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

Sander deWaal wrote:
"Bruce J. Richman" said:

Both Krueger and Lionel have a vested interest in the perpetuation
of
the lies, insults and delusional self-serving statements that almost
all of RAO's posters associate with their posts. Their Pavlovian
conditioned responses (similar to those of a classically conditioned
dog that salivates at the sound of a bell) are quite convincing
evidence of their lack of interst in lowring the flame level on RAO.

Bruce,

Don't make Lionel the second McKelvy.
Just ignore his posts, or try to respond in a humorous way.

In time, you'll probably have to issue another proposal like the one
you just made to McKelvy, but then to Lionel ...... :-)

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

I don't make proposals to proven antiSemites. McKelvy opened the
door when he made a bogus proposal designed to elicit a response which
he planned to ignore after he received it.

Delusion of mind reading ability, noted.

I made my proposal to call
his bluff. If you notice his response to *my* paroposal, he gave clear
proof that he was once again lying when he made his phony claims about
telephone calls and self-control.

I mde no phony claims.

Also, I don't make Linel anything. He doesn't need any assistance
from me when he can have the "support" of sockpuppets Simple minds
think alike.

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

Michael McKelvy wrote:
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
oups.com...
When McKelvy claimed, after 7 years, that he would shut his lying,
libelous mouth and never mention my name again or respond to my
posts
if I agreed to his pathetic attempts to harass me via telephone and
give him some information, just about all of those with at least
half a
brain saw through his scam.

Incredible that you could see through a non-existent scam. A scam
that did
not involve any actual direct commumication, therefore no real
harrassment.
Apparently, half a brain is all you have.

You're an imbecile, duh-Mikey. Responding to a telephone number tha
you dial in any way *is* communication, you idiot.

But it's not "direct" communication which is what I said.

I know, even if
you're too obtuse to recognize the fact, that it requires
"communication" to even identify telephone numbers you might use in a
telephone call. And of couse, without other evidence, there is no way
of knowing that the call was made you, moron.

It requires you to post the last 4 digits. in order to prove you were able
to recieve the call. It does not require direct communication.

If some 3rd party has the last 4 digits in order to confirm they are the
ones I used, you have independent verification.

Or that it came from
your cell-phone, dimwit.

I won't use my cell phone since that is available through information.

You really are quite naive to think that
anybody would not see through your scam.

There is no scam, so obviously, you invent one.

My prooposal, OTOH, is much
more concrete (although not foolproof) and likely to provide verifiable
information.

I don't trust you not to use my voice in some unauthorised way.

Obviously, there was (and is) no reason to
trust him, given his despicable history.

My history of asking pointed questions that you refuse to answer,
like why
you made an unprovoked personal attack in the Julian Hirsch thread?



Your history of lying about my identity, my professional background,
and my credentials.

Except that I haven't lied about them, I've expressed doubts about them.
IOW opinions.

Your history of lying about attack threads and
many other things involving me.

None of which you seem to be able to prove.

Your history of being disproven on
numerous occasions about your lies about unprovoked peronal attacks. At
the end of this post, juust to refresh your menory, I'll post one of my
prio responses to your "questions". On second thought, let me do it
now:


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to proven libeler and pathological liar McKelvy's continued
repetition of false claims, coupled with a laughable "demand" that I
produce evidence that he has a lengthy history of lying and libeling me
on RAO, I decided to call this cretin's pathetic attempts to dodge
responsibility for his despicable behavior with the following response.

A couple of observations, should be added re. my post of April 9, 2004,
which is reproduced below:

1. In the first example of libel by McKelvy which I cite, he initiated
libel thread with the title "Richman's ethical lapses". It is worth
noting that he does not and CAN NOT list any. So obviously, his sole
purpose was to libel and defame another person.

OSAF

I chose to ignore this
piece of unprovoked garbage which he initiated. As did every other RAO
poster.

2. As of the time of this writing, 4:00 PM EST on 4/10/04, the proven
liar and libeler Mckelvy has failed to respond directly to the post
reproduced below. It is obvious that his latest bluff/bull**** has
been called and he's been exposed for what most on RAO already have
known him to be for a long time - a hatemongering, bitter, delusional
liar and character assassin whose primary purpose in posting on RAO is
to smear others with whatever lies, libelous false claims and libelous
labels of other people his diseased, delusional "mind" (such as it is
in its primitive state) can regurgitate.

3. Proven liar and libeler McKelvy has been challenged to submit his
delusional "complaints" about my professional and ethical behavior
(about which he has admitted he knows nothing - one of the few true
things he has ever said) to the appropriate licensing board in my
state. Of course, he has failed to do so, most likely because he knows
that he's full of it, and will be sued by me after he does so.

4. I could have provided many more examples of McKelvy's compulsive
lies and libels against me, but felt that for now, 2 would be
sufficient. Pending the results of Mr. Wheeler's case, and in
consultation with my attornies, I may elect to pursue legal action
against him and use a quite impressive and lengthy file of false,
libelous claims he has made against me as evidence. No doubt, he will
"help" by continuing to provide further evidence that can be used
against him.

5. I apologize for the lengfh of this post in advance, but in
consideration of McKelvy's obvious compulsive, pathological responses
which almost always consist of further lies and libelous false
statements about me, this response is IMHO, quite appropriate.

6. This response will be the one used in the future to deal with
McKelvy's subsequent sociopathic, delusional, false, and libelous
personal attacks against me.




Mike McKelvy continues to avoid providing proof of his slander:
From: (Bruce J. Richman)

Mike McKelvy wrote:


From: (Bruce J. Richman)


deletion of further lies in which McKelvy tries to avoid
responsibility for
lengthy history of lying and committing slander re. my credentials,
training
and professional activities.

This despicable scumbag, after first admitting he knows nothing about
my
credentials, training and professional activities, then laughingly
trying to
claim his slanderous bull**** was merely opinions, and now attempting
to
deny
all responsibility for his ridiculous lies ? insults the
intelligence of
all
RAO readers.

His requests for "proof" ? like all his imbecilic grunts and
mutterings
concerning me ? are a joke. As is his very RAO existence.

While he continue to deny slandering me, and requesting proof, his
credibility
remains zero (except perhaps, in the eyes of his hero, Krueger).

His false claims re. my professional background are a matter of
Google
record,
and virtually all RAO readers at all familiar with this sociopath's
imbecilic
bull**** re. my background know this to be the case.

Since he's been purveying lies about me, he needs to present the
proof for
all
his nonsense, or stick his head further up the orifice in which it's
obviously
been inserted for so long.




Bruce J. Richman



repetitive bull**** similar to that pruveyed over a 6 year period by
this
pathological liar and proven slanderer deleted

For this pathological liar, all false claims about another person's
training,
credentials, professional experience, etc. ? are only "opinions" ? a
piece of
bull**** nobody other than this lying cretin believes.

Here's just one example of his slander:


http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...thbp0ffk2j625%

This is the message I get when going to the above link.

Sorry, the document you requested is not available. You can visit the main
page.

40corp.supernews.com&rnum=7&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DMcKelvy%2Band%2Blicensing%2
Bboard%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF?8%26sa%3DN%26t ab%3Dwg

Note that this was an attack thread started by McKelvy, in which this
fool,
reproduces the Ethical Code followed by psychologists.

Note the slanderous title of the post.

Note also the question, this proven slanderer asks in the last line
after
quoting the Ethical code.

Needless to say, this pathological liar has no evidence that I have
ever
committed any ethics violations, and in fact his use of the title of
this
thread, to which nobody responded, constitutes slander.

I have directly challenged this despicable cretin and proven liar to
submit any

complaints he has to the Florida State Licensing Board. He has refused
to do
so, because he knows he's been lying about me for 6 years.

This fool, in a conversation with Scott Wheeler commiitted another
blatant lie:


"The person claiming to be B.J. Richman, a Ph.D is a fake as should be
obvious to anybody with more than 2 active neurons."

The reference for this is
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...igk0458h89%40c
orp.supernews.com


And here's what I got for the above.

Sorry, the document you requested is not available. You can visit the main
page.

Now, no doubt, proven liar and slanderer McKelvy will claim he's just
voiced an
opinion, but defamation and libel of a licensed psychologist, whose
identity is

acknowledged and has been proven on RAO to the satisfaction of
virtually all
conscious lifeforms with the exception of McKelvy and Krueger, is *not*
an
opinion.

His lies are a matter of public record, and these 2 examples are just a
few of
many that could be easily obtained from the Google record.

He has also deliberately ignored the following evidence presented on
Google:

"The University of Texas at Austin, has long had one of the most highly
regarded
doctoral programs in Clinical Psychology in the United States (top 10
ranking). Since I had the good fortune to have a very good record in
my
Master's propgram at Clinical Psychology at Boston College,l and
perhaps
becauise I hit the 99th %ile on the Graduate Record Examination (Verbal
Portion) and the 99th %ile examination on the Psychology Acvhievement
section,
I had the rather odd experience of being actively recruited by schools
to which
I applied. (I had always thought this just happened to jocks, but I
was
wrong). One unforgettable day, I got a call from the head of the
Clinical
Psychology program at the University of Texas, a Dr. James Bieri, who
basically
said "We've seen your application, we'd like you to come here, and
we're
prepared to make you a nice offfer". That nice offer, which I
accepted, turned
out to be a NIMH (National Institutes of Mental Health) Traineeship in
Clinical
Psychology, for an unlimited period of time, with no strings attached
other
than that I meet the academic requirements of the program (maintain a B
average).. It took care of all my expenses (tuition, room & board,
books,
etc.) and gave me s small stipend to live on as well. Some of my
classmates
congratulated me on my good fortune (many of them had to accept
teaching
assistantships to help pay their bills, while all I had to do was hit
the
books). The program turned out to be a real meatgrinder (as one of my
classmates put it). It made my undergraduate program at an elite
"small Ivy
League school" (Bowdoin College) and my M.A. program seem like
kindergarten.
Almost everybody in my entering class of about 20 had either a Phi
Beta Kappa key, was published and or came from Ivy League schools or
places
like U. of Chicago, Stanford or Berkeley. Of the 20 who started the
program,
only 5 of us survived and got our doctorates. It took not only a high
degree
of intelligence and perserverance, but also a large ability to deal
with the
stress of knowing that you were in a program with a very high attrition
rate
and some professors, who frankly, until you got to the 2nd year and had
"paid
your dues", didn't give a damn if you survived or not. I'll never
forgot one
of my Statistics professors who used to get up in front of the class
and say
"Even if you don't make it through graduate school, you can still be a
good
citizen""

and the following:

"I was accepted for an Internship in Clnical
Psycnology at Massachusetts General Hospital, which I accepted and
completed"

and the followiong:

"After obtaining my doctorate, I was
also accepted for postdoctoral training at Temple Medical School,
Department of
Psychiary, Institute for Behavior Therapy, in Philadelphia. I enjoyed
my time
there had learned a lot under the supervision of the late Dr. Joseph
Wolpe, a
world famous psychiatrist who is considered to be one of the founders
of
Cognitive?Behavioral Therapy, the predominant type of therapy now
practiced by
most psychologists and psychiatrists (aside from pharmacotherapy). "

The above quotes are from a post written in response to Howard
Ferstler,
another well known zealot, pathological liar, and purveyor of libel on
RAO (not
surprisingly, frequently defended by Krueger, McKelvy's role model).

The complete post (and thread) can be referened at:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...0203225629.076
19.00000418%40mb?mg.aol.com&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DFerstler%2Band%2BRichman%2B
and%2BUniversity%2Bof%2BTexas%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26 ie%3DUTF?8%26sa%3DN%26ta
b%3Dwg

So McKelvy's slandeous claims about quacks, frauds, and fakes are
nothing more
than the delusional, sociopathic rantings and repetitions of a proven
liar and
libeler.

No doubt he will claim that this is all made up, but the only thing
made up are
his nonsensical departures from reality which pollute RAO whenever he
continues
to libel me and others.

One further fact, which I may or may not be able to prove since it
happened a
long time ago, and I don't know if the radio station keeps records.
And I
challenge the cretin and liar, McKelvy, to disprove it ? LOL! :

In about 1976 or 1977, I was employed as the "Psychology Director" of a
private
Cardiac Rehabilitation Center based in Miami, Florida. The center ran
a
30?day, interdisciplinary inpatient program for patients who were
either at
high risk for cardiac disease or had already undergone such procedures
as
cardiac bypass surgery. My main responsibility was to direct the
behavioral
component of this intensive program (which also involved dieticians,
exercise
physiologists, cardiologists, and RNs). Areas such as stress
management,

smoking cessation, behavioral approaches to obesity, etc. were among
the
targets that I had to address. One of my other responsibilities was,
in
conjunction with the medical director, to promote the program through
various
media appearances in both TV and radio. Two interviews in particular
stand out
in my mind. The first came in the wee hours of the morning in New York
City on
a nationally syndicated program ? "The Long John Nebel Show" (New
Yorkers old
enough may remember this). The second occurred in my home base on the
79th
Street Causeway in Miami Beach at a radio station where Miami's best
known talk
show host (at the time) was carrying forth ? I spent 2 hours being
interviewed
very incisively on the main topic which was "Stress and Heart Disease".
I
remember coming away from that interview thinking that the interviewer
was very
sharp and well prepared to really grill me. The name of the radio
station (and
I'm relying on long ago recall was, I believe either WKAT or WIOD).
The name
of the host ? Larry King.

Shortly thereafter, Larry left Miami and the rest is history.

I challenge the proven liar, and libeler, McKelvy to dispute any of
these facts
with any factual evidence he cares to fabricate from the diseased empty
spaces
composing his deluded cranium.

No doubt he will choose to delete most of this post instead.

LOL!!!

(I apologize for appearing to be bragging about past or present
accomplishments, but since this despicable, loudmouthed, unbelievably
stupid,
delusional, libeler and liar decided to completely embarass himself
once again,
it was just too tempting to not assist him in making a fool of himself
and
exposing his sociopathic behavior once again).

Nothing more needs to be said about his lies, so when he responds with
more
bull****, I will respond with a standard, previously used, canned
response that
perfectly describes this moron's basic character, motivations, and
irrational
behaviors.

Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist
(FL PY 2543)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the kind of "history" you';r known for. I could have given many
othe examples of your libelous false stateements.






Had I allowed the calls from
him to go through and then given him the last 4 digits of his cell
phone, he could simply lie about this and claim either that (a) it
never happened, or (b) the numbers that I would then publish
(perhaps)
on RAO were ones that I made up.

I never said I would use my cell phone, that number is available
through
information and would have been too easy for you to claim that I
called you
from it, even if I hadn't.


Unlike you, I'm not in the habit of making false statements about
telephone calls to other people.

What false statements would those be?

There is no question in my mind that
he has had and does not now have any intention of discontinuing his
smear campaigns and libel.

The only one on a smear campaign right now is you.


That's another obvious lie. Do the names, Lionel and Krueger ring a
bell? (Both of whom you support and imitate).

A breif glance at history shows that Lionel and I have had a few dustups and
that ratonal people would not conclude that we are on friendly terms.

All that said, its' very tempting to expose this lying character
assassin as one who has no intention of honoring proposals that
involve
termination of his compulsive need to attack me whenever he can.

OSAF.

(That's just one of his wide range of psychiatric problems).
Therefore, I've decided to make a counterproposal that will be far
less
likely for him to cheat and sabotage. Just as there is a tape of
Krueger talking to Graham which many of us have heard and know to
be a
reality, despite Krueger's denials, my proposal also involves a
tape.

(1) I will designate a time for McKelvy to call the telephone
number
that he claims he has recently called several times.


I said 3 times.


Several = 3 as well as other numbers in common parlance.


(2) If he calls that number at the time I specify, he will get an
answering machine with my voice and name announced, with a request
that
he leave a message.


