Dave Weil wrote:


On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 06:21:49 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net...

How would you know it was me?


Because the caller id number might
have shown

(805) 499 - 9022, or
(909) 592 - 1925


If I were calling from home it wouldn't showed since it's normally blocked
to keep down telephone solicitors.

Well, there are plenty of people who don't answer blocked phone calls,
reasoning that if someone is concealing their name (which usually is
what's displayed anyway), they aren't someone worth answering. I
suspect that it's especially true for someone who is operating a
"professional/referral" type business like a consulting psychologist.
After all, they probably feel even more strongly about telephone
solicitors, most of whom block their IDs.

BTW, you should get on the national "do not call" list. I did and my
solicitations went from about 10-20 a day to maybe three or four a
week at most.

Frankly, I think this obsession is turning from a source of amusement
to something a bit scary. Obviously, the fact that he is precisely
listed in the Yellow Pages isn't good enough for you. Now you must
CALL the guy? It's already been done, remember?




I think proven liar and stalker McKelvy realizes that his 7 year libel campaign
has been an abject failure, convincing nobody but himself and Krueger of
anything. All it's done is make them look even more foolish and guilty, as
well as motivate all reasonable people to question the validity of anything
they have to say. After all, an individual that would knowingly lie and
fabricate one bizarre statement after another about a person they've never even
met is clearly sociopathic and/or delusional.



Bruce J. Richman