No wonder Quackenbush likes "vinyl": he's a broken record! ;-)

http://tinyurl.com/6d68n

http://tinyurl.com/722dw

http://tinyurl.com/46uks


Enjoy!

Torresists a écrit :

No wonder Quackenbush likes "vinyl": he's a broken record! ;-)

http://tinyurl.com/6d68n

http://tinyurl.com/722dw

http://tinyurl.com/46uks


Enjoy!

If you want more fun you can also do the same searches with :
- paranoid
- delusional
- pathological liar
- folie à deux

And our good doctor Bruce J. Richman still pretends that he is on RAO to
speak about audio.
How many time since you haven't post anything on RAHE Doc ? ;-)

Subject: "Libel!!" "Sockpuppet!" "Character Assassination!!" The Richman
From: Lionel ahc
Date: 8/18/2004 3:46 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

Torresists a écrit :

No wonder Quackenbush likes "vinyl": he's a broken record! ;-)

http://tinyurl.com/6d68n

http://tinyurl.com/722dw

http://tinyurl.com/46uks


Enjoy!

If you want more fun you can also do the same searches with :
- paranoid
- delusional
- pathological liar
- folie à deux


Not to mention:

"unprovoked"
"personal attack"
"7 year history"
etc


And our good doctor Bruce J. Richman still pretends that he is on RAO to
speak about audio.
How many time since you haven't post anything on RAHE Doc ? ;-)

Torresists a écrit :

Subject: "Libel!!" "Sockpuppet!" "Character Assassination!!" The Richman
From: Lionel ahc
Date: 8/18/2004 3:46 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

Torresists a écrit :


No wonder Quackenbush likes "vinyl": he's a broken record! ;-)

http://tinyurl.com/6d68n

http://tinyurl.com/722dw

http://tinyurl.com/46uks


Enjoy!

If you want more fun you can also do the same searches with :
- paranoid
- delusional
- pathological liar
- folie à deux



Not to mention:

"unprovoked"
"personal attack"
"7 year history"
etc

Our good doctor Richman is rambling on since a long time.

Subject: "Libel!!" "Sockpuppet!" "Character Assassination!!" The Richman
From: Lionel ahc
Date: 8/18/2004 4:12 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

Torresists a écrit :

Subject: "Libel!!" "Sockpuppet!" "Character Assassination!!" The
Richman
From: Lionel ahc
Date: 8/18/2004 3:46 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

Torresists a écrit :


No wonder Quackenbush likes "vinyl": he's a broken record! ;-)

http://tinyurl.com/6d68n

http://tinyurl.com/722dw

http://tinyurl.com/46uks


Enjoy!

If you want more fun you can also do the same searches with :
- paranoid
- delusional
- pathological liar
- folie à deux



Not to mention:

"unprovoked"
"personal attack"
"7 year history"
etc

Our good doctor Richman is rambling on since a long time.

And screaming the same things over and over and over....."libel", "unprovoked
personal attack", "sockpuppet", "character assassination", "delusional",
"psychotic", etc., etc.

:-(

"Torresists" wrote in message


Subject: "Libel!!" "Sockpuppet!" "Character Assassination!!" The
Richman From: Lionel ahc
Date: 8/18/2004 4:12 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

Torresists a écrit :

Our good doctor Richman is rambling on since a long time.

And screaming the same things over and over and over....."libel",
"unprovoked personal attack", "sockpuppet", "character
assassination", "delusional", "psychotic", etc., etc.

One defintion of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, while
expecting a diffrent result. Richman obviously says these same things over
and over again thinking that somehow they will finally change something.

Subject: "Libel!!" "Sockpuppet!" "Character Assassination!!" The Richman
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 8/18/2004 4:42 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

"Torresists" wrote in message


Subject: "Libel!!" "Sockpuppet!" "Character Assassination!!" The
Richman From: Lionel ahc
Date: 8/18/2004 4:12 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

Torresists a écrit :

Our good doctor Richman is rambling on since a long time.

And screaming the same things over and over and over....."libel",
"unprovoked personal attack", "sockpuppet", "character
assassination", "delusional", "psychotic", etc., etc.

One defintion of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, while
expecting a diffrent result. Richman obviously says these same things over
and over again thinking that somehow they will finally change something.

When I did those Google searches on "Libel", etc., it became apparent how much
of a whack job Richman really is.
I feel sorry for his patients, can you imagine putting your mental well-being
in the hands of a looney tune like him? :-0

Arny Krueger a écrit :

"Torresists" wrote in message



Subject: "Libel!!" "Sockpuppet!" "Character Assassination!!" The
Richman From: Lionel ahc
Date: 8/18/2004 4:12 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:


Torresists a écrit :


Our good doctor Richman is rambling on since a long time.


And screaming the same things over and over and over....."libel",
"unprovoked personal attack", "sockpuppet", "character
assassination", "delusional", "psychotic", etc., etc.


One defintion of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, while
expecting a diffrent result. Richman obviously says these same things over
and over again thinking that somehow they will finally change something.

And he is the only one to believe he is sane...

Arny Krueger wrote:


"Torresists" wrote in message


Subject: "Libel!!" "Sockpuppet!" "Character Assassination!!" The
Richman From: Lionel ahc
Date: 8/18/2004 4:12 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

Torresists a écrit :

Our good doctor Richman is rambling on since a long time.