I'd rather call at a time of my choosing, one that would be during normal
business hours. Not one where you could pre-arrange with someone.


(3) He should then leave his name, telephone number, and mailing
address on the tape.


You can get all that from information.

(4) I agree not to publish this information without his
permission.
However, I will announce that i have received the information and
post
it in a way that it can not be identified (omission of numerals and
letters).

(5) In return, McKelvy must publically stipulate on RAO - in the
title
of a thread - that he will refrain from ever mentioning me or my
professional activities again on RAO.

I already stopped referencing your professional activities until you started
bringing it up again, twit.

(This is no more than he
promised to do in his proposal).

Actually, I said if you agreed to my proposal and could meet my
request, I
would shut up about you forever.


My counterproposal basically says the same thing. However, it requires
that you acknowledge this on RAO. If you plan on keeping your word,
you should have no problem iwth announcing it on RAO.

Since it's aprt of my original proposal, what's the point?

Further, he must agree and stipulate
that my attacks on Krueger or anybody else that attacks me DO NOT
GIVE
HIM ANY EXCUSE TO JUMP IN AND START FLAMING AWAY AS HE HAS DONE
OFTEN
IN THE PAST.

Tell me why you flamed him in the Julian Hirsch thread.

The reason for the tape recorded answering machine response
requirement
is quite simple. Just as a part of Krueger's conversation with
Graham
was posted to RAO (and a much larger, complete portion sent to many
of
us), if McKelvy denies or lies about making this call in the manner
specified, I'll have proof that he's lying. Given his history,
that's
a reasonable approach.

What's unreasonable about posting the last 4 digits of a number I call you
from, that a 3rd party will know in advance?

Of course, if he handles this correctly, no information will be
given
out other than that described above.


For those of you who remember Gene Steinberg, after a long period
of
nasty exchanges, the two of us spoke on the telephone and aired our
differences. After that, there were no more hostilities. Unlike
McKelvy, both Stewart Pinkerton and Paul Wagner, two former posters
who, like Leslie Van Vreeland, made the mistake of engaging in
personal
attacks thorugh lying about my credentials - had the integrity to
issue
public retractions when they quickly found out that their
statements
were both false and libelous because of evidence they obtained.
Another psychologist (industrial, I think) who used to post here,
and
is, I believe an acquaintance of both Nousaine and Krueger, is a
man by
the name of Doug Stabler. As I recall, he lives in Palatine,
Illinois,
or did the last time I corresponded with him. He also knows the
truth.
McKelvy should do no less than issue a public retraction re. his
comments about my identity, professional activities, and
credentials.

Doofus, I agreed that if JJ said you were who you said you were that
was
good enough for me. When is the last time I questioned whether or
not you
were a shrink? The person who continually brings it up is YOU!

I stated some time ago that the problem was less about your
profession, than
it was about the fact that choose to try and become a professional
asshole.



You're full of ****, asshole. You've made numerous comments about
"bean counters", "ethical lapses" and other idiotic false statements
that have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not I met with Jim
Johnston or anybody else.

Those were the things I was told about you by Gindi. You can believe it or
not, I don't care.

The fact that you even make a proposal now -
after 7 years of lying and libeling me - clearly indicates that you
still haven't gotten the message that you'be been discredited
concerning your bull**** about me. You persist in makinig phony
requests for "proof" that are clearly designed to be sabotaged and/or
otherwise ignored by you.

No, it shows that you still continue to act like an asshole and you still
make **** up, and scream about imagined wrongs.


My original proposal stands. Pick a time for me to call you, then
using
caller I.D. which I assume you have, post the last 4 numbers of the
phone I
call from. That's it. It does have to be the number listed as
belonging to
Bruce J. Richman PhD. in N. Miami, Fl. You don't have to talk to me.
In
fact I have no desire to talk to you.

If you like I will give the number I intend to call you from to a
neutral
3rd party like Sander or Ruud, so they can back up the story and make
you
more comfortable that I'm not cheating.

"Paul Dormer" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" emitted :

Doofus, I agreed that if JJ said you were who you said you were that was
good enough for me.

He once claimed to be unable to acquire the contact details of a
particular individual who was giving him some proper grief on RAO and
behind the scenes, so I filled him in. JJ was not necessarily the most
brilliant internet detective.. ;-)

My original proposal stands. Pick a time for me to call you, then using
caller I.D. which I assume you have, post the last 4 numbers of the phone
I
call from. That's it.

What is to stop you from lying about the veracity of what Bruce
reports?? Nothing. This then gives you the green light to continue to
harass him.. ad infinitum..?

Sounds like a trap...


A third party will know the numbers. There's no reason for me to trap him,
the number I'll call just has to be his publicly listed number. Christ the
dip**** could call me anytime he wants a leave a message on my cell if
wanted to, as long as it's from his publicly listed phone. I can program
his name and number into my cell and I'll know if he called from it unless
he blocks it.

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"Bruce J. Richman" said:

For those of you who remember Gene Steinberg, after a long period of
nasty exchanges, the two of us spoke on the telephone and aired our
differences. After that, there were no more hostilities.

To be honest, I have had many private e-mail conversations with
Michael, and that makes that I respect him, despite the fact that we
don't agree on many things.

I believe it was Marc Phillips who said something along those lines
earlier: when you're getting acquainted outside of RAO, many
misconceptions (let's keep it at that) are cleared up.

For one thing, I think Michael's viewpoints are equally valid as those
of others here. That goes for audio, but as well for politics and
other things.

It's not necessary to agree with someone to still respect him, IMO.

Exactly so.

It saddens me that two people who I think of as online friends, are
fighting a pointless war for a long time now (is it really 7 years?)

It would make me feel better if the 2 of you would settle this once
and for all.

And what's more, it will probably make you two feel better as well!

When is the last time I brought up B.J. on my own? Who is the one starting
this particular flamefest?

"Paul Dormer" wrote in message
...
"Bruce J. Richman" emitted :

When McKelvy claimed, after 7 years, that he would shut his lying,
libelous mouth and never mention my name again or respond to my posts
if I agreed to his pathetic attempts to harass me via telephone and
give him some information, just about all of those with at least half a
brain saw through his scam. Obviously, there was (and is) no reason to
trust him, given his despicable history. Had I allowed the calls from
him to go through and then given him the last 4 digits of his cell
phone, he could simply lie about this and claim either that (a) it
never happened, or (b) the numbers that I would then publish (perhaps)
on RAO were ones that I made up. There is no question in my mind that
he has had and does not now have any intention of discontinuing his
smear campaigns and libel.

All that said, its' very tempting to expose this lying character
assassin as one who has no intention of honoring proposals that involve
termination of his compulsive need to attack me whenever he can.
(That's just one of his wide range of psychiatric problems).
Therefore, I've decided to make a counterproposal that will be far less
likely for him to cheat and sabotage. Just as there is a tape of
Krueger talking to Graham which many of us have heard and know to be a
reality, despite Krueger's denials, my proposal also involves a tape.

(1) I will designate a time for McKelvy to call the telephone number
that he claims he has recently called several times.

(2) If he calls that number at the time I specify, he will get an
answering machine with my voice and name announced, with a request that
he leave a message.

(3) He should then leave his name, telephone number, and mailing
address on the tape.

(4) I agree not to publish this information without his permission.
However, I will announce that i have received the information and post
it in a way that it can not be identified (omission of numerals and
letters).

(5) In return, McKelvy must publically stipulate on RAO - in the title
of a thread - that he will refrain from ever mentioning me or my
professional activities again on RAO. (This is no more than he
promised to do in his proposal). Further, he must agree and stipulate
that my attacks on Krueger or anybody else that attacks me DO NOT GIVE
HIM ANY EXCUSE TO JUMP IN AND START FLAMING AWAY AS HE HAS DONE OFTEN
IN THE PAST.

The reason for the tape recorded answering machine response requirement
is quite simple. Just as a part of Krueger's conversation with Graham
was posted to RAO (and a much larger, complete portion sent to many of
us), if McKelvy denies or lies about making this call in the manner
specified, I'll have proof that he's lying. Given his history, that's
a reasonable approach.
Of course, if he handles this correctly, no information will be given
out other than that described above.


For those of you who remember Gene Steinberg, after a long period of
nasty exchanges, the two of us spoke on the telephone and aired our
differences. After that, there were no more hostilities. Unlike
McKelvy, both Stewart Pinkerton and Paul Wagner, two former posters
who, like Leslie Van Vreeland, made the mistake of engaging in personal
attacks thorugh lying about my credentials - had the integrity to issue
public retractions when they quickly found out that their statements
were both false and libelous because of evidence they obtained.
Another psychologist (industrial, I think) who used to post here, and
is, I believe an acquaintance of both Nousaine and Krueger, is a man by
the name of Doug Stabler. As I recall, he lives in Palatine, Illinois,
or did the last time I corresponded with him. He also knows the truth.
McKelvy should do no less than issue a public retraction re. his
comments about my identity, professional activities, and credentials.

Don't hold your breath. I've given "McKelvy" multiple opportunites to
verify his identity.. to date he has shyed away from doing any such
thing; preferring to remain in the shadows.

"McKelvy", call me on +44 7774 598750 and leave a short voice message,
to confirm that you are a human being capable of operating a telephone
and speaking. I promise not to broadcast any part of the recording on
the internet..


My number is easily available if you wish to call.

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

Michael McKelvy wrote:
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
oups.com...
When McKelvy claimed, after 7 years, that he would shut his
lying,
libelous mouth and never mention my name again or respond to my
posts
if I agreed to his pathetic attempts to harass me via telephone
and
give him some information, just about all of those with at least
half a
brain saw through his scam.

Incredible that you could see through a non-existent scam. A scam
that did
not involve any actual direct commumication, therefore no real
harrassment.
Apparently, half a brain is all you have.

You're an imbecile, duh-Mikey. Responding to a telephone number
tha
you dial in any way *is* communication, you idiot.

But it's not "direct" communication which is what I said.

I know, even if
you're too obtuse to recognize the fact, that it requires
"communication" to even identify telephone numbers you might use in
a
telephone call. And of couse, without other evidence, there is no
way
of knowing that the call was made you, moron.

It requires you to post the last 4 digits. in order to prove you were
able
to recieve the call. It does not require direct communication.

If some 3rd party has the last 4 digits in order to confirm they are
the
ones I used, you have independent verification.



Wrong. You could very easily lie about this as you have about other
things. You could give a 3rd party one set of numbers and then call
from another.



r that it came from
your cell-phone, dimwit.

I won't use my cell phone since that is available through
information.

You really are quite naive to think that
anybody would not see through your scam.

There is no scam, so obviously, you invent one.


Another false statement. See above.


My prooposal, OTOH, is much
more concrete (although not foolproof) and likely to provide
verifiable
information.

I don't trust you not to use my voice in some unauthorised way.


If I did, you could claim I lied about promising not to do so here on
RAO. Besides, you don't have to say anything other than your name and
a few other pieces of information that prove you are who you say you
are.



Obviously, there was (and is) no reason to
trust him, given his despicable history.

My history of asking pointed questions that you refuse to answer,
like why
you made an unprovoked personal attack in the Julian Hirsch
thread?



Your history of lying about my identity, my professional
background,
and my credentials.

Except that I haven't lied about them, I've expressed doubts about
them.
IOW opinions.


False statrements such as the ones above are not opinions, since there
is evidence proving them to be false. They are lies.



Your history of lying about attack threads and
many other things involving me.

None of which you seem to be able to prove.


Another lie. i've posted a stock answer several times providing
evidence of just one of your many attack threads.


Your history of being disproven on
numerous occasions about your lies about unprovoked peronal
attacks. At
the end of this post, juust to refresh your menory, I'll post one
of my
prio responses to your "questions". On second thought, let me do
it
now:



-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to proven libeler and pathological liar McKelvy's
continued
repetition of false claims, coupled with a laughable "demand" that
I
produce evidence that he has a lengthy history of lying and
libeling me
on RAO, I decided to call this cretin's pathetic attempts to dodge
responsibility for his despicable behavior with the following
response.

A couple of observations, should be added re. my post of April 9,
2004,
which is reproduced below:

1. In the first example of libel by McKelvy which I cite, he
initiated
libel thread with the title "Richman's ethical lapses". It is
worth
noting that he does not and CAN NOT list any. So obviously, his
sole
purpose was to libel and defame another person.

OSAF

I chose to ignore this
piece of unprovoked garbage which he initiated. As did every other
RAO
poster.

2. As of the time of this writing, 4:00 PM EST on 4/10/04, the
proven
liar and libeler Mckelvy has failed to respond directly to the post
reproduced below. It is obvious that his latest bluff/bull**** has
been called and he's been exposed for what most on RAO already have
known him to be for a long time - a hatemongering, bitter,
delusional
liar and character assassin whose primary purpose in posting on RAO
is
to smear others with whatever lies, libelous false claims and
libelous
labels of other people his diseased, delusional "mind" (such as it
is
in its primitive state) can regurgitate.

3. Proven liar and libeler McKelvy has been challenged to submit
his
delusional "complaints" about my professional and ethical behavior
(about which he has admitted he knows nothing - one of the few true
things he has ever said) to the appropriate licensing board in my
state. Of course, he has failed to do so, most likely because he
knows
that he's full of it, and will be sued by me after he does so.

4. I could have provided many more examples of McKelvy's compulsive
lies and libels against me, but felt that for now, 2 would be
sufficient. Pending the results of Mr. Wheeler's case, and in
consultation with my attornies, I may elect to pursue legal action
against him and use a quite impressive and lengthy file of false,
libelous claims he has made against me as evidence. No doubt, he
will
"help" by continuing to provide further evidence that can be used
against him.

5. I apologize for the lengfh of this post in advance, but in
consideration of McKelvy's obvious compulsive, pathological
responses
which almost always consist of further lies and libelous false
statements about me, this response is IMHO, quite appropriate.

6. This response will be the one used in the future to deal with
McKelvy's subsequent sociopathic, delusional, false, and libelous
personal attacks against me.




Mike McKelvy continues to avoid providing proof of his slander:
From: (Bruce J. Richman)

Mike McKelvy wrote:


From: (Bruce J. Richman)


deletion of further lies in which McKelvy tries to avoid
responsibility for
lengthy history of lying and committing slander re. my
credentials,
training
and professional activities.

This despicable scumbag, after first admitting he knows nothing
about
my
credentials, training and professional activities, then laughingly
trying to
claim his slanderous bull**** was merely opinions, and now
attempting
to
deny
all responsibility for his ridiculous lies ? insults the
intelligence of
all
RAO readers.

His requests for "proof" ? like all his imbecilic grunts and
mutterings
concerning me ? are a joke. As is his very RAO existence.

While he continue to deny slandering me, and requesting proof, his
credibility
remains zero (except perhaps, in the eyes of his hero, Krueger).

His false claims re. my professional background are a matter of
Google
record,
and virtually all RAO readers at all familiar with this
sociopath's
imbecilic
bull**** re. my background know this to be the case.

Since he's been purveying lies about me, he needs to present the
proof for
all
his nonsense, or stick his head further up the orifice in which
it's
obviously
been inserted for so long.




Bruce J. Richman



repetitive bull**** similar to that pruveyed over a 6 year period
by
this
pathological liar and proven slanderer deleted

For this pathological liar, all false claims about another person's
training,
credentials, professional experience, etc. ? are only "opinions" ?
a
piece of
bull**** nobody other than this lying cretin believes.

Here's just one example of his slander:



http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...thbp0ffk2j625%

This is the message I get when going to the above link.

Sorry, the document you requested is not available. You can visit
the main
page.


40corp.supernews.com&rnum=7&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DMcKelvy%2Band%2Blicensing%2
Bboard%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF?8%26sa%3DN%26t ab%3Dwg

Note that this was an attack thread started by McKelvy, in which
this
fool,
reproduces the Ethical Code followed by psychologists.

