AudioBanter.com - View Single Post

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.