"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
ups.com...

Paul Dormer wrote:
"Bruce J. Richman" emitted :

When McKelvy claimed, after 7 years, that he would shut his lying,
libelous mouth and never mention my name again or respond to my
posts
if I agreed to his pathetic attempts to harass me via telephone and
give him some information, just about all of those with at least
half a
brain saw through his scam. Obviously, there was (and is) no reason
to
trust him, given his despicable history. Had I allowed the calls
from
him to go through and then given him the last 4 digits of his cell
phone, he could simply lie about this and claim either that (a) it
never happened, or (b) the numbers that I would then publish
(perhaps)
on RAO were ones that I made up. There is no question in my mind
that
he has had and does not now have any intention of discontinuing his
smear campaigns and libel.

All that said, its' very tempting to expose this lying character
assassin as one who has no intention of honoring proposals that
involve
termination of his compulsive need to attack me whenever he can.
(That's just one of his wide range of psychiatric problems).
Therefore, I've decided to make a counterproposal that will be far
less
likely for him to cheat and sabotage. Just as there is a tape of
Krueger talking to Graham which many of us have heard and know to be
a
reality, despite Krueger's denials, my proposal also involves a
tape.

(1) I will designate a time for McKelvy to call the telephone number
that he claims he has recently called several times.

(2) If he calls that number at the time I specify, he will get an
answering machine with my voice and name announced, with a request
that
he leave a message.

(3) He should then leave his name, telephone number, and mailing
address on the tape.

(4) I agree not to publish this information without his permission.
However, I will announce that i have received the information and
post
it in a way that it can not be identified (omission of numerals and
letters).

(5) In return, McKelvy must publically stipulate on RAO - in the
title
of a thread - that he will refrain from ever mentioning me or my
professional activities again on RAO. (This is no more than he
promised to do in his proposal). Further, he must agree and
stipulate
that my attacks on Krueger or anybody else that attacks me DO NOT
GIVE
HIM ANY EXCUSE TO JUMP IN AND START FLAMING AWAY AS HE HAS DONE
OFTEN
IN THE PAST.

The reason for the tape recorded answering machine response
requirement
is quite simple. Just as a part of Krueger's conversation with
Graham
was posted to RAO (and a much larger, complete portion sent to many
of
us), if McKelvy denies or lies about making this call in the manner
specified, I'll have proof that he's lying. Given his history,
that's
a reasonable approach.
Of course, if he handles this correctly, no information will be
given
out other than that described above.


For those of you who remember Gene Steinberg, after a long period of
nasty exchanges, the two of us spoke on the telephone and aired our
differences. After that, there were no more hostilities. Unlike
McKelvy, both Stewart Pinkerton and Paul Wagner, two former posters
who, like Leslie Van Vreeland, made the mistake of engaging in
personal
attacks thorugh lying about my credentials - had the integrity to
issue
public retractions when they quickly found out that their statements
were both false and libelous because of evidence they obtained.
Another psychologist (industrial, I think) who used to post here,
and
is, I believe an acquaintance of both Nousaine and Krueger, is a man
by
the name of Doug Stabler. As I recall, he lives in Palatine,
Illinois,
or did the last time I corresponded with him. He also knows the
truth.
McKelvy should do no less than issue a public retraction re. his
comments about my identity, professional activities, and
credentials.

Don't hold your breath. I've given "McKelvy" multiple opportunites to
verify his identity.. to date he has shyed away from doing any such
thing; preferring to remain in the shadows.

"McKelvy", call me on +44 7774 598750 and leave a short voice
message,
to confirm that you are a human being capable of operating a
telephone
and speaking. I promise not to broadcast any part of the recording on
the internet..


So now we have 2 individuals, yourself and me, that have made the same
request with specific promises not to reproduce any part of the
recording on the Internet. Actually, if *I* did, McKelvy could then
claim that I had an "ethical lapse" - unlike the phony attack thread
hje started with that title. As most rational people know,
psycholoigsts enjoy the smae "privileged communication" status as
priests, attornies, and physicians. In oirder for me to be able to
reveal any significant information abou what McKelvy might say to an
answering machine, I would have to have a signed "Consent For Relesse
of Information Form" from him.

Bull****, I'd ahve to be a patient of yours for that to be true.

There is poster on RAO, named "Phil", who has posted on both politics
on audio. He and I probably have very little in common politically
since he is admittedly quite conservative in his political views.
However, I know Phil's last name, which he has asked me not to report
on RAO. I have honred that request. In fact, McKelvy can find no
evidence that I've ever revealed any confidential information given to
me about anybody on RAO.

I also can find no evidence that you have any integrity whatsoever.



OTOH, McKelvy originally claimed that a person who requested
confidentiality

He did request it, in the form of a threat. It is also considered good
manners to honor such requests. I kept it confidential for a very long time
until, YOU kept pushing and bringing up old news.

had passed on a bunch of information via email. All
this information was false, but McKelvy posted it without bothering to
verify any of it.

Certaily no worse than the lies you keep telling.

More importantly, he eventually said, and I quote
"**** it", and proceeded to violate the confidentiality he claimed he
had promised to Gindi.

I'm not a shrink, it was not a promise of confidentiality that I gave it was
a response to a threat made by Gindi at the time.

Therefore, I have a lot more reason to distrust
him, then he has to distrust me. If somebody asks me to keep something
confidential I do so - it's part of my daily professional
responsibility.



The only person with anything to lose in my proposal is myself. What harm
could be done to you if I mess it up.

There's always the chance that you could say I never called.