Note the slanderous title of the post.

Note also the question, this proven slanderer asks in the last line
after
quoting the Ethical code.

Needless to say, this pathological liar has no evidence that I have
ever
committed any ethics violations, and in fact his use of the title
of
this
thread, to which nobody responded, constitutes slander.

I have directly challenged this despicable cretin and proven liar
to
submit any

complaints he has to the Florida State Licensing Board. He has
refused
to do
so, because he knows he's been lying about me for 6 years.

This fool, in a conversation with Scott Wheeler commiitted another
blatant lie:


"The person claiming to be B.J. Richman, a Ph.D is a fake as should
be
obvious to anybody with more than 2 active neurons."

The reference for this is

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...igk0458h89%40c
orp.supernews.com


And here's what I got for the above.

Sorry, the document you requested is not available. You can visit
the main
page.

Now, no doubt, proven liar and slanderer McKelvy will claim he's
just
voiced an
opinion, but defamation and libel of a licensed psychologist, whose
identity is

acknowledged and has been proven on RAO to the satisfaction of
virtually all
conscious lifeforms with the exception of McKelvy and Krueger, is
*not*
an
opinion.

His lies are a matter of public record, and these 2 examples are
just a
few of
many that could be easily obtained from the Google record.

He has also deliberately ignored the following evidence presented
on
Google:

"The University of Texas at Austin, has long had one of the most
highly
regarded
doctoral programs in Clinical Psychology in the United States (top
10
ranking). Since I had the good fortune to have a very good record
in
my
Master's propgram at Clinical Psychology at Boston College,l and
perhaps
becauise I hit the 99th %ile on the Graduate Record Examination
(Verbal
Portion) and the 99th %ile examination on the Psychology
Acvhievement
section,
I had the rather odd experience of being actively recruited by
schools
to which
I applied. (I had always thought this just happened to jocks, but
I
was
wrong). One unforgettable day, I got a call from the head of the
Clinical
Psychology program at the University of Texas, a Dr. James Bieri,
who
basically
said "We've seen your application, we'd like you to come here, and
we're
prepared to make you a nice offfer". That nice offer, which I
accepted, turned
out to be a NIMH (National Institutes of Mental Health) Traineeship
in
Clinical
Psychology, for an unlimited period of time, with no strings
attached
other
than that I meet the academic requirements of the program (maintain
a B
average).. It took care of all my expenses (tuition, room & board,
books,
etc.) and gave me s small stipend to live on as well. Some of my
classmates
congratulated me on my good fortune (many of them had to accept
teaching
assistantships to help pay their bills, while all I had to do was
hit
the
books). The program turned out to be a real meatgrinder (as one of
my
classmates put it). It made my undergraduate program at an elite
"small Ivy
League school" (Bowdoin College) and my M.A. program seem like
kindergarten.
Almost everybody in my entering class of about 20 had either a Phi
Beta Kappa key, was published and or came from Ivy League schools
or
places
like U. of Chicago, Stanford or Berkeley. Of the 20 who started
the
program,
only 5 of us survived and got our doctorates. It took not only a
high
degree
of intelligence and perserverance, but also a large ability to deal
with the
stress of knowing that you were in a program with a very high
attrition
rate
and some professors, who frankly, until you got to the 2nd year and
had
"paid
your dues", didn't give a damn if you survived or not. I'll never
forgot one
of my Statistics professors who used to get up in front of the
class
and say
"Even if you don't make it through graduate school, you can still
be a
good
citizen""

and the following:

"I was accepted for an Internship in Clnical
Psycnology at Massachusetts General Hospital, which I accepted and
completed"

and the followiong:

"After obtaining my doctorate, I was
also accepted for postdoctoral training at Temple Medical School,
Department of
Psychiary, Institute for Behavior Therapy, in Philadelphia. I
enjoyed
my time
there had learned a lot under the supervision of the late Dr.
Joseph
Wolpe, a
world famous psychiatrist who is considered to be one of the
founders
of
Cognitive?Behavioral Therapy, the predominant type of therapy now
practiced by
most psychologists and psychiatrists (aside from pharmacotherapy).
"

The above quotes are from a post written in response to Howard
Ferstler,
another well known zealot, pathological liar, and purveyor of libel
on
RAO (not
surprisingly, frequently defended by Krueger, McKelvy's role
model).

The complete post (and thread) can be referened at:


http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...0203225629.076

19.00000418%40mb?mg.aol.com&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DFerstler%2Band%2BRichman%2B

and%2BUniversity%2Bof%2BTexas%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26 ie%3DUTF?8%26sa%3DN%26ta
b%3Dwg

So McKelvy's slandeous claims about quacks, frauds, and fakes are
nothing more
than the delusional, sociopathic rantings and repetitions of a
proven
liar and
libeler.

No doubt he will claim that this is all made up, but the only thing
made up are
his nonsensical departures from reality which pollute RAO whenever
he
continues
to libel me and others.

One further fact, which I may or may not be able to prove since it
happened a
long time ago, and I don't know if the radio station keeps records.
And I
challenge the cretin and liar, McKelvy, to disprove it ? LOL! :

In about 1976 or 1977, I was employed as the "Psychology Director"
of a
private
Cardiac Rehabilitation Center based in Miami, Florida. The center
ran
a
30?day, interdisciplinary inpatient program for patients who were
either at
high risk for cardiac disease or had already undergone such
procedures
as
cardiac bypass surgery. My main responsibility was to direct the
behavioral
component of this intensive program (which also involved
dieticians,
exercise
physiologists, cardiologists, and RNs). Areas such as stress
management,

smoking cessation, behavioral approaches to obesity, etc. were
among
the
targets that I had to address. One of my other responsibilities
was,
in
conjunction with the medical director, to promote the program
through
various
media appearances in both TV and radio. Two interviews in
particular
stand out
in my mind. The first came in the wee hours of the morning in New
York
City on
a nationally syndicated program ? "The Long John Nebel Show" (New
Yorkers old
enough may remember this). The second occurred in my home base on
the
79th
Street Causeway in Miami Beach at a radio station where Miami's
best
known talk
show host (at the time) was carrying forth ? I spent 2 hours being
interviewed
very incisively on the main topic which was "Stress and Heart
Disease".
I
remember coming away from that interview thinking that the
interviewer
was very
sharp and well prepared to really grill me. The name of the radio
station (and
I'm relying on long ago recall was, I believe either WKAT or WIOD).
The name
of the host ? Larry King.

Shortly thereafter, Larry left Miami and the rest is history.

I challenge the proven liar, and libeler, McKelvy to dispute any of
these facts
with any factual evidence he cares to fabricate from the diseased
empty
spaces
composing his deluded cranium.

No doubt he will choose to delete most of this post instead.

LOL!!!

(I apologize for appearing to be bragging about past or present
accomplishments, but since this despicable, loudmouthed,
unbelievably
stupid,
delusional, libeler and liar decided to completely embarass himself
once again,
it was just too tempting to not assist him in making a fool of
himself
and
exposing his sociopathic behavior once again).

Nothing more needs to be said about his lies, so when he responds
with
more
bull****, I will respond with a standard, previously used, canned
response that
perfectly describes this moron's basic character, motivations, and
irrational
behaviors.

Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist
(FL PY 2543)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the kind of "history" you';r known for. I could have given
many
othe examples of your libelous false stateements.






Had I allowed the calls from
him to go through and then given him the last 4 digits of his
cell
phone, he could simply lie about this and claim either that (a)
it
never happened, or (b) the numbers that I would then publish
(perhaps)
on RAO were ones that I made up.

I never said I would use my cell phone, that number is available
through
information and would have been too easy for you to claim that I
called you
from it, even if I hadn't.


Unlike you, I'm not in the habit of making false statements about
telephone calls to other people.

What false statements would those be?


There is no question in my mind that
he has had and does not now have any intention of discontinuing
his
smear campaigns and libel.

The only one on a smear campaign right now is you.


That's another obvious lie. Do the names, Lionel and Krueger ring
a
bell? (Both of whom you support and imitate).

A breif glance at history shows that Lionel and I have had a few
dustups and
that ratonal people would not conclude that we are on friendly terms.

Rational people would conclude that the two of you share a strong
interest and character assassination and lying about others. Lionel,
being a fervent Hamas supporter adn antiSemite, also appears to
subscribe to the old Arabic principle "the enemy of my enemy is my
friend"./


All that said, its' very tempting to expose this lying character
assassin as one who has no intention of honoring proposals that
involve
termination of his compulsive need to attack me whenever he
can.

OSAF.

(That's just one of his wide range of psychiatric problems).
Therefore, I've decided to make a counterproposal that will be
far
less
likely for him to cheat and sabotage. Just as there is a tape
of
Krueger talking to Graham which many of us have heard and know
to
be a
reality, despite Krueger's denials, my proposal also involves a
tape.

(1) I will designate a time for McKelvy to call the telephone
number
that he claims he has recently called several times.


I said 3 times.


Several = 3 as well as other numbers in common parlance.


(2) If he calls that number at the time I specify, he will get
an
answering machine with my voice and name announced, with a
request
that
he leave a message.


I'd rather call at a time of my choosing, one that would be during
normal
business hours. Not one where you could pre-arrange with someone.


That would be your paranoid ideation working ovewrtime again. The time
UI specify will be during normal business hours, but during the normal
business hours of an East Coast psychologist.



(3) He should then leave his name, telephone number, and mailing
address on the tape.


You can get all that from information.

All I *might* get would be a listing for a person with the name,
Michael McKelvy. That would not prove in any way that you are that
person. Only a telephone call with verifiable information will do
that.



(4) I agree not to publish this information without his
permission.
However, I will announce that i have received the information
and
post
it in a way that it can not be identified (omission of numerals
and
letters).

(5) In return, McKelvy must publically stipulate on RAO - in the
title
of a thread - that he will refrain from ever mentioning me or my
professional activities again on RAO.

I already stopped referencing your professional activities until you
started
bringing it up again, twit.


Bull****, liar. Your propoisal and numerous other statements you have
made are designed to keep your smear campaign going on ad infinitum.


(This is no more than he
promised to do in his proposal).

Actually, I said if you agreed to my proposal and could meet my
request, I
would shut up about you forever.


My counterproposal basically says the same thing. However, it
requires
that you acknowledge this on RAO. If you plan on keeping your
word,
you should have no problem iwth announcing it on RAO.

Since it's aprt of my original proposal, what's the point?



What's the objection?


Further, he must agree and stipulate
that my attacks on Krueger or anybody else that attacks me DO
NOT
GIVE
HIM ANY EXCUSE TO JUMP IN AND START FLAMING AWAY AS HE HAS DONE
OFTEN
IN THE PAST.

Tell me why you flamed him in the Julian Hirsch thread.



Irrelevant. Why have you attacked me on numeous occasions when I've
retaliated against Krueger's smears. Why do you think that attacks
against Krueger in response to his insuls require you to get involved?
Have you ever heard the phrase "mind your own business"?




The reason for the tape recorded answering machine response
requirement
is quite simple. Just as a part of Krueger's conversation with
Graham
was posted to RAO (and a much larger, complete portion sent to
many
of
us), if McKelvy denies or lies about making this call in the
manner
specified, I'll have proof that he's lying. Given his history,
that's
a reasonable approach.

What's unreasonable about posting the last 4 digits of a number I
call you
from, that a 3rd party will know in advance?


See above.


Of course, if he handles this correctly, no information will be
given
out other than that described above.


For those of you who remember Gene Steinberg, after a long
period
of
nasty exchanges, the two of us spoke on the telephone and aired
our
differences. After that, there were no more hostilities.
Unlike
McKelvy, both Stewart Pinkerton and Paul Wagner, two former
posters
who, like Leslie Van Vreeland, made the mistake of engaging in
personal
attacks thorugh lying about my credentials - had the integrity
to
issue
public retractions when they quickly found out that their
statements
were both false and libelous because of evidence they obtained.
Another psychologist (industrial, I think) who used to post
here,
and
is, I believe an acquaintance of both Nousaine and Krueger, is a
man by
the name of Doug Stabler. As I recall, he lives in Palatine,
Illinois,
or did the last time I corresponded with him. He also knows the
truth.
McKelvy should do no less than issue a public retraction re. his
comments about my identity, professional activities, and
credentials.

Doofus, I agreed that if JJ said you were who you said you were
that
was
good enough for me. When is the last time I questioned whether or
not you
were a shrink? The person who continually brings it up is YOU!

I stated some time ago that the problem was less about your
profession, than
it was about the fact that choose to try and become a professional
asshole.



You're full of ****, asshole. You've made numerous comments about
"bean counters", "ethical lapses" and other idiotic false
statements
that have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not I met with
Jim
Johnston or anybody else.

Those were the things I was told about you by Gindi. You can believe
it or
not, I don't care.


You're lying again. No psychologist would claim I've made any ethical
lapses, since I haven't, and that is clear to all knowledgable people.
The fact that your attack thread with that title got no responses
speaks for itself. You failed to verify libelous information, yet
passed it on, claiming you "had it on good authority". That was a lie.
The information was untrue and the person you claim told it to you waw
not a "good authority", since he knows nothing about me other than the
fact that I'm a lice4nsed psychologist. (And that is a matter of
public record). In fact, he's never met me. So you, as always,
anxious to sling more libelous mud, just passed on a bunch of bogus
bull****.



The fact that you even make a proposal now -
after 7 years of lying and libeling me - clearly indicates that you
still haven't gotten the message that you'be been discredited
concerning your bull**** about me. You persist in makinig phony
requests for "proof" that are clearly designed to be sabotaged
and/or
otherwise ignored by you.

No, it shows that you still continue to act like an asshole and you
still
make **** up, and scream about imagined wrongs.



Your proposal was your invention and indicates that you're a delusional
asshole that continues to believe the bull**** you spew on a regular
basis. Your proposal was soundly ridiculed as the bugus attempt most
of us know it to be - just another cheap attempt to get ammjunitition
for another smear dampaign.




My original proposal stands. Pick a time for me to call you, then
using
caller I.D. which I assume you have, post the last 4 numbers of
the
phone I
call from. That's it. It does have to be the number listed as
belonging to
Bruce J. Richman PhD. in N. Miami, Fl. You don't have to talk to
me.
In
fact I have no desire to talk to you.

If you like I will give the number I intend to call you from to a
neutral
3rd party like Sander or Ruud, so they can back up the story and
make
you
more comfortable that I'm not cheating.




My proposal stands as written. The time for the call, during normal
business hours, can be arranged.

Michael McKelvy wrote:
"Paul Dormer" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" emitted :

Doofus, I agreed that if JJ said you were who you said you were
that was
good enough for me.

He once claimed to be unable to acquire the contact details of a
particular individual who was giving him some proper grief on RAO
and
behind the scenes, so I filled him in. JJ was not necessarily the
most
brilliant internet detective.. ;-)

My original proposal stands. Pick a time for me to call you, then
using
caller I.D. which I assume you have, post the last 4 numbers of the
phone
I
call from. That's it.

What is to stop you from lying about the veracity of what Bruce
reports?? Nothing. This then gives you the green light to continue
to
harass him.. ad infinitum..?

Sounds like a trap...


A third party will know the numbers. There's no reason for me to
trap him,
the number I'll call just has to be his publicly listed number.
Christ the
dip**** could call me anytime he wants a leave a message on my cell
if
wanted to, as long as it's from his publicly listed phone. I can
program
his name and number into my cell and I'll know if he called from it
unless
he blocks it.

If thd numbers are actually in the telephone book, as this imbecile
claims, I don't need any third party to hold the numbers. As Paul
Dormer correctly suggested, McKelvy has lied so many times about my
actions, that one more lie would be just standard operating procedure
for him. The tape, OTOH, which would actually contain very little
information, would be proof that he actually called as I reported it.
Further, the tape containing his message could be played back over his
own telephone upon arrangement.

