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

Michael McKelvy wrote:

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

Michael McKelvy wrote:

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

Michael McKelvy wrote:

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

Michael McKelvy wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
oups.com

What's really laughable about Krueger's baseless claims
of
prejudice
by the moderators is the well-known fact tha RAHE is by
and
large
one
of the few discussion groups on Usenet where proponents
of
Krueger's
dogma are often found - e.g. Pinkerton, Chung, Sullivan,
etc.

None of them happen to be the guy who built the first ABX
comparator or
did the first ABX test. None of them are the proprietor of
the
PCABX web
site. I've got a far stronger background in DBTs than just
about
anybody
who posts on Usenet these days. In essence, the guys who
remain
are
my
disciples.

Krueger would have a very hard time explaining why they
are
allowed
to post on RAHE freely while he has been banned.

It's easy, I'm by far the stronger advocate of DBTs. Check
our
respective
track records. Many of my posts have driven some of the
golden
ears
over
there like Harry Lavo absolutely nuts, based on their
posts
that
somehow
made it through moderation.

Obviously, it has
nothing to do with his beliefs, and everything to do with
his
antisocial behavior direted towards the moderators on
RAHE.

Richman arrogantly and stupidly contradicts recent
statements
by
a
RAHE
moderator that it was my criticism of the moderators as
posted
on
RAO that
got me banned:

David E. Bath" wrote in message


"He was banned for his comments on RAO about the
moderators,
nothing
more."

Since Richman responded to a post that quoted this
information,
he
can't
plead ignorance. His false claim about the facts of this
matter
can't be
blamed on ignorance. This is absolute proof that Richman
is a
liar.


A public thank you from me to Dr. Bath as he was responding
to
an
inquiry
from me on this subject. Having read some comments that did
not
make
sense
about moderators discussing the nature of posts that were
declined
by
you, I
did the unthinkable, I asked.

As we now know, such discussions do not happen and those who
claim
to
have
had them are being less than truthful.


IOW, he's lied about their moderating practices and got
caught.

In fact my comments were factual, and documented.
But,.we've
caught

Richman lying about moderator statements right here and
now.
If
irony
killed, Richman would be more than just brain dead.





There is no evidence presented by anybody, including Dr. Bath
or
any
other moderator, that discusssions have not taken place
between
posters
and Dr. Bath about posts that have been rejected. I have
personally
had discussions via email with Dr. Bath about posts of mine
that
have
been rejected. On at least one occasion in which I objected
to
a
post
of mine - made in response to a personal attack by Krueger on
RAHE
-
being reejected and sent back by me for revision, I was told
by
Dr.
Bath that he had rejected posts that were much worse than
mine
from
Krueger.

On this point I concede.



Thank you. I have no reason to make something like this up, and
my
account of my correspondence with Dr. Bath above is accurate.



I suppose he said that by way of consolation to me.

Therefore, the claim made above by McKelvy represents his
opinion
only,
and is not based on any actual evidence.

It was mistaken interpretation, my mistake.


Agreed.


Since Krueger has a highly documented history on RAO of lying
about
the
actions of many other people, as does McKelvy, statements
such
as
those
above by these 2 proven liars are self-serving, misleading
and
not
worth the serious consideration of any person who bases their
conclusions on facts rather than fiction.

Not true. I know I correct the record when I know I'm wrong
and
I've
seen
Arny do the same.

I have yet to see that happen, but do not claim to have seen
every
post
written by either one of them. Both of you have made statements
about
me that can easily be proven to be wrong, and in many cases,
that
has
already been done. Admissions of error in these cases by
Krueger
in
respect to myself have never been made AFAIK.

We've both said things about you that are true and you deny them.
Anything you think that has been proven is AFAIK not been any more
than
hearsay.


That is not true.


It is true, and you won't accept that what you've claimed as proof
doesn't
prove that the person posting as Bruce Richman IS Bruce Richman. Get
it
through your head, I'm not saying conclusively you're not, only that
conclusive proof has not been offered.


