[[email protected]]

One week ago I said in so many words that Krueger is a liar and a
forger of documents. I quoted evidence of his lies culled from the RAO
and RAHE files.

The usually very voluble Krueger seems to have decided that the
evidence was a hard thing to fight and that the wisest course was to
keep mum and let my posting will slip into the web oblivion. He was
called a liar- he did not respond. He was called a forger - he did not
respond. For a few days there was blessed silence.

But you can't keep Krueger down. Soon he resumed his career of
shouting simplicities at people with more sophisticated audio and
musical sensibilities than his (that does not take much). And as per
usual he trumpets these man-in-the-street prejudices as though they
were the revealed truth. Nor does he forget to sing his "Science is on
my side" anthem or invoke the judgment of the anonymous "hundreds"
who, he says, agree with him.

So, tedious as the task may be, I think it is time for act 2. of
keeping Krueger feet to the fire, while recounting his consistency in
lying and forging He will not and apparently can not change..

He is true to his RAO form in the RAHE
In the "Hatto" thread on Febr. 25th Scott says to him after he
attacked the audio reviewers:
"It is very specific and vigorous attack on a number of music
reviewers' credibility. Sorry to say it but a lack of support for
this
assertion calls your credibility into question at this point..
So I will stand by my assertion that
your allegations are plainly false.".
And patient Jenn explains (same date, same thread):

"Just as you would
probably ask for proof if someone made a statement about some
technical aspect of audio that didn't ring true, some of us would like
for you to back up this statement. It would help us to judge how much
credence to place in your statements".

Now read the incredible but true, (and true to form), Krueger's
"answer":
;
"Its not that I can't back my words up, but that I can't readily
provide the specific kind of back up that you asked for, Scott. This
has a lot to do with resource limitations, such as the fact that I
don't have a searchable archive of every review that I've read or even
a sizeable percentage of them.

Sounds familiar? It gets even better:
Can you think of any examples of good products failing
because of bad reviews?
Yes
Then name them.
Krueger:
"Just because I can think of the instances, doesn't mean that I can
name them on the drop of a hat".

Next Krueger produces his own philosophy of a scientific statement.:

"This is a rather grotesque error in logic. The evidence presented or
lack of evidence is not the same as the truth or falseness of the
matter. True statements are often presented without accompanying
evidence, even when that
evidence is readily available. The absence of evidence is just the
absence
of evidence"

Clear, isn't it? Who cares about evidence anyway once Krueger makes "a
statement"

He mounts the podium and lectures::

"Scott you seem to have confused a lack of willingness to support them
on one occasion in one context with an inability to support them at
any time and in any
context. The poor logic of this sort of thinking is rather obvious,
but I can explain it further to you if you don't understand it."

The writing is orthographically correct. But the belief that anyone
but a moron would take this garbage seriously is moronic. Unless one
is addressing one's kindred spirits, that is. (Offhand I can think of
one, at least).

Want more? See the last few days in the RAO: "Harry caught..." Plenty
for Act3 of "The Krueger's forgeries" if need be.
Ludovic Mirabel