"Bruce J. Richman" said:

All that said, unlike McKelvy, I have not made false statements about
his identity, job activities, or educational background except in an
obviously satirical manner, and even then, only after 7 years of
provocations on those subjects. As you might appreciate, I didn't get
my training, degrees, and professional activities by sending in a check
(cheque, money order) to some "paper mill" that delivers phony
credentials. Therefore, I don't, unlike cretins like Lionel and
McKelvy, attack the credentials of other people. Some things are over
the line, at least for me, if not for MeKelvy, Krueger (who has called
another poster a "pedophile", and Lionel, a known antiSemite and
purveyor of bigotry and other forms of ignorance-based babble).

I assume you want these things to stop then, after 7 years?
I think if ever the opportunity was there, it is now.

I know I'm being naive and idealistic and all that, but I'm quite
certain that Michael isn't happy with the current state of things as
well.

Yes, it may take some effort, but you both can show that you can rise
above yourselves and your differences and make an end to it now.
That is, if BOTH of you are willing.

In your own interest, and that of Michael, I think it is high time you
pull the plug on this. Really. And I don't think it is even necessary
to call eachother. You can settle this on RAO, or e-mail.

BTW I'm asking you now, but at the same time this is aimed at Michael.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

Paul Dormer wrote:
"Bruce J. Richman" emitted :

When McKelvy claimed, after 7 years, that he would shut his lying,
libelous mouth and never mention my name again or respond to my
posts
if I agreed to his pathetic attempts to harass me via telephone and
give him some information, just about all of those with at least
half a
brain saw through his scam. Obviously, there was (and is) no reason
to
trust him, given his despicable history. Had I allowed the calls
from
him to go through and then given him the last 4 digits of his cell
phone, he could simply lie about this and claim either that (a) it
never happened, or (b) the numbers that I would then publish
(perhaps)
on RAO were ones that I made up. There is no question in my mind
that
he has had and does not now have any intention of discontinuing his
smear campaigns and libel.

All that said, its' very tempting to expose this lying character
assassin as one who has no intention of honoring proposals that
involve
termination of his compulsive need to attack me whenever he can.
(That's just one of his wide range of psychiatric problems).
Therefore, I've decided to make a counterproposal that will be far
less
likely for him to cheat and sabotage. Just as there is a tape of
Krueger talking to Graham which many of us have heard and know to be
a
reality, despite Krueger's denials, my proposal also involves a
tape.

(1) I will designate a time for McKelvy to call the telephone number
that he claims he has recently called several times.

(2) If he calls that number at the time I specify, he will get an
answering machine with my voice and name announced, with a request
that
he leave a message.

(3) He should then leave his name, telephone number, and mailing
address on the tape.

(4) I agree not to publish this information without his permission.
However, I will announce that i have received the information and
post
it in a way that it can not be identified (omission of numerals and
letters).

(5) In return, McKelvy must publically stipulate on RAO - in the
title
of a thread - that he will refrain from ever mentioning me or my
professional activities again on RAO. (This is no more than he
promised to do in his proposal). Further, he must agree and
stipulate
that my attacks on Krueger or anybody else that attacks me DO NOT
GIVE
HIM ANY EXCUSE TO JUMP IN AND START FLAMING AWAY AS HE HAS DONE
OFTEN
IN THE PAST.

The reason for the tape recorded answering machine response
requirement
is quite simple. Just as a part of Krueger's conversation with
Graham
was posted to RAO (and a much larger, complete portion sent to many
of
us), if McKelvy denies or lies about making this call in the manner
specified, I'll have proof that he's lying. Given his history,
that's
a reasonable approach.
Of course, if he handles this correctly, no information will be
given
out other than that described above.


For those of you who remember Gene Steinberg, after a long period of
nasty exchanges, the two of us spoke on the telephone and aired our
differences. After that, there were no more hostilities. Unlike
McKelvy, both Stewart Pinkerton and Paul Wagner, two former posters
who, like Leslie Van Vreeland, made the mistake of engaging in
personal
attacks thorugh lying about my credentials - had the integrity to
issue
public retractions when they quickly found out that their statements
were both false and libelous because of evidence they obtained.
Another psychologist (industrial, I think) who used to post here,
and
is, I believe an acquaintance of both Nousaine and Krueger, is a man
by
the name of Doug Stabler. As I recall, he lives in Palatine,
Illinois,
or did the last time I corresponded with him. He also knows the
truth.
McKelvy should do no less than issue a public retraction re. his
comments about my identity, professional activities, and
credentials.

Don't hold your breath. I've given "McKelvy" multiple opportunites to
verify his identity.. to date he has shyed away from doing any such
thing; preferring to remain in the shadows.

"McKelvy", call me on +44 7774 598750 and leave a short voice
message,
to confirm that you are a human being capable of operating a
telephone
and speaking. I promise not to broadcast any part of the recording on
the internet..


So now we have 2 individuals, yourself and me, that have made the same
request with specific promises not to reproduce any part of the
recording on the Internet. Actually, if *I* did, McKelvy could then
claim that I had an "ethical lapse" - unlike the phony attack thread
hje started with that title. As most rational people know,
psycholoigsts enjoy the smae "privileged communication" status as
priests, attornies, and physicians. In oirder for me to be able to
reveal any significant information abou what McKelvy might say to an
answering machine, I would have to have a signed "Consent For Relesse
of Information Form" from him.

There is poster on RAO, named "Phil", who has posted on both politics
on audio. He and I probably have very little in common politically
since he is admittedly quite conservative in his political views.
However, I know Phil's last name, which he has asked me not to report
on RAO. I have honred that request. In fact, McKelvy can find no
evidence that I've ever revealed any confidential information given to
me about anybody on RAO.

OTOH, McKelvy originally claimed that a person who requested
confidentiality had passed on a bunch of information via email. All
this information was false, but McKelvy posted it without bothering to
verify any of it. More importantly, he eventually said, and I quote
"**** it", and proceeded to violate the confidentiality he claimed he
had promised to Gindi. Therefore, I have a lot more reason to distrust
him, then he has to distrust me. If somebody asks me to keep something
confidential I do so - it's part of my daily professional
responsibility.








S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t
-----------------------------------
It's Grim down south..

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

It's quite clear that Richman lacks anything that most of us would
recognize as a life, given that he wastes so much time and bandwidth
obsessing over McKelvy and I so constantly. He's rewritten nearly the same
post about us hundreds if not thousands of time. When he's not obsessing
over our very existence, he's gratuitously attacking us. Typical Middius
dupe - way past his mental prime, deep into senile dementia and no
discernable interest in 21st century audio.

Improper pronoun usage noted. Improper noun/prepositional phrase
matching (as to plural/singular) noted. Unusually high amount
of obsession over someone else's supposed obsessions noted.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Middius has had many such victims. Perhaps most notable was Ed Shane.

Ed Shane. He's the guy who supposedly had a telephone conversation with
a George. No, wait, I thought you said George was a sockpuppet.

Sander deWaal wrote:

"Bruce J. Richman" said:

All that said, unlike McKelvy, I have not made false statements
about
his identity, job activities, or educational background except in an
obviously satirical manner, and even then, only after 7 years of
provocations on those subjects. As you might appreciate, I didn't
get
my training, degrees, and professional activities by sending in a
check
(cheque, money order) to some "paper mill" that delivers phony
credentials. Therefore, I don't, unlike cretins like Lionel and
McKelvy, attack the credentials of other people. Some things are
over
the line, at least for me, if not for MeKelvy, Krueger (who has
called
another poster a "pedophile", and Lionel, a known antiSemite and
purveyor of bigotry and other forms of ignorance-based babble).

I assume you want these things to stop then, after 7 years?
I think if ever the opportunity was there, it is now.

I see no evidence that McKelvy has any intention of stopping his
unprovoked personal attacks. As recently as yesterday, he jumped into
a thread inolving Lionel and I with idiotic comments about medications
and restraints. And then he gets selective amnesia and claims he
doesn't commenet on my professional behavior. As for Krueger and
Lionel, the Google record clearly indicates that they have no desier
tro cease making hostile comments. Krueger has been banned from RAHE
because of this type of behavior. AFAIK, Lionel ahs never posted there
or to any other moderated newsgroup that would force him to clean up
his act.

If it were up to me, RAO would, like some other NGs, have a certain
degree of self-moderation, and flame wars would not be in evidence.
However, that requires the cooperation of others. There is a Google
record of Krueger actually opposing attempts to make RAO a moderated
newsgroup, if you recall. Doug Haugen, myself, and several others
tried to do this at one time, and Krueger predictably opposed it,
claiming that the moderators would be "controlled" by a "clique"
opposed to his views. His reasons for opposing moderaton were obvious.




I know I'm being naive and idealistic and all that, but I'm quite
certain that Michael isn't happy with the current state of things as
well

Yes, it may take some effort, but you both can show that you can rise
above yourselves and your differences and make an end to it now.
That is, if BOTH of you are willing.

In your own interest, and that of Michael, I think it is high time
you
pull the plug on this. Really. And I don't think it is even necessary
to call eachother. You can settle this on RAO, or e-mail.

BTW I'm asking you now, but at the same time this is aimed at
Michael.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "


Sander, here's an example of the kind of libelous garbage that McKelvy
routinely posts:

Michael McKelvy Jan 9, 11:14 pm show options

Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
From: "Michael McKelvy" - Find messages by this
author
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 07:14:17 GMT
Local: Sun, Jan 9 2005 11:14 pm
Subject: Test of Newsreader
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse


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


Lionel wrote:




- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Bruce J. Richman a =E9crit :

More bull**** that practically nobody believes except you. Your
[repetititon]


of [tyhe] same lies over and over again is clear evidence that you
[contuinue] to
deny reality.

Seems that Bruce is close to the end...
I don't understand why his nurse still autorises him to ramble on
Usenet. ;-)


Bruce J. Richman
Parapsychologist


Lionel's obvious idiocy is more predictable than anything else on RAO.
The voices in his head are once again telling him to make a fool of
himself - not that he needs any encouragement to do that



..

It's kind of startling how all of the people who don't seem to like all
seem
to be crazy.



His lobotomy
just increased his already considerable level of stupidity and
meaningless babble


..

Hmmm, and yours comes from where or should I say what?



I guess the French mental institutions are not too
effective in treating village idiots. They should consider euthanasia
as a favor to his fanily


..

More of that professional restraint. Speaking of restraints, are your
new
ones comfortable?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Note the last sentence, in which once again, McKelvy atempts to
question my professional behavior, even though RAO has nothing to do
with my professional behavior. He has lied continuously about "not
mentioning my profession", while continuing to insinuate that a
psychologist has no right to strike back at brainless idiots like
Lionel, a known antiSemite, signature forger, and mindless babbler of
insults towards almost everybody on RAO.

No rational person would trust a liar like this that falsely states as
recently as today that he has not "brought up" my profession, while as
recently as last night, attacked it. His false claims that no proof
has been provided are further evidence of his lack of honesty.

If he wants this to end, he can accept my proposal and quit playing
games. I am not self-desttructive enough to use any tape recording I
have without another person's permission, so his lack of trust is a
strawman, and he knows it. If I post the tape on RAO, he can report me
to the appropriate licensing board and legal authorities. He's just
looking for a way to continue his attack strategies through use of a
phony proposal that is easy to sabotage.

George M. Middius wrote:
Sander deWaal said:

I believe there's actually a third, and more likely possibility;
Bruce Richman *is* a mental health professional, but on RAO, he's
just another contributor like all of us, with all his human pros
and
cons.

That's the sane person's appraisal.

Why should he be judged by any other standard than anyone else on
this
group?

Because he uses psychological jargon here.

Yes, but unlike Krueger, McKelvy and Lionel, I'm qualiried to use it
and know what the terms really mean. Krueger, McKelvy and Lionel have
frequently called people delusional, insane, demented, senile, etc.
They have never given any evidence that they have any qualifications
that even remotely suggest that they know what they are talking about
when they use these terms.

"Bruce J. Richman" said:

Why should he be judged by any other standard than anyone else on
this
group?

Because he uses psychological jargon here.

Yes, but unlike Krueger, McKelvy and Lionel, I'm qualiried to use it
and know what the terms really mean. Krueger, McKelvy and Lionel have
frequently called people delusional, insane, demented, senile, etc.
They have never given any evidence that they have any qualifications
that even remotely suggest that they know what they are talking about
when they use these terms.

OTOH, if and when *you* use those words, are we to assume that since
you're qualified to use them in real life because you are a licensed
psychologist, you are able to derive such conclusions based solely on
someone's usenet posts? And that they are more valid than when another
person uses the same terms?

I don't know if my assumption that you're posting here as just another
person is correct then.

Either you post here as Bruce Richman, a private person, or you post
here as Dr. Bruce Richman, Licensed Psychologist.

I get the feeling I'm missing something here, or I just stepped into a
hornet's nest............

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

"Bruce J. Richman" said:

If it were up to me, RAO would, like some other NGs, have a certain
degree of self-moderation, and flame wars would not be in evidence.
However, that requires the cooperation of others.

I agree, but at the same time I think self-moderation starts with
oneself.

Scary, this feels to me like a deja-vu.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
George M. Middius wrote:

Sander deWaal said:


I believe there's actually a third, and more likely possibility;
Bruce Richman *is* a mental health professional, but on RAO, he's
just another contributor like all of us, with all his human pros

and

cons.

That's the sane person's appraisal.


Why should he be judged by any other standard than anyone else on

this

group?

Because he uses psychological jargon here.


I'm qualiried to use it...

I think that you are "qualiried" to take a paisible retirement far from
Usenet agitation.

and know what the terms really mean. Krueger, McKelvy and Lionel have
frequently called people delusional, insane, demented, senile, etc.
They have never given any evidence that they have any qualifications
that even remotely suggest that they know what they are talking about
when they use these terms.

I remember that you have spent your time in a long diatribe to explain
me the specific mean of "insane".
How many time have you used the word "insane" on this RAO ?
Are you ready to certify that every time you have used it it was in a
pertinent way.
Do you understand that if we can find a relation between your above
statement : "I'm qualiried to use it" and an abusive use of the word
"insane" you can be qualified of *CHARLATAN* ?

Do you want I start the Google search ?

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

In addition, as you say, Jim was
objective and honest enough to see Krueger for what most of us know
him to be - a paranoid, irrational, delusional hatemonger who doesn't
have the ability to engage in civilized conversation with others who
don't agree with his agenda-driven prejudices.

Yup Brucie, that's why JJ invited me over for a beer when he was in town.

Sander deWaal wrote:
"Bruce J. Richman" said:

Why should he be judged by any other standard than anyone else
on
this
group?

Because he uses psychological jargon here.

Yes, but unlike Krueger, McKelvy and Lionel, I'm qualiried to use it
and know what the terms really mean. Krueger, McKelvy and Lionel
have
frequently called people delusional, insane, demented, senile, etc.
They have never given any evidence that they have any qualifications
that even remotely suggest that they know what they are talking
about
when they use these terms.

OTOH, if and when *you* use those words, are we to assume that since
you're qualified to use them in real life because you are a licensed
psychologist, you are able to derive such conclusions based solely on
someone's usenet posts? And that they are more valid than when
another
person uses the same terms?


As I've made clear many times, my comments refer only to a person's
online behavior. Since I haven't observed their offline behavior, I can
only speculate about what it might be. Of course I'm more qualified to
use these terms, because of my training and professional background.


I don't know if my assumption that you're posting here as just
another
person is correct then.

Either you post here as Bruce Richman, a private person, or you post
here as Dr. Bruce Richman, Licensed Psychologist.


