Bruce J. Richman wrote:

He obviously decided to use this thread as an oppoirtunity
to practice his most frequent activity on RAO - character
assassination of others.

Character assasination, character assasination, character assasination.
Notice how repetetive Richman's posts are?


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.

Notice that Richman takes his out-of-context butchering of my posts to such
an extreme that he cannot allow a simple sentence to be presented in its
entirely.

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.

A butchered paraphrase, and disproof by means of assertion.

Just another example of Krueger's ongoing paranoia and
tendency to make things up.

What, Richman's tendency to butcher what others write, or his reliance on
disproof or proof by means of assertion?

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.

Richman, you must be privy to facts in this lawsuit that I'm not aware of.
I know of no proof that S888wheel and any particualar legal entity are one
in the same person. I'm under the impression that Mr. Wheeler concealed
the fact that the posts I made that he takes exception to were posted by an
unknown alias with a made-up name that has no legal signfiicance (not a
legally-registered alias, etc.)

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?

If you have legal proof that S888wheel is some certain person, that is proof
that would stand up in court, please present it. If you can't present it,
then Bruce you are as ignorant as I am in this matter.

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.

Prove that I've said that Mr. Wheeler is surely a sockpuppet.

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.

Prove it.

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.

Prove it Bruce, and not by your accustomed means of double-talk and proof by
assertion.


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.


Which neither proves nor disproves that I know who in fact he is.

It had no mention of your name and certainly had nothing to do with a
personal
attack against you.

You don't seem to know what you are talking about Bruce because your
description of this purported event is very sketchy and presented without an
referereces.


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.

Claims of mind-reading noted.

I have no need to be omniscient, nor can
you provide any evidence that your false claim above has any
substance whatsoever.

Bruce's apparent ignorant believe that all-controlling is the same the same
as "omniscient" noted.

And as others on RAO have noted, you rarely, if
ever, admit to making errors.

I've made many 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.

Prove that I'm RAOs most widely dispised poster, Bruce. Proof by assertion
is not acceptable.