Note that in his desperation to promote his paranoid propaganda, Krueger has
stooped to mention my name in the title of a thread involving his ridiculous
assertion that my failure to condemn Mr. Borg's post about him amounts to
approval.

Note further that Krueger has failed to list the numerous other individuals
that have also failed to commnt on Mr. Borg's post about him.

Finally, it is quite clear that despite repetitious, droning cut-and-paste
exercises concerning my lack of condemnation, Krueger has failed to establish
that there is any causal connection between failure to condemn Mr. Borg's post
about him and approval of that post.



Bruce J. Richman

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
Note that in his desperation to promote his paranoid propaganda, Krueger
has
stooped to mention my name in the title of a thread involving his
ridiculous
assertion that my failure to condemn Mr. Borg's post about him amounts to
approval.


Then you'll condemn it?

Note further that Krueger has failed to list the numerous other
individuals
that have also failed to commnt on Mr. Borg's post about him.

Speaking of repeating things ad nauseum, how many times are you going to
keep repeating the above?

Finally, it is quite clear that despite repetitious, droning cut-and-paste
exercises concerning my lack of condemnation, Krueger has failed to
establish
that there is any causal connection between failure to condemn Mr. Borg's
post
about him and approval of that post.

Then you condemn it?

Bruce J. Richman

Michael McKelvy predictably tries to defend Krueger as follows:



"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
Note that in his desperation to promote his paranoid propaganda, Krueger
has
stooped to mention my name in the title of a thread involving his
ridiculous
assertion that my failure to condemn Mr. Borg's post about him amounts to
approval.


Then you'll condemn it?

Note further that Krueger has failed to list the numerous other
individuals
that have also failed to commnt on Mr. Borg's post about him.

Speaking of repeating things ad nauseum, how many times are you going to
keep repeating the above?

Finally, it is quite clear that despite repetitious, droning cut-and-paste
exercises concerning my lack of condemnation, Krueger has failed to
establish
that there is any causal connection between failure to condemn Mr. Borg's
post
about him and approval of that post.

Then you condemn it?

Bruce J. Richman













Rather than respond to McKelvy's lame attempts to get additional smear mileage
from his hero's posts, let's just point out the following. There is no
evidence on RAO that I've seen that McKelvy has ever condemned the numerous
unprovoked personal attacks made upon others by his, hero and role model,
Krueger. Quite to the contary, he has a documented history of piiling on
frequently, parroting the same insults, and generally supporting them without
question.

He is currently involved in a repetitive smear campaign against me in another
thread in which he repeats the same psychotic, assinine, and idiotic
fabrications incessantly and I have every expectation that he will continue to
do so.

Therefore, his hypocrisy is extremely well established.


Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
Michael McKelvy predictably tries to defend Krueger as follows:



"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
Note that in his desperation to promote his paranoid propaganda,
Krueger
has
stooped to mention my name in the title of a thread involving his
ridiculous
assertion that my failure to condemn Mr. Borg's post about him amounts
to
approval.


Then you'll condemn it?

Note further that Krueger has failed to list the numerous other
individuals
that have also failed to commnt on Mr. Borg's post about him.

Speaking of repeating things ad nauseum, how many times are you going to
keep repeating the above?

Finally, it is quite clear that despite repetitious, droning
cut-and-paste
exercises concerning my lack of condemnation, Krueger has failed to
establish
that there is any causal connection between failure to condemn Mr.
Borg's
post
about him and approval of that post.

Then you condemn it?

Bruce J. Richman













Rather than respond to McKelvy's lame attempts to get additional smear
mileage
from his hero's posts, let's just point out the following. There is no
evidence on RAO that I've seen that McKelvy has ever condemned the
numerous
unprovoked personal attacks made upon others by his, hero and role model,
Krueger.

I've called him on some things I felt were undeserved. It's just that the
unprovoked ones happen so rarely.

Quite to the contary, he has a documented history of piiling on
frequently, parroting the same insults, and generally supporting them
without
question.

That sounds very much like your M.O. again. Endless repition of the same
evasions, half truths and lies.


He is currently involved in a repetitive smear campaign against me in
another
thread in which he repeats the same psychotic, assinine, and idiotic
fabrications incessantly and I have every expectation that he will
continue to
do so.