The 2 are inseperable, and in my view this is a false dichotomy. As
you well know, there are several individuals here on RAO that claim
becasuse they have an engineering background or have published
something to do with audio, that they are more qualified than others to
talk about certain things. They make no effort to separate their
vocational activities and/or experience from their online posting
opinions. Similarly, I'm more qualified to talk about abnormal
behavior and psychological subjects in general than other people here
because of my clnical background and training. It is unfair to axpett
a psychologist to not draw on his training, while simultaneously
overlooking the fact that others constantly try and throw their
"engineering" or "book" background in the faces of those that they
attack. (No, I'm not referring to you, Sander ). If I understand
you correctly, you'll agree that everybody can use their background as
they see fit, and should not be expected to divorce themsdeleves from
that when posting to RAO.





I get the feeling I'm missing something here, or I just stepped into
a
hornet's nest............



See above.

Let me give you an example of the irresponsible misuse of terms by
people not qualified to use them at all. Lionel has called me senile,
as part of his routine flamethrowing babble routine. If he believes
this, then he is clearly delusional, in the clinical sense, since theee
is no evidence to suggest that anybody posting to RAO is senile. (Oh,
and for the record, Licensed Psychologists evaluate senility in others
as part of legal proceedings in which elderly people sometimes have to
have a guardian appointed to hande their financial and medical
decisions because they are "incompetent" (legally speaking) to do so
independently. OTOH, if he is just tossing out an insult in his usual
mindless, robotic way, then he is displaying his ignorancre about what
the term really means. It's highly unlikely that a senile person can
post to an Internet NG, given the fact that most have short-term memory
deficits and can't remember recent events. That would include an
inability tot remember what other people had recentely posted. OTOH,
delusions are defined as beliefs of a persistent, psychotic type about
either oneself or others. Lionel has demonstrated that this is part
of his online behavior since he has repeatedly used terms like senile
with no evidence to support his false statement. Psychotic beliefs are
ones that aren't based on reality, nad as indicated above, this is
clearly the case re. Loionel's misuse of terms about which he knows
nothing.



Bruce J. Richman
--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

George M. Middius wrote:
Bruce J. Richman said:

Why should he be judged by any other standard than anyone else
on this
group?

Because he uses psychological jargon here.

Yes, but unlike Krueger, McKelvy and Lionel, I'm qualiried to use
it
and know what the terms really mean.

That was precisely my point.

We agree on this. However, when talking about "standards", proven
liars and libelers like McKelvy have tried to promote the argument that
a "professional" doesn't behave on RAO like other people (such as he
and Krueger, I suppose)posting to RAO. This, is, of course, clearly
just an attempt to rationalize attacks against that person's
profession, which McKelvy either diredctly or indirectly attempts to do
almost constantly (his last attack came less than 24 hours ago). He
continually fails to make the rather obvious discrimination between
what a psychologist does on a very informal, unmoderated Usenet NG and
what he does when dealing with patients and/or colleagues in a
professional setting.

OK, if I'm late for work tomorrow, it's your fault.

:-)

"Bruce J. Richman" said:

As I've made clear many times, my comments refer only to a person's
online behavior. Since I haven't observed their offline behavior, I can
only speculate about what it might be. Of course I'm more qualified to
use these terms, because of my training and professional background.

That is indeed clear to me, and goes without saying.

Either you post here as Bruce Richman, a private person, or you post
here as Dr. Bruce Richman, Licensed Psychologist.

The 2 are inseperable, and in my view this is a false dichotomy.

By itself, it would be.
However, the way it looked to me in one of your earlier posts, just
*because* you're a licensed psychologist, your evaluation of someone
*as based on their usenet posts* would somehow be more valuable than
when another person without your skills would say the same.

If that is the case, when you're calling e.g. Lionel delusional,
you're saying this as Dr. Richman, and as such, have to take the
responsibility for that evaluation in follow-ups.

At the same time, you're saying this as private person Bruce Richman,
meaning we shouldn't read this as a professional observation and you
wouldn't be responsible as Dr. Richman for what you have written.

O God, if only I could find the right words to express what I *really*
mean by all this.

Maybe we should just drop this.

As
you well know, there are several individuals here on RAO that claim
becasuse they have an engineering background or have published
something to do with audio, that they are more qualified than others to
talk about certain things.

Well, to be fair, in an *audio* newsgroup that can be expected :-)
However, it should be made clear to anyone reading RAO that all what
is said here, is merely *opinion*.
When I express my opinion about Martin Logan speakers, that opinion
doesn't carry any more weight than yours, just because I happen to be
an EE.
At least, I hope that people actually understand the distinction.
I would hate it when someone would buy a ML just because I said ( as
an engineer) that I like them.
That's a responsibility I'm not willing to take.
Of course, there are other questions that I can answer just because of
my background, and that are mostly verifiable (Arny will probably
disagree *grin*), like questions about tube life, circuitry or other
technobabble that can be verified.
At that moment, I'm speaking as the engineer that I am, but again, I
hope at the same time that it is clear that I don't posess all wisdom.
That's as far as I want my responsibility to go.

And while I'm saying that, it probably is a reasonable analogy to your
position.

Do you follow what I'm trying to communicate so poorly here?

They make no effort to separate their
vocational activities and/or experience from their online posting
opinions. Similarly, I'm more qualified to talk about abnormal
behavior and psychological subjects in general than other people here
because of my clnical background and training. It is unfair to axpett
a psychologist to not draw on his training, while simultaneously
overlooking the fact that others constantly try and throw their
"engineering" or "book" background in the faces of those that they
attack. (No, I'm not referring to you, Sander ). If I understand
you correctly, you'll agree that everybody can use their background as
they see fit, and should not be expected to divorce themsdeleves from
that when posting to RAO.

I agree with you in full, it's unreasonable and probably impossible to
put your professional hat aside, just as I can't.
However, talking about audio and having it wrong, isn't a very big
deal IMO. Enough people to correct me when I'm wrong.
Evaluating people's character however, whether right or wrong, brings
with it a much larger responsibility.
Just because you *are* a mental health professional, people (whether
or not unconciously) in a certain way *expect* that responsibility
from you, and will call you on it.
Not fair, and probably not called for, but it happens.

I'm sorry, I have no better way to put it.
I hope you understand my point.

Let me give you an example of the irresponsible misuse of terms by
people not qualified to use them at all. Lionel has called me senile,
as part of his routine flamethrowing babble routine. If he believes
this, then he is clearly delusional, in the clinical sense, since theee
is no evidence to suggest that anybody posting to RAO is senile.

I don't think for a moment that he means what he says (or I should
have a very poor judgment of character, which I have not).
I think that Lionel tries to deliver a message similar to mine above.
I'm pretty certain he knows the meaning of the word, perhaps not in as
many (legal) detail as you do, but the general sense will do.
If I'm wrong about this, I apologize in advance to the both of you.

(Oh,
and for the record, Licensed Psychologists evaluate senility in others
as part of legal proceedings in which elderly people sometimes have to
have a guardian appointed to hande their financial and medical
decisions because they are "incompetent" (legally speaking) to do so
independently. OTOH, if he is just tossing out an insult in his usual
mindless, robotic way, then he is displaying his ignorancre about what
the term really means.

He could use it as mockery?
Heck, I probably called Howard senile or something similar.
I'm assuming that people know I'm not serious.

It's highly unlikely that a senile person can
post to an Internet NG, given the fact that most have short-term memory
deficits and can't remember recent events. That would include an
inability tot remember what other people had recentely posted. OTOH,
delusions are defined as beliefs of a persistent, psychotic type about
either oneself or others. Lionel has demonstrated that this is part
of his online behavior since he has repeatedly used terms like senile
with no evidence to support his false statement. Psychotic beliefs are
ones that aren't based on reality, nad as indicated above, this is
clearly the case re. Loionel's misuse of terms about which he knows
nothing.

I think you're taking his posts too seriously.

Enough now, I really have to go to bed.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

George M. Middius said:

Yes, but unlike Krueger, McKelvy and Lionel, I'm qualiried to use it
and know what the terms really mean.

That was precisely my point.

We agree on this.

I don't think we do. You keep saying you're more qualified to use those
terms than laypersons. I say it's precisely because of your expertise that
your use of clinical terms burdens you with a greater responsibility.

Succint as ever.
I envy your language skills.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

Sander deWaal wrote:

George M. Middius said:

Yes, but unlike Krueger, McKelvy and Lionel, I'm qualiried to use it
and know what the terms really mean.

That was precisely my point.

We agree on this.

I don't think we do. You keep saying you're more qualified to use those
terms than laypersons. I say it's precisely because of your expertise that
your use of clinical terms burdens you with a greater responsibility.

Succint as ever.
I envy your language skills.

How do you call a guy who inconsequently refuse to assume to reponsability
of his charge and credentials ?

Lionel C. Middius wrote:
Bruce J. Richman a =E9crit :
George M. Middius wrote:

Sander deWaal said:


I believe there's actually a third, and more likely possibility;
Bruce Richman *is* a mental health professional, but on RAO, he's
just another contributor like all of us, with all his human pros

and

cons.

That's the sane person's appraisal.


Why should he be judged by any other standard than anyone else on

this

group?

Because he uses psychological jargon here.


I'm qualiried to use it...

I think that you are "qualiried" to take a paisible retirement far
from
Usenet agitation.

and know what the terms really mean. Krueger, McKelvy and Lionel
have
frequently called people delusional, insane, demented, senile, etc.
They have never given any evidence that they have any
qualifications
that even remotely suggest that they know what they are talking
about
when they use these terms.

I remember that you have spent your time in a long diatribe to
explain
me the specific mean of "insane".
How many time have you used the word "insane" on this RAO ?
Are you ready to certify that every time you have used it it was in a

pertinent way.
Do you understand that if we can find a relation between your above
statement : "I'm qualiried to use it" and an abusive use of the word
"insane" you can be qualified of *CHARLATAN* ?

Do you want I start the Google search ?

I'm sure you will continue to lie, butcher the language, and make
idiotic statements as you've always done. Your lies arew a ma matter
ofr Google record. Your delusional statements don't convince anybody
of anything other than trhe fact you're a pathological and quite
compulsive liar.

Lionel C. Middius wrote:
Sander deWaal wrote:

George M. Middius said:

Yes, but unlike Krueger, McKelvy and Lionel, I'm qualiried to
use it
and know what the terms really mean.

That was precisely my point.

We agree on this.

I don't think we do. You keep saying you're more qualified to use
those
terms than laypersons. I say it's precisely because of your
expertise that
your use of clinical terms burdens you with a greater
responsibility.

Succint as ever.
I envy your language skills.

How do you call a guy who inconsequently refuse to assume to
reponsability
of his charge and credentials ?

What do you call a person that does the following:

(1) Uses phony names at the beginning of posts

(2) Forges the signatures of others at the end of posts

(3) Makes up imaginary accusationos while butchering the English
language because he has noting of any truth to say?

(4) Pretends to kinow about credentials and responibilities of people
of whom he knows virtually nothing.

(5) Rants and raves about "Jewish zealots" and in general, promotes
antisemitism on RAO.

(6) Has attacked a very long list of RAO posters, including Scott
Wheeler, Marc Phillips, Bruce Richman, George Middius, and numerous
other individuals, yet somehow manages to never say a negative word
about RAO's most widely despised and hated poster, Krueger.

Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message





Im sure you realize that you're responding to a cretin that hss never
demonstrated any ability to tell the truth about anything. He's
nothing more than a tool for a few flamers that have preceded him on
RAO.

It is obviously in the best interests of Lionel and Krueger to try and
prevent any lessening of the flames on RAO. If rational discussions
took plae without personal insults, these 2 flamers would quickly be
left with nothing to say.


Yes, and it so happen, as one would see, that the offered Addendum
propose by the outside party was of nonsensical in nature for both points
1 & 2, and clearly bordering in wishful thoughts.

Sander deWaal" wrote
Lionel said:




There are 2 possible theories about Richman, to answer to the question
how a registered licensed psychologist can have such aberrant attitude
on a public forum :

**************
1- McKelvy's one which is un-surprisedly wrong : Richman is not a
psychologist.

2- Richman is a psychologist but he is insane (senile) and doesn't have
anymore patients.
**************

I believe there's actually a third, and more likely possibility;
Bruce Richman *is* a mental health professional, but on RAO, he's
just another contributor like all of us, with all his human pros and
cons.

Why should he be judged by any other standard than anyone else on this
group?

The fact that he was pressed to mention his profession, his titles and
his practicing license, has much to do with the allogations about him
*not* being what he said he is.


Very well said.


And thus, it is recommended that the above propose 2 point Addendum is
rejected.


(Signed)

BJR declared:


" As I'm sure you realize, Lionel has never had anything concrete to say
about audio. His activities on RAO have consisted essentialy of the
following irrelevant behaviors - all of which are documented in the
Google record: "



Duly noted.



**************

(1) The only poster AFAIK to ever engage in attacks against other
posters because of their religion - i.e. antiSemitic statements.

(2) Related to # 1, clear support of Hamas suicide bombers in efforts
to equate those with the military actions of Israel against military
targets.

(3) Ranting and raving about numerous other RAO individuals of whom he
knows nothing.

(4) Engaging in psychobabble, using terms that he can't define, can't
apply to others with any degree of validity (not even based on their
online behavior) and in general, butchering the English language far
more than any other person whose native language is not English.

(5) Repetitive lying about other people and support for Krueger, whose
lies are admired and imitated mindlessly by people like Lionel, whose
only purpose in being on RAO at all is to insult as many people as
possible.

(6) Forgery of other peoples' signatures in an effort to further
generate his juvenile form of mud slinging.

(7) Consistently avoiding the rational discussion of audio.

(8) Chronic, repeated demonstrations of gross stupidity and poor
contact with reality by making statements that nobody but a few
delusional posters such as Krueger and McKelvy have ever believed.

**********************


All points noted above.

It is, therefore, recommended by the good people of RAO that the subject
in question shall maintained himself to an outside party. HE is, hereby,
prohibited to partake any direct involvement in the preceding.



(Signed)

JBorg wrote:
Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message





Im sure you realize that you're responding to a cretin that hss
never
demonstrated any ability to tell the truth about anything. He's
nothing more than a tool for a few flamers that have preceded him
on
RAO.

It is obviously in the best interests of Lionel and Krueger to try
and
prevent any lessening of the flames on RAO. If rational
discussions
took plae without personal insults, these 2 flamers would quickly
be
left with nothing to say.


Yes, and it so happen, as one would see, that the offered Addendum
propose by the outside party was of nonsensical in nature for both
points
1 & 2, and clearly bordering in wishful thoughts.

Very true. Lionel's ranting and raving about "Addendums" are clearly
just further evidence of a troubled mind, grasping at fictional straws,
so to speak. It's sad but true that those without any facts have
nothing better to do than create fiction. Lionel has been lying about
me for so long that he can't distinguish between fact and fiction, or
between reality and fantasy.

McKelvy said:

More of that professional restraint. Speaking of restraints, are your
new ones comfortable?


BJR said:

Note the last sentence, in which once again, McKelvy atempts to
question my professional behavior, even though RAO has nothing to do
with my professional behavior. He has lied continuously about "not
mentioning my profession", while continuing to insinuate that a
psychologist has no right to strike back at brainless idiots like
Lionel, a known antiSemite, signature forger, and mindless babbler of
insults towards almost everybody on RAO.

No rational person would trust a liar like this that falsely states as
recently as today that he has not "brought up" my profession, while as
recently as last night, attacked it. His false claims that no proof
has been provided are further evidence of his lack of honesty.

If he wants this to end, he can accept my proposal and quit playing
games. I am not self-desttructive enough to use any tape recording I
have without another person's permission, so his lack of trust is a
strawman, and he knows it. If I post the tape on RAO, he can report me
to the appropriate licensing board and legal authorities. He's just
looking for a way to continue his attack strategies through use of a
phony proposal that is easy to sabotage.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I do believe that McKelvy infringes with your freedom to be free of
headaches and with your enjoyment to express your views at Rao.

