Arny Krueger wrote:


"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
.net

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

George M. Middius wrote:

Clyde Slick said:

Mr. Bath said he was banned for comments about the moderators.

Which is contrary to the posted RAHE guidelines.

I assume they were critical.

They were on RAO. Where were you when they were posted?

Let's hope that the moderators
don't consider themselves immune to criticism.

Let the facts stand for themselves.

Now, if it were for repeated fallacious and defamatory comments,
that is another story.

Then they should ban Richman for his repeated and fallacious and defamatory
comments about me on RAO. After all, I got banned for what I said on RAO,
why shouldn't he?



The above statement is more of Krueger's standard repetititve bull****. If
Krueger's lies are to be believed, and most rational people know better, than
fhe first person to be banned from RAHE should be McKelvy, who has an almost 7
year proven history of libel and lies about me on RAO).

No doubt what Dr. Bath was referring to were Kruegers's comments about RAHE's
moderators and its criteria for posting and/or moderation, AND NOTHING ELSE.

Krueger is just lying again if he thinks that anybody gets banned from RAHE
because of comments they make about other RAO posters - on RAO. The undeniable
and provable fact is that Krueger has made defamatory and unsubstantiated
negative commenjtes about RAHE and its moderators on RAO.
According to Dr. Bath, that is why he was banned.

AFAIK, no poster other than Krueger has made any similar negative and/or
defamatory comments about RAHE's moderators or their policieis - on RAO -
except Krueger.


I don't know what Arny said, so I withhold my judgement.

Ignorance of recent history noted.

Do you really think Krooger made a well-founded criticism?

My comments were factual.

I think the straw that broke the camel's back was when the moderators
refused one of my posts because it mentioned DBTs, when so did the OP of the
thread. It became clear to me that the RAHE agenda at the time was to try to
keep an apparent balance between the pro-DBT and anti-DBT posts, despite the
fact that Science and Logic favor the pro-DBT side.

After all the ridiculous accusations he's made against JA, Wheeler,
Bamborough, etc.?

Yes, those guys are all innocent lambs, and butter wouldn't melt in their
mouths.

It was probably just a gratuitous personal slur,
the kind we know all too well on RAO.

Not even funny, given who the author of this crap is. Speaks to the
*Normals* lack of self awareness, for sure.

I can tell you from personal experience on RAHE, that Krueger's
attempts to
smear those that don't agree with his views was carried over there.

If this happened, it would be contrary to the RAHE posting guidelines. IOW
its author just criticized the RAHE moderators for not following their
posting guidelines, just like I did. Chances that the author will be banned
from RAHE is in my estimate, zero. After all, he represents the sacred
anti-DBT viewpoint.

Yeah yeah, like you told us that bull**** about the moderators
discussing why AK was banned.

Sure, but false claims become true when they are posted by one of the
self-appointed *Normals*.

Snip of usual Richman revisonist history.

Of course. In Richman revisionist history, the *Normals* are all innocent
lambs, and butter wouldn't melt in their mouths. And, if you believe that,
I've got a copy of the Stereophile Recommended Components List for you to
base your buying decisions on. ;-)



Anybody that wants to get a clear idea of Krueger's history on RAO can, for
openers, read a thread entitled "Have You Had A Bad Krueger Experience"
initiated by Ed Shain in 1999. Part of that thread makes specific reference to
Krueger's long known and documented opposition to moderation of audio news
groups, for obvious reasons. Around the time of that thread there were efforts
being made by several of RAO's posters, including people from both the
objectivist and subjectivist side to try and form a moderated version of RAO
which would be called RAMod. Krueger was one of the few people that
vigorously opposed it, accusing those involved of planning to have a moderation
team that would be "controlled" by people that opposed his views. THAT'S THE
HISTORY. Krueger can claim others now trying to revise it, but the Google
record documents these events.

When Krueger tries to cover his tracks by talking about myself or others
revsing history, he's just projecting his own documented Google behavior, and
lying, of course.


Bruce J. Richman