You can deny that conclusive evidence is been provided over and over
again from Leslie Van Vreeland, others who have checked with the
appropriate authorities, etc. I'm not going to waste my time trying to
argue with a person such as yourself that has deliberately ignored aqnd
denied concrete evidence for almost 7 years and then proceded to lie
about my identiy.


In the end it would more scary if it were true, than if it were not.


The only thing scary is that people like you are so stupid that they
actually think that a licensed psychologist would allow himself to be
impersonated by a non-licensed person or somebody with a different
identiy and then be subject to criminal prosecution for breaking the
law. If you believe that, then your credibility is zero, and your
statements about me are, as we all know, worthless.

It's scary that you might be as ****ed up in real life as you are here.

For all your constant complaining about my alleged lies, you have not
shown
one single instance where I have actually said something about you
that I
KNEW was untrue. I may have made incorrect assumptions or formed
invalid
conclusions, but none of those are lies.

YOU were the one that undertook your latest little game by making a
proposal based on a totally unsolicited (by me) attempt to either (a)
disprove my statements by calling my telephone number, or (b) getting
me to agree to a proposal upon which you could easily welch or cheat
after the fact.

For what reason? The goal was confirmation.

If you want to end this nonsenwe once and for all, you can accept my
proposal as follows:

(1) We will mutually agree on a time you can call the telephone number
you have.

(2) It will be answered by my telephone machine in my voice.

How would I know what your voice sounds like?

The
message is fairly standard and basically says "This is Dr. Bruce
Richman, I'm unable to answer the telephone right name, so at th sound
of the tone, please leave your name, time of your call, and as long a
message as you would like".

(3) At that point you can simply say whatever you want. If you want to
put in the last 4 digits of the number from which you called - or
anything else for that matter - I will get the message.

(4) I will then simply report what happened WITHOUT ANY MODIFICATIONS
on RAO.

Sure, like you simply reprot what people say about you on RAO, I don't think
so.

The time of your call (if you indicate the time), your name,
and the 4 digits (or any other message) you leave.

(5) After that, I expect you, as you have claimed you will do, to cease
and desist from making further false statements about my identity, my
profeswional activities or background, etc. (You've actually claimed
you won't mention my name at all, so therefore I expect that claim to
be honored).

I reserve the right to call you on despicable behavior like your attack in
the Julian Hirsch thread. I don't give a **** who you are or what beef you
beleive you have, that was beyond the pale, pointless and asinine.

Since both voices - yours and mine - will be on tape - there will be a
record of what was said by both parties. I also have no objection to
your taping your telephone call from your end.

That is a fair and objective proposal, and guards against cheating by
either party.

Since you claim you don't trust me, and I certainly have no reason to
trust you - and many not to - you can check Google and note that I've
had a prior telephone conjversation with Gene Steinberg - and not just
an answering machine either. Following that conversation, both he and
I made a few comments on RAO, and that was the end of it. As most RAO
posters that have been here for a while know, Gene Steinberg was
certainly as virulently anti-subjecitivists as any poster on RAO. And
he and I had certainly got at it on RAO. After our conversation,AFAIK,
he never a negative word about my identity or activities again.

He's just one of the people you've made ad hominem attacks against.

How about this, I just stop challenging you on your credentials and you stop
acting like your constant attacks and lies about people you don't agree with
are justified?

I told long ago that if JJ was convinced of who you are, that was good
enough for me.

Why not just stop jerking people's chains and act like a responsible human
and not someone who has noting better to do than create and/or fuel endless
flame fests?

Why not just admit that the flaming is pointless and be big enough to not
participate in it. Try criticizing the ideas and not the person.

You were all hot to trot on the idea of RAM but you don't seem to show any
inclination toward being part of the solution here, you are part of the
problem, a big part of the problem.

Frankly what you do in private life is of no consequence here, unless it has
to with audio.