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

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

Michael McKelvy wrote:
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
oups.com...
When McKelvy claimed, after 7 years, that he would shut his
lying,
libelous mouth and never mention my name again or respond to my
posts
if I agreed to his pathetic attempts to harass me via telephone
and
give him some information, just about all of those with at least
half a
brain saw through his scam.

Incredible that you could see through a non-existent scam. A scam
that did
not involve any actual direct commumication, therefore no real
harrassment.
Apparently, half a brain is all you have.

You're an imbecile, duh-Mikey. Responding to a telephone number
tha
you dial in any way *is* communication, you idiot.

But it's not "direct" communication which is what I said.

I know, even if
you're too obtuse to recognize the fact, that it requires
"communication" to even identify telephone numbers you might use in
a
telephone call. And of couse, without other evidence, there is no
way
of knowing that the call was made you, moron.

It requires you to post the last 4 digits. in order to prove you were
able
to recieve the call. It does not require direct communication.

If some 3rd party has the last 4 digits in order to confirm they are
the
ones I used, you have independent verification.



Wrong. You could very easily lie about this as you have about other
things. You could give a 3rd party one set of numbers and then call
from another.

For what purpose.

r that it came from
your cell-phone, dimwit.

I won't use my cell phone since that is available through
information.

You really are quite naive to think that
anybody would not see through your scam.

There is no scam, so obviously, you invent one.


Another false statement. See above.


My prooposal, OTOH, is much
more concrete (although not foolproof) and likely to provide
verifiable
information.

I don't trust you not to use my voice in some unauthorised way.


If I did, you could claim I lied about promising not to do so here on
RAO. Besides, you don't have to say anything other than your name and
a few other pieces of information that prove you are who you say you
are.

Just like you could if I didn't tell the truth about what number I called
from.

Obviously, there was (and is) no reason to
trust him, given his despicable history.

My history of asking pointed questions that you refuse to answer,
like why
you made an unprovoked personal attack in the Julian Hirsch
thread?



Your history of lying about my identity, my professional
background,
and my credentials.

Except that I haven't lied about them, I've expressed doubts about
them.
IOW opinions.


False statrements such as the ones above are not opinions, since there
is evidence proving them to be false. They are lies.

It wasn't a false statement.


Your history of lying about attack threads and
many other things involving me.

None of which you seem to be able to prove.


Another lie. i've posted a stock answer several times providing
evidence of just one of your many attack threads.

Just one? I thught it would be easy to provide many snce you claim I do it
so often.

Your history of being disproven on
numerous occasions about your lies about unprovoked peronal
attacks. At
the end of this post, juust to refresh your menory, I'll post one
of my
prio responses to your "questions". On second thought, let me do
it
now:



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

A couple of observations, should be added re. my post of April 9,
2004,
which is reproduced below:

1. In the first example of libel by McKelvy which I cite, he
initiated
libel thread with the title "Richman's ethical lapses". It is
worth
noting that he does not and CAN NOT list any.

You missed the comment on that post, albeit a small one.

So obviously, his
sole
purpose was to libel and defame another person.

OSAF

I chose to ignore this
piece of unprovoked garbage which he initiated. As did every other
RAO
poster.


Then whay are there other posts in the thread?

2. As of the time of this writing, 4:00 PM EST on 4/10/04, the
proven
liar and libeler Mckelvy has failed to respond directly to the post
reproduced below. It is obvious that his latest bluff/bull**** has
been called and he's been exposed for what most on RAO already have
known him to be for a long time - a hatemongering, bitter,
delusional
liar and character assassin whose primary purpose in posting on RAO
is
to smear others with whatever lies, libelous false claims and
libelous
labels of other people his diseased, delusional "mind" (such as it
is
in its primitive state) can regurgitate.

3. Proven liar and libeler McKelvy has been challenged to submit
his
delusional "complaints" about my professional and ethical behavior
(about which he has admitted he knows nothing - one of the few true
things he has ever said) to the appropriate licensing board in my
state. Of course, he has failed to do so, most likely because he
knows
that he's full of it, and will be sued by me after he does so.

4. I could have provided many more examples of McKelvy's compulsive
lies and libels against me, but felt that for now, 2 would be
sufficient. Pending the results of Mr. Wheeler's case, and in
consultation with my attornies, I may elect to pursue legal action
against him and use a quite impressive and lengthy file of false,
libelous claims he has made against me as evidence. No doubt, he
will
"help" by continuing to provide further evidence that can be used
against him.

5. I apologize for the lengfh of this post in advance, but in
consideration of McKelvy's obvious compulsive, pathological
responses
which almost always consist of further lies and libelous false
statements about me, this response is IMHO, quite appropriate.

6. This response will be the one used in the future to deal with
McKelvy's subsequent sociopathic, delusional, false, and libelous
personal attacks against me.




Mike McKelvy continues to avoid providing proof of his slander:
From: (Bruce J. Richman)

Mike McKelvy wrote:


From: (Bruce J. Richman)


deletion of further lies in which McKelvy tries to avoid
responsibility for
lengthy history of lying and committing slander re. my
credentials,
training
and professional activities.

This despicable scumbag, after first admitting he knows nothing
about
my
credentials, training and professional activities, then laughingly
trying to
claim his slanderous bull**** was merely opinions, and now
attempting
to
deny
all responsibility for his ridiculous lies ? insults the
intelligence of
all
RAO readers.

His requests for "proof" ? like all his imbecilic grunts and
mutterings
concerning me ? are a joke. As is his very RAO existence.

While he continue to deny slandering me, and requesting proof, his
credibility
remains zero (except perhaps, in the eyes of his hero, Krueger).

His false claims re. my professional background are a matter of
Google
record,
and virtually all RAO readers at all familiar with this
sociopath's
imbecilic
bull**** re. my background know this to be the case.

Since he's been purveying lies about me, he needs to present the
proof for
all
his nonsense, or stick his head further up the orifice in which
it's
obviously
been inserted for so long.




Bruce J. Richman



repetitive bull**** similar to that pruveyed over a 6 year period
by
this
pathological liar and proven slanderer deleted

For this pathological liar, all false claims about another person's
training,
credentials, professional experience, etc. ? are only "opinions" ?
a
piece of
bull**** nobody other than this lying cretin believes.

Here's just one example of his slander:



http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...thbp0ffk2j625%

This is the message I get when going to the above link.

Sorry, the document you requested is not available. You can visit
the main
page.


40corp.supernews.com&rnum=7&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DMcKelvy%2Band%2Blicensing%2
Bboard%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF?8%26sa%3DN%26t ab%3Dwg

Note that this was an attack thread started by McKelvy, in which
this
fool,
reproduces the Ethical Code followed by psychologists.

Note the slanderous title of the post.

Note also the question, this proven slanderer asks in the last line
after
quoting the Ethical code.

Needless to say, this pathological liar has no evidence that I have
ever
committed any ethics violations, and in fact his use of the title
of
this
thread, to which nobody responded, constitutes slander.

I have directly challenged this despicable cretin and proven liar
to
submit any

complaints he has to the Florida State Licensing Board. He has
refused
to do
so, because he knows he's been lying about me for 6 years.

This fool, in a conversation with Scott Wheeler commiitted another
blatant lie:


"The person claiming to be B.J. Richman, a Ph.D is a fake as should
be
obvious to anybody with more than 2 active neurons."

The reference for this is

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...igk0458h89%40c
orp.supernews.com


And here's what I got for the above.

Sorry, the document you requested is not available. You can visit
the main
page.

Now, no doubt, proven liar and slanderer McKelvy will claim he's
just
voiced an
opinion, but defamation and libel of a licensed psychologist, whose
identity is

acknowledged and has been proven on RAO to the satisfaction of
virtually all
conscious lifeforms with the exception of McKelvy and Krueger, is
*not*
an
opinion.

His lies are a matter of public record, and these 2 examples are
just a
few of
many that could be easily obtained from the Google record.

He has also deliberately ignored the following evidence presented
on
Google:

"The University of Texas at Austin, has long had one of the most
highly
regarded
doctoral programs in Clinical Psychology in the United States (top
10
ranking). Since I had the good fortune to have a very good record
in
my
Master's propgram at Clinical Psychology at Boston College,l and
perhaps
becauise I hit the 99th %ile on the Graduate Record Examination
(Verbal
Portion) and the 99th %ile examination on the Psychology
Acvhievement
section,
I had the rather odd experience of being actively recruited by
schools
to which
I applied. (I had always thought this just happened to jocks, but
I
was
wrong). One unforgettable day, I got a call from the head of the
Clinical
Psychology program at the University of Texas, a Dr. James Bieri,
who
basically
said "We've seen your application, we'd like you to come here, and
we're
prepared to make you a nice offfer". That nice offer, which I
accepted, turned
out to be a NIMH (National Institutes of Mental Health) Traineeship
in
Clinical
Psychology, for an unlimited period of time, with no strings
attached
other
than that I meet the academic requirements of the program (maintain
a B
average).. It took care of all my expenses (tuition, room & board,
books,
etc.) and gave me s small stipend to live on as well. Some of my
classmates
congratulated me on my good fortune (many of them had to accept
teaching
assistantships to help pay their bills, while all I had to do was
hit
the
books). The program turned out to be a real meatgrinder (as one of
my
classmates put it). It made my undergraduate program at an elite
"small Ivy
League school" (Bowdoin College) and my M.A. program seem like
kindergarten.
Almost everybody in my entering class of about 20 had either a Phi
Beta Kappa key, was published and or came from Ivy League schools
or
places
like U. of Chicago, Stanford or Berkeley. Of the 20 who started
the
program,
only 5 of us survived and got our doctorates. It took not only a
high
degree
of intelligence and perserverance, but also a large ability to deal
with the
stress of knowing that you were in a program with a very high
attrition
rate
and some professors, who frankly, until you got to the 2nd year and
had
"paid
your dues", didn't give a damn if you survived or not. I'll never
forgot one
of my Statistics professors who used to get up in front of the
class
and say
"Even if you don't make it through graduate school, you can still
be a
good
citizen""

and the following:

"I was accepted for an Internship in Clnical
Psycnology at Massachusetts General Hospital, which I accepted and
completed"

and the followiong:

"After obtaining my doctorate, I was
also accepted for postdoctoral training at Temple Medical School,
Department of
Psychiary, Institute for Behavior Therapy, in Philadelphia. I
enjoyed
my time
there had learned a lot under the supervision of the late Dr.
Joseph
Wolpe, a
world famous psychiatrist who is considered to be one of the
founders
of
Cognitive?Behavioral Therapy, the predominant type of therapy now
practiced by
most psychologists and psychiatrists (aside from pharmacotherapy).
"

The above quotes are from a post written in response to Howard
Ferstler,
another well known zealot, pathological liar, and purveyor of libel
on
RAO (not
surprisingly, frequently defended by Krueger, McKelvy's role
model).

The complete post (and thread) can be referened at:


http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...0203225629.076

19.00000418%40mb?mg.aol.com&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DFerstler%2Band%2BRichman%2B

and%2BUniversity%2Bof%2BTexas%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26 ie%3DUTF?8%26sa%3DN%26ta
b%3Dwg

So McKelvy's slandeous claims about quacks, frauds, and fakes are
nothing more
than the delusional, sociopathic rantings and repetitions of a
proven
liar and
libeler.

No doubt he will claim that this is all made up, but the only thing
made up are
his nonsensical departures from reality which pollute RAO whenever
he
continues
to libel me and others.

One further fact, which I may or may not be able to prove since it
happened a
long time ago, and I don't know if the radio station keeps records.
And I
challenge the cretin and liar, McKelvy, to disprove it ? LOL! :

In about 1976 or 1977, I was employed as the "Psychology Director"
of a
private
Cardiac Rehabilitation Center based in Miami, Florida. The center
ran
a
30?day, interdisciplinary inpatient program for patients who were
either at
high risk for cardiac disease or had already undergone such
procedures
as
cardiac bypass surgery. My main responsibility was to direct the
behavioral
component of this intensive program (which also involved
dieticians,
exercise
physiologists, cardiologists, and RNs). Areas such as stress
management,

smoking cessation, behavioral approaches to obesity, etc. were
among
the
targets that I had to address. One of my other responsibilities
was,
in
conjunction with the medical director, to promote the program
through
various
media appearances in both TV and radio. Two interviews in
particular
stand out
in my mind. The first came in the wee hours of the morning in New
York
City on
a nationally syndicated program ? "The Long John Nebel Show" (New
Yorkers old
enough may remember this). The second occurred in my home base on
the
79th
Street Causeway in Miami Beach at a radio station where Miami's
best
known talk
show host (at the time) was carrying forth ? I spent 2 hours being
interviewed
very incisively on the main topic which was "Stress and Heart
Disease".
I
remember coming away from that interview thinking that the
interviewer
was very
sharp and well prepared to really grill me. The name of the radio
station (and
I'm relying on long ago recall was, I believe either WKAT or WIOD).
The name
of the host ? Larry King.

Shortly thereafter, Larry left Miami and the rest is history.

I challenge the proven liar, and libeler, McKelvy to dispute any of
these facts
with any factual evidence he cares to fabricate from the diseased
empty
spaces
composing his deluded cranium.

No doubt he will choose to delete most of this post instead.

LOL!!!

(I apologize for appearing to be bragging about past or present
accomplishments, but since this despicable, loudmouthed,
unbelievably
stupid,
delusional, libeler and liar decided to completely embarass himself
once again,
it was just too tempting to not assist him in making a fool of
himself
and
exposing his sociopathic behavior once again).

Nothing more needs to be said about his lies, so when he responds
with
more
bull****, I will respond with a standard, previously used, canned
response that
perfectly describes this moron's basic character, motivations, and
irrational
behaviors.

Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist
(FL PY 2543)


None of this "proves" anything.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the kind of "history" you';r known for. I could have given
many
othe examples of your libelous false stateements.

No you can't.




Had I allowed the calls from
him to go through and then given him the last 4 digits of his
cell
phone, he could simply lie about this and claim either that (a)
it
never happened, or (b) the numbers that I would then publish
(perhaps)
on RAO were ones that I made up.

I never said I would use my cell phone, that number is available
through
information and would have been too easy for you to claim that I
called you
from it, even if I hadn't.


Unlike you, I'm not in the habit of making false statements about
telephone calls to other people.

What false statements would those be?


There is no question in my mind that
he has had and does not now have any intention of discontinuing
his
smear campaigns and libel.

The only one on a smear campaign right now is you.


That's another obvious lie. Do the names, Lionel and Krueger ring
a
bell? (Both of whom you support and imitate).

A breif glance at history shows that Lionel and I have had a few
dustups and
that ratonal people would not conclude that we are on friendly terms.

Rational people would conclude that the two of you share a strong
interest and character assassination and lying about others.

Rational people would easily conclude you are an established liar who makes
the most outrageous statements and claims opinions are lies and hearsay is
fact. You are one of the moist prolific flamers on this NG.

Lionel,
being a fervent Hamas supporter adn antiSemite, also appears to
subscribe to the old Arabic principle "the enemy of my enemy is my
friend"./

Either that or he just thinks you're a dick, since you've attacked him also.

All that said, its' very tempting to expose this lying character
assassin as one who has no intention of honoring proposals that
involve
termination of his compulsive need to attack me whenever he
can.

OSAF.

(That's just one of his wide range of psychiatric problems).
Therefore, I've decided to make a counterproposal that will be
far
less
likely for him to cheat and sabotage. Just as there is a tape
of
Krueger talking to Graham which many of us have heard and know
to
be a
reality, despite Krueger's denials, my proposal also involves a
tape.

(1) I will designate a time for McKelvy to call the telephone
number
that he claims he has recently called several times.


It's not a claim and if you have caller ID you would know that I did.