See Above.

Therefore, his hypocrisy is extremely well established.

Why am I not surpised you lack the balls to condemn JBORG's crap?




Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist

Michael McKelvy wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
Michael McKelvy predictably tries to defend Krueger as follows:



"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
Note that in his desperation to promote his paranoid propaganda,
Krueger
has
stooped to mention my name in the title of a thread involving his
ridiculous
assertion that my failure to condemn Mr. Borg's post about him amounts
to
approval.


Then you'll condemn it?

Note further that Krueger has failed to list the numerous other
individuals
that have also failed to commnt on Mr. Borg's post about him.

Speaking of repeating things ad nauseum, how many times are you going to
keep repeating the above?

Finally, it is quite clear that despite repetitious, droning
cut-and-paste
exercises concerning my lack of condemnation, Krueger has failed to
establish
that there is any causal connection between failure to condemn Mr.
Borg's
post
about him and approval of that post.

Then you condemn it?

Bruce J. Richman













Rather than respond to McKelvy's lame attempts to get additional smear
mileage
from his hero's posts, let's just point out the following. There is no
evidence on RAO that I've seen that McKelvy has ever condemned the
numerous
unprovoked personal attacks made upon others by his, hero and role model,
Krueger.

I've called him on some things I felt were undeserved. It's just that the
unprovoked ones happen so rarely.


Prove it. Prove they are unprovoked, liar.
Cite evidence of any documented criticism of your hero's numerous attacks on
many specifid RAO readers.


Quite to the contary, he has a documented history of piiling on
frequently, parroting the same insults, and generally supporting them
without
question.

That sounds very much like your M.O. again. Endless repition of the same
evasions, half truths and lies.


IKYBWAI duly noted. Failure to accept responsibility for constant, repetrtive
support of Krueger's personal attacfks on others duly noted.




He is currently involved in a repetitive smear campaign against me in
another
thread in which he repeats the same psychotic, assinine, and idiotic
fabrications incessantly and I have every expectation that he will
continue to
do so.

See Above.


See the thread in which he responds much like a conditioned rat in a Skinner
box. He just can't help himself.

Therefore, his hypocrisy is extremely well established.

Why am I not surpised you lack the balls to condemn JBORG's crap?




Because you are psychotic, and make things up that the voices in your head
command you to lie about?




Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist




Stay tuned for more repetitive nonsense from McKelvy. His lies just keep goin'
on and on.



Bruce J. Richman

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
Michael McKelvy wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
Michael McKelvy predictably tries to defend Krueger as follows:



"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
Note that in his desperation to promote his paranoid propaganda,
Krueger
has
stooped to mention my name in the title of a thread involving his
ridiculous
assertion that my failure to condemn Mr. Borg's post about him
amounts
to
approval.


Then you'll condemn it?

Note further that Krueger has failed to list the numerous other
individuals
that have also failed to commnt on Mr. Borg's post about him.

Speaking of repeating things ad nauseum, how many times are you going
to
keep repeating the above?

Finally, it is quite clear that despite repetitious, droning
cut-and-paste
exercises concerning my lack of condemnation, Krueger has failed to
establish
that there is any causal connection between failure to condemn Mr.
Borg's
post
about him and approval of that post.

Then you condemn it?

Bruce J. Richman





Rather than respond to McKelvy's lame attempts to get additional smear
mileage

Liar. I'm just trying to get you to acknowledge that JBORG's comments were
deplorable. Instead you weasle away and try to turn around on me. Classic.


from his hero's posts, let's just point out the following. There is no
evidence on RAO that I've seen that McKelvy has ever condemned the
numerous
unprovoked personal attacks made upon others by his, hero and role
model,
Krueger.

I've called him on some things I felt were undeserved. It's just that
the
unprovoked ones happen so rarely.


Prove it. Prove they are unprovoked, liar.
Cite evidence of any documented criticism of your hero's numerous attacks
on
many specifid RAO readers.

What would be the point, everything I say, you claim is a lie.


Quite to the contary, he has a documented history of piiling on
frequently, parroting the same insults, and generally supporting them
without
question.

