very recent post, Krueger
>>> joined Brown in a personal attack directly against me - in this same
>>> thread. It is in the Google record.
>
>> I think it would be quite interesting to see how many of your posts
>> mention him. Would the fact that many if not most of your posts
>> mention him indicate a fixation?
>
>Richman's rant above is pure fantasy. Both Krueger and I posted about
>audio in this thread, then Richman barged in with the flamethrowers.
>

Brown's blatant lies above are typical of his chronic inability to tell the
truth. He deliberately disparaged the intelligence of the posters of RAO, most
of whom consider him and Krueger to be habitual hatemongers and purveyors of
unprovoked attacks on others.


>>> Your flaming away in this thread helps to destroy your credibility.
>>> And your choice of people to defend is also quite helpful in that
>>> regard. You're a fool.
>>
>> This wouldn't be so damn ironic if everything you wrote above didn't
>> apply to everything you yourself have written above.
>>
>> Physician, heal thyself.
>>
>
>Hey GMAB, you'll never get the last word with this guy. My strategy now
>is to never have the first word with him.
>
>Tim
>
>

Brown's pathetic attempts to deceive the public are laughable. He brags about
killfiling people, yet constantly, in his own paranoid and deluded fashion,
scours RAO to find new opportunities to attack what they say. Sociopathic
liars like Brown inhabit RAO solely to attack those who don't share their
views.






--
>
>"The strongest human instinct is to impart information,
>and the second strongest is to resist it."
>
>Kenneth Graham
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


Bruce J. Richman