I said 3 times.


Several = 3 as well as other numbers in common parlance.


(2) If he calls that number at the time I specify, he will get
an
answering machine with my voice and name announced, with a
request
that
he leave a message.


I'd rather call at a time of my choosing, one that would be during
normal
business hours. Not one where you could pre-arrange with someone.


That would be your paranoid ideation working ovewrtime again.

Possibly but I still want to pick the time.

The time
UI specify will be during normal business hours, but during the normal
business hours of an East Coast psychologist.

Check with one and see if you can find out their normal hours. :-)

(3) He should then leave his name, telephone number, and mailing
address on the tape.


You can get all that from information.

All I *might* get would be a listing for a person with the name,
Michael McKelvy. That would not prove in any way that you are that
person. Only a telephone call with verifiable information will do
that.

You can call me, twit.


(4) I agree not to publish this information without his
permission.
However, I will announce that i have received the information
and
post
it in a way that it can not be identified (omission of numerals
and
letters).

(5) In return, McKelvy must publically stipulate on RAO - in the
title
of a thread - that he will refrain from ever mentioning me or my
professional activities again on RAO.

I already stopped referencing your professional activities until you
started
bringing it up again, twit.


Bull****, liar. Your propoisal and numerous other statements you have
made are designed to keep your smear campaign going on ad infinitum.

Bruce you've brought it many times since then, I have not except in response
to you.


(This is no more than he
promised to do in his proposal).

Actually, I said if you agreed to my proposal and could meet my
request, I
would shut up about you forever.


My counterproposal basically says the same thing. However, it
requires
that you acknowledge this on RAO. If you plan on keeping your
word,
you should have no problem iwth announcing it on RAO.

Since it's aprt of my original proposal, what's the point?



What's the objection?

Because I know that you will keep on lying about me. I'll stop talking
about yuour obviousl lack of professionalism and you stated profession, but
I reserve the right to call you when you lie and smear anyone. The same
right you already have.


Further, he must agree and stipulate
that my attacks on Krueger or anybody else that attacks me DO
NOT
GIVE
HIM ANY EXCUSE TO JUMP IN AND START FLAMING AWAY AS HE HAS DONE
OFTEN
IN THE PAST.

Tell me why you flamed him in the Julian Hirsch thread.



Irrelevant.

Not when you say you don't flame people without cause, liar.


Why have you attacked me on numeous occasions when I've
retaliated against Krueger's smears.

Because your idea of a smear is someone telling the truth about you.

Why do you think that attacks
against Krueger in response to his insuls require you to get involved?
Have you ever heard the phrase "mind your own business"?


Have you. The Julian Hirsch thread is a prime example of you not doing
that.



The reason for the tape recorded answering machine response
requirement
is quite simple. Just as a part of Krueger's conversation with
Graham
was posted to RAO (and a much larger, complete portion sent to
many
of
us), if McKelvy denies or lies about making this call in the
manner
specified, I'll have proof that he's lying. Given his history,
that's
a reasonable approach.

What's unreasonable about posting the last 4 digits of a number I
call you
from, that a 3rd party will know in advance?


See above.


Of course, if he handles this correctly, no information will be
given
out other than that described above.


For those of you who remember Gene Steinberg, after a long
period
of
nasty exchanges, the two of us spoke on the telephone and aired
our
differences. After that, there were no more hostilities.
Unlike
McKelvy, both Stewart Pinkerton and Paul Wagner, two former
posters
who, like Leslie Van Vreeland, made the mistake of engaging in
personal
attacks thorugh lying about my credentials - had the integrity
to
issue
public retractions when they quickly found out that their
statements
were both false and libelous because of evidence they obtained.
Another psychologist (industrial, I think) who used to post
here,
and
is, I believe an acquaintance of both Nousaine and Krueger, is a
man by
the name of Doug Stabler. As I recall, he lives in Palatine,
Illinois,
or did the last time I corresponded with him. He also knows the
truth.
McKelvy should do no less than issue a public retraction re. his
comments about my identity, professional activities, and
credentials.

Doofus, I agreed that if JJ said you were who you said you were
that
was
good enough for me. When is the last time I questioned whether or
not you
were a shrink? The person who continually brings it up is YOU!

I stated some time ago that the problem was less about your
profession, than
it was about the fact that choose to try and become a professional
asshole.



You're full of ****, asshole. You've made numerous comments about
"bean counters", "ethical lapses" and other idiotic false
statements
that have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not I met with
Jim
Johnston or anybody else.

Those were the things I was told about you by Gindi. You can believe
it or
not, I don't care.


You're lying again. No psychologist would claim I've made any ethical
lapses, since I haven't, and that is clear to all knowledgable people.

I didn't say Gindi commented on ethical lapses, he said you were a bean
counter and had no practice.


The fact that your attack thread with that title got no responses
speaks for itself.

Better check again, there are responses, the first one from Morein IIRC.

You failed to verify libelous information, yet
passed it on, claiming you "had it on good authority". That was a lie.

It was a belief.

The information was untrue and the person you claim told it to you waw
not a "good authority", since he knows nothing about me other than the
fact that I'm a lice4nsed psychologist.

I believed he did. My mistake, maybe.

(And that is a matter of
public record). In fact, he's never met me. So you, as always,
anxious to sling more libelous mud, just passed on a bunch of bogus
bull****.

No, no I was just anxious to puncture a pompous, lying, flaming,
unprofessional windbag.

The fact that you even make a proposal now -
after 7 years of lying and libeling me - clearly indicates that you
still haven't gotten the message that you'be been discredited
concerning your bull**** about me.

Ask me if I care. You sure seem to, much more than I do.

You persist in makinig phony
requests for "proof" that are clearly designed to be sabotaged
and/or
otherwise ignored by you.


Not true at all. First, you know my name, you know how to get my phone
numbers and you could harrass me in return. I'm not Singh, I keep my word.
Come to think of it I'm not you, I keep my word.

No, it shows that you still continue to act like an asshole and you
still
make **** up, and scream about imagined wrongs.



Your proposal was your invention and indicates that you're a delusional
asshole that continues to believe the bull**** you spew on a regular
basis.

It indicates I'd like to find out if you have access to the phone number
listed for Bruce J. Richman.

Your proposal was soundly ridiculed as the bugus attempt most
of us know it to be - just another cheap attempt to get ammjunitition
for another smear dampaign.

By a bunch of ridiclous people who live to smear.


My original proposal stands. Pick a time for me to call you, then
using
caller I.D. which I assume you have, post the last 4 numbers of
the
phone I
call from. That's it. It does have to be the number listed as
belonging to
Bruce J. Richman PhD. in N. Miami, Fl. You don't have to talk to
me.
In
fact I have no desire to talk to you.

If you like I will give the number I intend to call you from to a
neutral
3rd party like Sander or Ruud, so they can back up the story and
make
you
more comfortable that I'm not cheating.

"Paul Dormer" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" emitted :

Doofus, I agreed that if JJ said you were who you said you were that was
good enough for me.

He once claimed to be unable to acquire the contact details of a
particular individual who was giving him some proper grief on RAO and
behind the scenes, so I filled him in. JJ was not necessarily the most
brilliant internet detective.. ;-)

My original proposal stands. Pick a time for me to call you, then using
caller I.D. which I assume you have, post the last 4 numbers of the
phone
I
call from. That's it.

What is to stop you from lying about the veracity of what Bruce
reports?? Nothing. This then gives you the green light to continue to
harass him.. ad infinitum..?

Sounds like a trap...


A third party will know the numbers. There's no reason for me to trap him,

Your 7 year harrassment campaign counts for nothing?


Since it doesn't exist, yes.

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

Michael McKelvy wrote:
"Paul Dormer" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" emitted :

Doofus, I agreed that if JJ said you were who you said you were
that was
good enough for me.

He once claimed to be unable to acquire the contact details of a
particular individual who was giving him some proper grief on RAO
and
behind the scenes, so I filled him in. JJ was not necessarily the
most
brilliant internet detective.. ;-)

My original proposal stands. Pick a time for me to call you, then
using
caller I.D. which I assume you have, post the last 4 numbers of the
phone
I
call from. That's it.

What is to stop you from lying about the veracity of what Bruce
reports?? Nothing. This then gives you the green light to continue
to
harass him.. ad infinitum..?

Sounds like a trap...


A third party will know the numbers. There's no reason for me to
trap him,
the number I'll call just has to be his publicly listed number.
Christ the
dip**** could call me anytime he wants a leave a message on my cell
if
wanted to, as long as it's from his publicly listed phone. I can
program
his name and number into my cell and I'll know if he called from it
unless
he blocks it.

If thd numbers are actually in the telephone book, as this imbecile
claims, I don't need any third party to hold the numbers.

Try and follow along. I'm not going to call you from either of my phones.

As Paul
Dormer correctly suggested, McKelvy has lied so many times about my
actions, that one more lie would be just standard operating procedure
for him.

Where excactly did he say that? He said I harrassed you, ignoring the fact
that you do far more of it than I do.

The tape, OTOH, which would actually contain very little
information, would be proof that he actually called as I reported it.
Further, the tape containing his message could be played back over his
own telephone upon arrangement.


If you call my home phone you could leave a message that could be played as
well.

"Paul Dormer" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" emitted :

Don't hold your breath. I've given "McKelvy" multiple opportunites to
verify his identity.. to date he has shyed away from doing any such
thing; preferring to remain in the shadows.

"McKelvy", call me on +44 7774 598750 and leave a short voice message,
to confirm that you are a human being capable of operating a telephone
and speaking. I promise not to broadcast any part of the recording on
the internet..


My number is easily available if you wish to call.

I have no way of knowing in advance that it will be you picking up the
phone, "McKelvy". I have no more concrete reason to trust you, than
you have to trust me.

So why should I call you?

One has to wonder why you issue demands, but
refuse to co-operate with otehrs..

What demands. You want to know if I'm here call my cell. I'll answer
either directly or via voice mail.

and why it always has to be done
YOUR way.

Cause a bunch of loonies claim I don't exist.

Just make the call and leave a message. All it will take is 60 seconds
of your life and 50 cents, to complete this simple task.

Are you able?

How many of you are stable?



How do you figure it will cost 50 cents to call overseas?

Michael McKelvy wrote:
"Paul Dormer" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" emitted :

Don't hold your breath. I've given "McKelvy" multiple
opportunites to
verify his identity.. to date he has shyed away from doing any
such
thing; preferring to remain in the shadows.

"McKelvy", call me on +44 7774 598750 and leave a short voice
message,
to confirm that you are a human being capable of operating a
telephone
and speaking. I promise not to broadcast any part of the
recording on
the internet..


My number is easily available if you wish to call.

I have no way of knowing in advance that it will be you picking up
the
phone, "McKelvy". I have no more concrete reason to trust you, than
you have to trust me.

So why should I call you?

One has to wonder why you issue demands, but
refuse to co-operate with otehrs..

What demands. You want to know if I'm here call my cell. I'll
answer
either directly or via voice mail.



I think he's referring to your demands in your proposal. And my
counjterproposal stipulates that I will answer va answering machine
during normal business hours, provideed that suitable arrangements are
made.

and why it always has to be done
YOUR way.

Cause a bunch of loonies claim I don't exist.


Ir irony killed.


Just make the call and leave a message. All it will take is 60
seconds
of your life and 50 cents, to complete this simple task.

Are you able?

How many of you are stable?



How do you figure it will cost 50 cents to call overseas?


Can you prove that it will cost you more than that for a call lasting
less than 60 seconds?

"Paul Dormer" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" emitted :

My number is easily available if you wish to call.

I have no way of knowing in advance that it will be you picking up the
phone, "McKelvy". I have no more concrete reason to trust you, than
you have to trust me.

So why should I call you?

So why should I call you?

One has to wonder why you issue demands, but
refuse to co-operate with otehrs..

What demands. You want to know if I'm here call my cell. I'll answer
either directly or via voice mail.

Refusal to co-operate noted.

Refusal to take some initative noted.

Continuing to issue demands whilst simultaneously pleading ignorance
to issuing demands noted.

Assertion of non-existent demands noted.

and why it always has to be done
YOUR way.

Cause a bunch of loonies claim I don't exist.

Heck, Bruce might say the same thing.

Acknowledgemet of head loonie noted.

Except he wouldn't... because he's a professional.

At what?

Just make the call and leave a message. All it will take is 60 seconds
of your life and 50 cents, to complete this simple task.

Are you able?

How many of you are stable?



How do you figure it will cost 50 cents to call overseas?

Get twitchy over a few cents.. why don't you. If you're so hard up you
need me to pay for the call just say the word.

Any more excuses??


If you have such desperate need to hear my voice, call.

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

Paul Dormer wrote:
"Bruce J. Richman" emitted :

When McKelvy claimed, after 7 years, that he would shut his lying,
libelous mouth and never mention my name again or respond to my
posts
if I agreed to his pathetic attempts to harass me via telephone and
give him some information, just about all of those with at least
half a
brain saw through his scam. Obviously, there was (and is) no reason
to
trust him, given his despicable history. Had I allowed the calls
from
him to go through and then given him the last 4 digits of his cell
phone, he could simply lie about this and claim either that (a) it
never happened, or (b) the numbers that I would then publish
(perhaps)
on RAO were ones that I made up. There is no question in my mind
that
he has had and does not now have any intention of discontinuing his
smear campaigns and libel.

All that said, its' very tempting to expose this lying character
assassin as one who has no intention of honoring proposals that
involve
termination of his compulsive need to attack me whenever he can.
(That's just one of his wide range of psychiatric problems).
Therefore, I've decided to make a counterproposal that will be far
less
likely for him to cheat and sabotage. Just as there is a tape of
Krueger talking to Graham which many of us have heard and know to be
a
reality, despite Krueger's denials, my proposal also involves a
tape.

(1) I will designate a time for McKelvy to call the telephone number
that he claims he has recently called several times.

(2) If he calls that number at the time I specify, he will get an
answering machine with my voice and name announced, with a request
that
he leave a message.

(3) He should then leave his name, telephone number, and mailing
address on the tape.

(4) I agree not to publish this information without his permission.
However, I will announce that i have received the information and
post
it in a way that it can not be identified (omission of numerals and
letters).

(5) In return, McKelvy must publically stipulate on RAO - in the
title
of a thread - that he will refrain from ever mentioning me or my
professional activities again on RAO. (This is no more than he
promised to do in his proposal). Further, he must agree and
stipulate
that my attacks on Krueger or anybody else that attacks me DO NOT
GIVE
HIM ANY EXCUSE TO JUMP IN AND START FLAMING AWAY AS HE HAS DONE
OFTEN
IN THE PAST.

The reason for the tape recorded answering machine response
requirement
is quite simple. Just as a part of Krueger's conversation with
Graham
was posted to RAO (and a much larger, complete portion sent to many
of
us), if McKelvy denies or lies about making this call in the manner
specified, I'll have proof that he's lying. Given his history,
that's
a reasonable approach.
Of course, if he handles this correctly, no information will be
given
out other than that described above.


For those of you who remember Gene Steinberg, after a long period of
nasty exchanges, the two of us spoke on the telephone and aired our
differences. After that, there were no more hostilities. Unlike
McKelvy, both Stewart Pinkerton and Paul Wagner, two former posters
who, like Leslie Van Vreeland, made the mistake of engaging in
personal
attacks thorugh lying about my credentials - had the integrity to
issue
public retractions when they quickly found out that their statements
were both false and libelous because of evidence they obtained.
Another psychologist (industrial, I think) who used to post here,
and
is, I believe an acquaintance of both Nousaine and Krueger, is a man
by
the name of Doug Stabler. As I recall, he lives in Palatine,
Illinois,
or did the last time I corresponded with him. He also knows the
truth.
McKelvy should do no less than issue a public retraction re. his
comments about my identity, professional activities, and
credentials.