That sounds very much like your M.O. again. Endless repition of the same
evasions, half truths and lies.


IKYBWAI duly noted. Failure to accept responsibility for constant,
repetrtive
support of Krueger's personal attacfks on others duly noted.

IKYBWAI's are bad even when they are true?

What about your constan personal attacks on him?


He is currently involved in a repetitive smear campaign against me in
another
thread in which he repeats the same psychotic, assinine, and idiotic
fabrications incessantly and I have every expectation that he will
continue to
do so.

You act like fool and get treated like one.


See Above.


See the thread in which he responds much like a conditioned rat in a
Skinner
box. He just can't help himself.

Therefore, his hypocrisy is extremely well established.

As is yours.

Why am I not surpised you lack the balls to condemn JBORG's crap?




Because you are psychotic, and make things up that the voices in your head
command you to lie about?




I'm sure it's more likely that you are a coward.

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message


Michael McKelvy predictably tries to defend Krueger as follows:

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

Note that in his desperation to promote his paranoid propaganda,
Krueger has stooped to mention my name in the title of a thread
involving his ridiculous
assertion that my failure to condemn Mr. Borg's post about him
amounts to approval.

Then you'll condemn it?

What a spectacle!

Richman again refuses to condemn JBorg's reprehensible rantings.

Instead, Richman tries to deceptively distract us from his malfeasance by
attacking a person who has stood up voluntarily and asked him to do the
right thing.

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message


Michael McKelvy predictably tries to defend Krueger as follows:

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

Note that in his desperation to promote his paranoid propaganda,
Krueger has stooped to mention my name in the title of a thread
involving his ridiculous
assertion that my failure to condemn Mr. Borg's post about him
amounts to approval.

Then you'll condemn it?

What a spectacle!

Richman again refuses to condemn JBorg's reprehensible rantings.

Instead, Richman tries to deceptively distract us from his malfeasance by
attacking a person who has stood up voluntarily and asked him to do the
right thing.













Krueger has a documented Google hiwtory of failing to condemn numerous
unprovooked personal attacks upon me by Michael McKelvy. As he hypocritically
complains, he has been notably silent while McKelvy has coninued to manufacture
idiotic fabrications about my identity, professional activities and
credentials.

Therefore, his self-serving complaint above is explicitly and obviouslly
hypocritical.


Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message


Michael McKelvy predictably tries to defend Krueger as follows:

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

Note that in his desperation to promote his paranoid propaganda,
Krueger has stooped to mention my name in the title of a thread
involving his ridiculous
assertion that my failure to condemn Mr. Borg's post about him
amounts to approval.

Then you'll condemn it?

What a spectacle!

Richman again refuses to condemn JBorg's reprehensible rantings.

Instead, Richman tries to deceptively distract us from his malfeasance by
attacking a person who has stood up voluntarily and asked him to do the
right thing.













Krueger has a documented Google hiwtory of failing to condemn numerous
unprovooked personal attacks upon me by Michael McKelvy. As he
hypocritically
complains, he has been notably silent while McKelvy has coninued to
manufacture
idiotic fabrications about my identity, professional activities and
credentials.

You have no credentials, you are a sockpuppet.

Therefore, his self-serving complaint above is explicitly and obviouslly
hypocritical.


Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message


Michael McKelvy predictably tries to defend Krueger as follows:

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

Note that in his desperation to promote his paranoid propaganda,
Krueger has stooped to mention my name in the title of a thread
involving his ridiculous
assertion that my failure to condemn Mr. Borg's post about him
amounts to approval.

Then you'll condemn it?

What a spectacle!

Richman again refuses to condemn JBorg's reprehensible rantings.

Instead, Richman tries to deceptively distract us from his malfeasance by
attacking a person who has stood up voluntarily and asked him to do the
right thing.













Krueger has a documented Google hiwtory of failing to condemn numerous
unprovooked personal attacks upon me by Michael McKelvy. As he
hypocritically
complains, he has been notably silent while McKelvy has coninued to
manufacture
idiotic fabrications about my identity, professional activities and
credentials.

Therefore, his self-serving complaint above is explicitly and obviouslly
hypocritical.


Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist

Then you won't condemn it?

OK, more proof you're a ****.