Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
Lionel wrote:



Bruce J. Richman a écrit :

Lionel wrote:




Bruce J. Richman a écrit :


Lionel wrote:





Bruce J. Richman a écrit :



George M. Middius wrote:






Clyde Slick said:





I think Mikey has no choice but to quietly
ride off into the sunset. Eventually, we
will see that happen.

That will never happen by choice. There's a disconnect here between

what

a


sane person would feel in Mikey's position and what Mikey actually does
feel. He doesn't feel humiliated, embarassed, or ashamed. A sane person
probably would feel one or all of those. The evidence has revealed
deliberate falsehoods and a lame coverup, both serving a master plan of
character assassination. But Mikey doesn't see anything wrong with his
behavior. This behavior *is* his norm. In fact, the continuing barrage

of

argumentation, rebuttals, and insults serves his needs wonderfully --

all

he needs is to be noticed.

Deep down, even Mikey knows he's nothing but a skid mark on the

underpants


of life.

On the other hand we are nearly sure that McKelvy would have the
"courage" to discuss and to debate his behaviour in his non-usenet
life... For my part I highly doubt that "George M. Middius" is able of
the same "easiness" and vehemence in his (her ?) real life than on

Usenet.



There are a couple of points of clarification, Lionel :

(1) The post to which you responded above was not written by me, but by

George


M. Middius and Art Sackman.

No need to be clarify



(2) McKelvy has been encouraged to submit his complaints about somebody
impersonating a psychologist to the legal authorities in Florida, since

public


impersonation of a licensed psychologist is a crime in the US. He's also

been


encouraged to publish his libelous false statements about me in an

American

print publication. If he does either one of these things, he'll

definitely

get


a chance to debate and discuss his delusional, libelous views in public
.......... in a courtroom. So far, he has not exhibited the courage to

do

so.

This wasn't really my point but...

I have already told you that, IMHO the way you use to pour out your
professional "opinions" on a public NG doesn't honor you nor your
profession and, still IMHO, this strangely make me think to the
character assassination you pretend to denounce in McKelvy behaviour.

IMHO this is incompatible with the deontology, the professional ethic.

I don't pretend to be original, I am not the first one to tell you that
on this forum, just the first "hamas lover". )



Bruce J. Richman


You're wrong, of course,



Because I happen to be a psychologist, that does not
mean that I can't express my opinions about the behavior of others here,

just

like everybody else does.

True but IMHO you shouldn't be so generous with the "professional
details" that you use to give more *credibility* to your opinions.


Quoting specific valse information that Mcakelvy and/or Krueger have posted,
and citing examples of what appears to be a false belief system based on lack
of evidence re. my identity - is provision of evidence to support my opinion.
just as the current provision of evidence about McKelvy's lying about telephone
numbers and sockpuppets by several other posters as provision of evidence. I
have made it perfectly clear that my comments are based solely on their online
behavior.

This

lack of *technical* reserve is, IMHO unethical.


Professional regulartory boards designed to rule on this issue disagree with
you.

In USA perhaps, but you could be surprised by a french court decision !

This is just one of many reaons why McKelvy's bull**** about ethical
lapses has never been reported to the appropriate legal authorities.

I am nearly sure that here in France some of your opponents would have
the matter to build a receivable file with your past posts on RAO.

It is,
however, unethical and - in a US civil court, at least - illegal to
deliberately commit libel by making knowingly false statements about a person's
professional identity, vocational activities, and credentials.

McKelvy's errancies have nothing to do with the subject we are discussing.
Why don't you sue him ? A good action in law to shake up RAO monotony.
This is the kind of series that George M. Middius and me we prefer. ;-)


Anyway I don't want to discuss that now since this you have already
debated the subject here so many time, with people really more qualified
and intelligent than me.


Despite numerous false claims by Krueger and Mckelvy
that I've attempted to diagnose their abnormal behavior on RAO, there is no
evidence to support that lie.

*I* grant the right to Krueger (or any other professional audio) to make
a diagnostic of you audio system on this forum.


Krueger is not an audio professional. And just as psychologists don't make
diagnoses without first making a face-to-face evaluation, I don't know of any
audio professional that would "diagnose" a person's audio system wtihout
listening it to it first.

I just wanted to point out that the consequenses aren't the same.


I cannot grant *you* the right to speak about his relation of "Folie à
deux" with McKelvy with full detail, documentation and bibliographic
references... and the "Licenced Psychologist" signature.



The bibliographic citations re. Folie a deux are presented so that individual
readers can make up their own minds as to whether McKelvy and Krueger present
similar abnormal online behavior patterns. In my opinion, they do.

My use of the title "Licensed Psychologist" is not inappropriate since I've
earned that title. I find it interesting that you make no negative comments
about, for example, Stewart Pinkerton, using his occupation as an engineer in
his signature, or for that matter, Ferstler's neverending boasting about his
audio publications in an effort to legitimize their opinions.


OTOH, I find *VERY* interesting that you use the above argument on this
*audio* NG.

[snip]