Don't hold your breath. I've given "McKelvy" multiple opportunites to
verify his identity.. to date he has shyed away from doing any such
thing; preferring to remain in the shadows.

"McKelvy", call me on +44 7774 598750 and leave a short voice
message,
to confirm that you are a human being capable of operating a
telephone
and speaking. I promise not to broadcast any part of the recording on
the internet..


So now we have 2 individuals, yourself and me, that have made the same
request with specific promises not to reproduce any part of the
recording on the Internet. Actually, if *I* did, McKelvy could then
claim that I had an "ethical lapse" - unlike the phony attack thread
hje started with that title. As most rational people know,
psycholoigsts enjoy the smae "privileged communication" status as
priests, attornies, and physicians. In oirder for me to be able to
reveal any significant information abou what McKelvy might say to an
answering machine, I would have to have a signed "Consent For Relesse
of Information Form" from him.

Bull****, I'd ahve to be a patient of yours for that to be true.

There is poster on RAO, named "Phil", who has posted on both politics
on audio. He and I probably have very little in common politically
since he is admittedly quite conservative in his political views.
However, I know Phil's last name, which he has asked me not to report
on RAO. I have honred that request. In fact, McKelvy can find no
evidence that I've ever revealed any confidential information given to
me about anybody on RAO.

I also can find no evidence that you have any integrity whatsoever.



OTOH, McKelvy originally claimed that a person who requested
confidentiality

He did request it, in the form of a threat. It is also considered good
manners to honor such requests. I kept it confidential for a very long time
until, YOU kept pushing and bringing up old news.

had passed on a bunch of information via email. All
this information was false, but McKelvy posted it without bothering to
verify any of it.

Certaily no worse than the lies you keep telling.

More importantly, he eventually said, and I quote
"**** it", and proceeded to violate the confidentiality he claimed he
had promised to Gindi.

I'm not a shrink, it was not a promise of confidentiality that I gave it was
a response to a threat made by Gindi at the time.

Therefore, I have a lot more reason to distrust
him, then he has to distrust me. If somebody asks me to keep something
confidential I do so - it's part of my daily professional
responsibility.



The only person with anything to lose in my proposal is myself. What harm
could be done to you if I mess it up.

There's always the chance that you could say I never called.

Michael McKelvy wrote:

"Paul Dormer" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" emitted :

My number is easily available if you wish to call.

I have no way of knowing in advance that it will be you picking
up the
phone, "McKelvy". I have no more concrete reason to trust you,
than
you have to trust me.

So why should I call you?

So why should I call you?

One has to wonder why you issue demands, but
refuse to co-operate with otehrs..

What demands. You want to know if I'm here call my cell. I'll
answer
either directly or via voice mail.

Refusal to co-operate noted.

Refusal to take some initative noted.


Also, blatant hypocrisy noted. Failure on part of libeler to provide
evidence exposing his libel noted.


Continuing to issue demands whilst simultaneously pleading
ignorance
to issuing demands noted.

Assertion of non-existent demands noted.

and why it always has to be done
YOUR way.

Cause a bunch of loonies claim I don't exist.

Heck, Bruce might say the same thing.

Acknowledgemet of head loonie noted.


Delusional thinking and robotic lying by sociopath noted.



Except he wouldn't... because he's a professional.

At what?


Exposing libelers and sociopathic character assassins like you.
Further evidence of libel noted from pathological llar who has lied
about not attacking my professional activities, while he continues to
do so.



Just make the call and leave a message. All it will take is 60
seconds
of your life and 50 cents, to complete this simple task.

Are you able?

How many of you are stable?



How do you figure it will cost 50 cents to call overseas?

Get twitchy over a few cents.. why don't you. If you're so hard up
you
need me to pay for the call just say the word.

Any more excuses??


If you have such desperate need to hear my voice, call.

You're the one with the desperate need. A need to avoid providing
evidence for the statements you make. Failure to telephone people in a
way that does not allow cheating and lying after the fact noted.
IKYABWAI expected and totally predictable.

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

Paul Dormer wrote:
"Bruce J. Richman" emitted :

When McKelvy claimed, after 7 years, that he would shut his
lying,
libelous mouth and never mention my name again or respond to my
posts
if I agreed to his pathetic attempts to harass me via telephone
and
give him some information, just about all of those with at least
half a
brain saw through his scam. Obviously, there was (and is) no
reason
to
trust him, given his despicable history. Had I allowed the calls
from
him to go through and then given him the last 4 digits of his
cell
phone, he could simply lie about this and claim either that (a)
it
never happened, or (b) the numbers that I would then publish
(perhaps)
on RAO were ones that I made up. There is no question in my mind
that
he has had and does not now have any intention of discontinuing
his
smear campaigns and libel.

All that said, its' very tempting to expose this lying character
assassin as one who has no intention of honoring proposals that
involve
termination of his compulsive need to attack me whenever he can.
(That's just one of his wide range of psychiatric problems).
Therefore, I've decided to make a counterproposal that will be
far
less
likely for him to cheat and sabotage. Just as there is a tape of
Krueger talking to Graham which many of us have heard and know to
be
a
reality, despite Krueger's denials, my proposal also involves a
tape.

(1) I will designate a time for McKelvy to call the telephone
number
that he claims he has recently called several times.

(2) If he calls that number at the time I specify, he will get an
answering machine with my voice and name announced, with a
request
that
he leave a message.

(3) He should then leave his name, telephone number, and mailing
address on the tape.

(4) I agree not to publish this information without his
permission.
However, I will announce that i have received the information and
post
it in a way that it can not be identified (omission of numerals
and
letters).

(5) In return, McKelvy must publically stipulate on RAO - in the
title
of a thread - that he will refrain from ever mentioning me or my
professional activities again on RAO. (This is no more than he
promised to do in his proposal). Further, he must agree and
stipulate
that my attacks on Krueger or anybody else that attacks me DO NOT
GIVE
HIM ANY EXCUSE TO JUMP IN AND START FLAMING AWAY AS HE HAS DONE
OFTEN
IN THE PAST.

The reason for the tape recorded answering machine response
requirement
is quite simple. Just as a part of Krueger's conversation with
Graham
was posted to RAO (and a much larger, complete portion sent to
many
of
us), if McKelvy denies or lies about making this call in the
manner
specified, I'll have proof that he's lying. Given his history,
that's
a reasonable approach.
Of course, if he handles this correctly, no information will be
given
out other than that described above.


For those of you who remember Gene Steinberg, after a long period
of
nasty exchanges, the two of us spoke on the telephone and aired
our
differences. After that, there were no more hostilities. Unlike
McKelvy, both Stewart Pinkerton and Paul Wagner, two former
posters
who, like Leslie Van Vreeland, made the mistake of engaging in
personal
attacks thorugh lying about my credentials - had the integrity to
issue
public retractions when they quickly found out that their
statements
were both false and libelous because of evidence they obtained.
Another psychologist (industrial, I think) who used to post here,
and
is, I believe an acquaintance of both Nousaine and Krueger, is a
man
by
the name of Doug Stabler. As I recall, he lives in Palatine,
Illinois,
or did the last time I corresponded with him. He also knows the
truth.
McKelvy should do no less than issue a public retraction re. his
comments about my identity, professional activities, and
credentials.

Don't hold your breath. I've given "McKelvy" multiple opportunites
to
verify his identity.. to date he has shyed away from doing any
such
thing; preferring to remain in the shadows.

"McKelvy", call me on +44 7774 598750 and leave a short voice
message,
to confirm that you are a human being capable of operating a
telephone
and speaking. I promise not to broadcast any part of the recording
on
the internet..


So now we have 2 individuals, yourself and me, that have made the
same
request with specific promises not to reproduce any part of the
recording on the Internet. Actually, if *I* did, McKelvy could
then
claim that I had an "ethical lapse" - unlike the phony attack
thread
hje started with that title. As most rational people know,
psycholoigsts enjoy the smae "privileged communication" status as
priests, attornies, and physicians. In oirder for me to be able to
reveal any significant information abou what McKelvy might say to
an
answering machine, I would have to have a signed "Consent For
Relesse
of Information Form" from him.

Bull****, I'd ahve to be a patient of yours for that to be true.


Your bull**** and ignorance is obvious. Privileged communication
covers a lot of different things that don't involve my patients.
Unlike you, I don't have an RAO history of getting emails from others
requesting confidentiality and then violating that request.



There is poster on RAO, named "Phil", who has posted on both
politics
on audio. He and I probably have very little in common politically
since he is admittedly quite conservative in his political views.
However, I know Phil's last name, which he has asked me not to
report
on RAO. I have honred that request. In fact, McKelvy can find no
evidence that I've ever revealed any confidential information given
to
me about anybody on RAO.

I also can find no evidence that you have any integrity whatsoever.



Who cares about your deliberate avoidance of the facts? You have a 7
year history of avoiding evidence and lying about my professional
activities. You also have a proven history of breaking confidentiality
- by your own admission - from another poster. You also have a proven
RAO history of passing on false information about your enemies without
checking it out - as in the alleged Gindi email.
Your comments about "integrity" are a joke, given your proven lack of
same.





OTOH, McKelvy originally claimed that a person who requested
confidentiality

He did request it, in the form of a threat.

So now you arw claiming thta he threatened you? Bull****. This is
just a new excuse you're now inventing for the first time to embellish
your little fable. The more details you add to your rationalization
for passing on (or making up out of thin air) false negative
information about me, the more likely it appears that your whole story
about getting an email was bull**** as well.

It is also considered good
manners to honor such requests.

How would you know? You have none, as you've proven. It's also
considered common sense to verify negative information one receives
from others before spewing out on RAO cloaked in false claims such as
"I have it on good authority" (the "authority" being a person I've
never met who doesn't post on RAO).


I kept it confidential for a very long time
until, YOU kept pushing and bringing up old news.


Bull****. YOU have kept repeating various parts of that package of
lies you claim toi have received over and over again. As long as you
continue to lie about my professional activities, about which you know
nothing, I have every right to expose your libel.

The fact remains that you violated confidentiality. No wonder
practically nobody believes anything you say.




had passed on a bunch of information via email. All
this information was false, but McKelvy posted it without bothering
to
verify any of it.

Certaily no worse than the lies you keep telling.


Bull****. Prove it. What lies?


More importantly, he eventually said, and I quote
"**** it", and proceeded to violate the confidentiality he claimed
he
had promised to Gindi.

I'm not a shrink, it was not a promise of confidentiality that I gave
it was
a response to a threat made by Gindi at the time.



Prove it. Thanks for admitting you have no sense of honor and no
ability to honor promises you make to other people. Yet you expect
Paul Dormer and me to trust you? BWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!

Amuse us with another unprovable lie. Since you've claimed that Gindi
"threatened" you, what specifically was the nature of the threat?
Are you aware that a number of the people here can easily contact Gindi
and provide evidence that you violated his confidentiality request? If
so, does this mean that you don't care about his "threats"? Take your
time in answering these questions. Feel free to consult with your few
colleagues that like to make up adn embellish stories about other
posters. I'm sure either Lionel or Krueger will be glad to help
you......er,......."complete" your little set of fabrications.


Therefore, I have a lot more reason to distrust
him, then he has to distrust me. If somebody asks me to keep
something
confidential I do so - it's part of my daily professional
responsibility.



The only person with anything to lose in my proposal is myself. What
harm
could be done to you if I mess it up.

There's always the chance that you could say I never called.

My proposal contains a request that you call and leave a message on my
answering machine. If you leave your telephone number, I will call it
and play back the tape over your telephone. Do you really thing I'm
going to go to the trouble to modify a tape with your voice on it?
Even your advanced paranoia should not include that possibility.

You could be taping your call as you make it, for all I know, so I
could not say you didn't call, especially if you've made a tape of it.
Krueger has denied receiving a call, but a tape exists - which many of
us have heard and/or own - that contains exactly what was said on that
tap by the 2 parties involved.


My proposal is reasonable and covers questions of proof. It also
eliminates the possibility of cheating a lot more than anything you've
proposed, especially if we both have copies of what is on the tape.
All that will be on the tape will be my recorded message and your
recorded response. You can record both, and I expect that you will.
So will I. End of story. Tapes don't usually lie.

Michael McKelvy wrote:
"Paul Dormer" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" emitted :

Doofus, I agreed that if JJ said you were who you said you were
that was
good enough for me.

He once claimed to be unable to acquire the contact details of a
particular individual who was giving him some proper grief on RAO
and
behind the scenes, so I filled him in. JJ was not necessarily the
most
brilliant internet detective.. ;-)

My original proposal stands. Pick a time for me to call you,
then using
caller I.D. which I assume you have, post the last 4 numbers of
the
phone
I
call from. That's it.

What is to stop you from lying about the veracity of what Bruce
reports?? Nothing. This then gives you the green light to
continue to
harass him.. ad infinitum..?

Sounds like a trap...


A third party will know the numbers. There's no reason for me to
trap him,

Your 7 year harrassment campaign counts for nothing?


Since it doesn't exist, yes.

Denial of 7 year history of proven harassment noted. And this is
definitely ot an opinion, since numerous attack posts have been made by
McKelvy. It's just another of his lies.

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

Michael McKelvy wrote:
"Paul Dormer" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" emitted :

Doofus, I agreed that if JJ said you were who you said you were
that was
good enough for me.

He once claimed to be unable to acquire the contact details of a
particular individual who was giving him some proper grief on
RAO
and
behind the scenes, so I filled him in. JJ was not necessarily
the
most
brilliant internet detective.. ;-)

My original proposal stands. Pick a time for me to call you,
then
using
caller I.D. which I assume you have, post the last 4 numbers of
the
phone
I
call from. That's it.

What is to stop you from lying about the veracity of what Bruce
reports?? Nothing. This then gives you the green light to
continue
to
harass him.. ad infinitum..?

Sounds like a trap...


A third party will know the numbers. There's no reason for me to
trap him,
the number I'll call just has to be his publicly listed number.
Christ the
dip**** could call me anytime he wants a leave a message on my
cell
if
wanted to, as long as it's from his publicly listed phone. I can
program
his name and number into my cell and I'll know if he called from
it
unless
he blocks it.

If thd numbers are actually in the telephone book, as this imbecile
claims, I don't need any third party to hold the numbers.

Try and follow along. I'm not going to call you from either of my
phones.



Try and comprehend the following facts that have thus far gone over
your head. (1) There is no way to prove that you have called at all,
and I expect you to cheat in terms of any proposal you make. (2) You
are less likely to cheat when a tape is available to both parties to
verify who called and what was actually said.


As Paul
Dormer correctly suggested, McKelvy has lied so many times about my
actions, that one more lie would be just standard operating
procedure
for him.

Where excactly did he say that? He said I harrassed you, ignoring
the fact
that you do far more of it than I do.


That';s a lie. I have no reason to harass you or anybody else. You
jump into threads involving Krueger, Lionel, and God only knows how
many other people in which your name has never been mentioned with the
sole purpose of harassment and character assassination. You did so
last night, as is your routine habit.

The tape, OTOH, which would actually contain very little
information, would be proof that he actually called as I reported
it.
Further, the tape containing his message could be played back over
his
own telephone upon arrangement.


If you call my home phone you could leave a message that could be
played as
well.

Except that you're the one claiming that you have no evidence that I'm
at the number you claim to have been dialing. If you call the number
during normal business hours at a time mutually accepted by both of us,
then you can no longer claim that the listing identified by Dave Weil
(and called by a number of individuals from RAO in the past) is not
mine. You are the ones that has made the false statementes about my
identity. It's up to you to prove them or disprove them. Calling me
as described will settle this issue once and for all. Also, you're the
one promising to shut your libelous trap after connecting with this
number, so I'm giving you the opportunity to do so - but in a way that
won't allow you to cheat after the fact and lie about it.