Arny Krueger wrote:


Bruce J. Richman wrote:



Recall, that Bruce brought this issue completely gratuitously, no doubt in
an effort to make trouble for me. It backfired because if anything, I'm a
little proud of being banned from RAHE. It has certainly led me to more
productive audio engagements.


Krueger conveniently negflects to mention - or reproduce - how his initial
unprovoked personal attack upon me in this thread lead to my response. He
obviously decided to use this thread as an oppoirtunity to practice his most
frequent activity on RAO - character assassination of others.



Shall we conclude that your constantly referring to Scott Wheeler as a
sockpuppet is (a) ignorance, or (b) deliberate lies that you feel
compelled to make.

As paranoid as you are Bruce,

A delusional belief that you hold, but not one supported by any evidence that a
rational person (yourself excluded of course) would respect. As usual, Krueger
has engaged in projecting his own paranoia on to others. One can easily recall
his paranoid assertion that those he listed on RAO as "golden-eared" were
probably sockpuppets. Just another example of Krueger's ongoing paranoia and
tendency to make things up.



you obviously think that I am omniscient and
actually know for sure who posts as "S888wheel". I don't.

Then you're either woefully ignorant, since that information has been provided
by Mr. Wheeler and he has communicated via law suit with you, or you're
deliberately lying again. So which is it, Arny? Are you simply ignorant as
you now claim, or lying in an effort to avoid the possible legal consequences
of a libel suit?


I don't know for
sure who "Scott Wheeler" is, either. And as I've long said, I don't know who
"Bruce Richman" is.

You have not let your ignorance prevent you, however, from claiming that Mr.
Wheeler is a sockpuppet, or in times past, that I am anybody other than whom
I've described myself as here. In your little love fests with McKelvy in times
past, you've repeatedly lied about my identity on RAO, despite your actually
not having any evidence that what you've said is at all factual.


I have seen more than enough evidence to know that not
all I see around here is what it seems, taken at face value.


On this point we can agree. Your posts often provide convincing evidence of
how deceptive and misleading a person can be.



Or how about your listing a post containing a
discussion of the music of Daniel Lanois in which I was involved as a
personal attack against you?

I don't know what this sentence means, or do I care what it means. For
example, I don't know for sure who "Daniel Lanois" is.


You listed a series of posts with Google references as evidence of unprovoked
personal attacks you claimed that I had made against you. When I went to check
them out, one of the first on the list was a link to a post in which I was
discussing Daniel Lanois. It had no mention of your name and certainly had
nothing to do with a personal attack against you.



Was that an example of your ignorance or just another one of your
deliberate lies?

Bruce, there's lots of things that I don't know for sure. If you wish to
call that "ignorance", so be it. Unlike you, I find it tolerable to be
ignorant of certain things. I don't have your demonstrated need to be
all-knowing and all-controlling.


That, of course, is a lie. I have no need to be omniscient, nor can you
provide any evidence that your false claim above has any substance whatsoever.
And as others on RAO have noted, you rarely, if ever, admit to making errors.


I'm really not all that interested in the RAO soap opera. I'm in it for the
audio.






If that were true, you would not have become RAO's most widely despised poster
primarily because of your chronic tendency to engage in personal attacks upon
those with whom you disagree about audio matters.







Bruce J. Richman