And screaming the same things over and over and over....."libel",
"unprovoked personal attack", "sockpuppet", "character
assassination", "delusional", "psychotic", etc., etc.

One defintion of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, while
expecting a diffrent result. Richman obviously says these same things over
and over again thinking that somehow they will finally change something.










Nothing of course is as repetitious as the mindless babblings of Torresists,
the cowardly and quite psychotic forger of signatures and poster of attack
threads.

Krueger has been attacking the same people over and over again for as long as 7
years in some cases. His paranoid, delusional rantings directed at many
differen people, as indicated, for example, quite clearly in the classic thread
entitled "Have You Had A Bad Krueger Experience", is a matter of Google record.

More recently has repeated over and over again his quite bizarre, paranoid
accusations that those that have not condemned The Devil's description of his
childhood development are "cowards", member of a conspiracy, etc. He has
accused many of us of being part of conspiracies over and over again.
Apparently, he thinks that if he repeats these floridly paranoid accusations
over and over again, that somebody will believe them.

Insanity is, contrary to what pathological liar Krueger and anonymnous cowardly
poster Torreists (probably a Krueger sockpuppet) believe, not at all related to
how often a person repeats anything, especially if it is TRUE. No doubt, by
his definition, Krueger would also now label Holocaust survivors as insane
since many have been saying the same things about Hitler and the Nazi regime
ever since the end of World War II.

OTOH, repetition of an opinion shared by many RAO posters, i.e. that Krueger
routinely engages in lies, libel, character assassination, and as he
demonstrates by his current love-in with Torreists, talking to (oir creating)
sockpuppets that share his delusional beliefs is nothing more and nothing less
than a reminder to new posters of what Krueger, McKelvy and a few other cretins
that support him really are.

Fortunately, newbie such as Stacy B quickly caught on to just how evil and nuts
he really is. It doesn't usually take more than a few posts from Krueger,
coupled with frequent evaluations of his behavior by many of us, not just me,
to make the huge majority of RAO's posters aware of his severe psychological
problems.


Bruce J. Richman

Subject: "Libel!!" "Sockpuppet!" "Character Assassination!!" The Richman
Chronicles
From: (Torresists)
Date: 8/18/2004 2:21 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

No wonder Quackenbush likes "vinyl": he's a broken record! ;-)

http://tinyurl.com/6d68n

http://tinyurl.com/722dw

http://tinyurl.com/46uks


Enjoy!


UPDATE: Since 9/18/2004 Quacko has made _27 posts_ which include the word
"libel". Amazing, no? ;-)

"Torresists" wrote in message

Subject: "Libel!!" "Sockpuppet!" "Character Assassination!!" The
Richman Chronicles
From: (Torresists)
Date: 8/18/2004 2:21 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

No wonder Quackenbush likes "vinyl": he's a broken record! ;-)

http://tinyurl.com/6d68n

http://tinyurl.com/722dw

http://tinyurl.com/46uks

Enjoy!

UPDATE: Since 9/18/2004 Quacko has made _27 posts_ which include the
word "libel". Amazing, no? ;-)

Especially interesting given the legal definition of actionable libel.

One element of Richman's libel is that he has made factual claims about me
that can proven or disproven in court. We're not talking silly name-calling
here, but distinct events, such as commitment to a hospital against the
patient's will, that have in of themselves have legal significance. IOW,
he's tacitly claimed that a court order was made and executed in the State
of Michigan against me by my family, for example.

However, Richman is hiding behind an AOL id that conceals his true identity
and actual physical location. Thus, he cannot be legally served with any
degree of certainty, for example.

Similar libelous false claims have been made about my mother by the Devil.
He's claimed that she was employed in a certain kind of institution with a
certain job title. Devil uses a commercial email randomizer to conceal his
true identity and location. which unlike AOL, is difficult or impossible to
subpoena.

The bottom line is that RAO's "Normals" are actually quite an abnormal lot
who continue to pollute Usenet with their reprehensible, irresponsible and
potentially actionable insults to common sense and decency. They've been
doing this for years.

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 07:46:28 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

The bottom line is that RAO's "Normals" are actually quite an abnormal lot
who continue to pollute Usenet with their reprehensible, irresponsible and
potentially actionable insults to common sense and decency. They've been
doing this for years.

Would this be similar to your claims about my use of illegal drugs?

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 07:46:28 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

The bottom line is that RAO's "Normals" are actually quite an
abnormal lot who continue to pollute Usenet with their
reprehensible, irresponsible and potentially actionable insults to
common sense and decency. They've been doing this for years.

Would this be similar to your claims about my use of illegal drugs?

I think you've initiated a whole of discussion them, Weil. Like this.

Please explain why you want to prattle on about your use of illegal drugs?

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 08:53:23 -0400, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 07:46:28 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

The bottom line is that RAO's "Normals" are actually quite an
abnormal lot who continue to pollute Usenet with their
reprehensible, irresponsible and potentially actionable insults to
common sense and decency. They've been doing this for years.

Would this be similar to your claims about my use of illegal drugs?

I think you've initiated a whole of discussion them, Weil. Like this.

Please explain why you want to prattle on about your use of illegal drugs?

You mean about your *false claim* of the above subject?

Abnormal Physician, heal thyself.

"dave weil" wrote in message


On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 08:53:23 -0400, in rec.audio.opinion Arny wrote:


Please explain why you want to prattle on about your use of illegal
drugs?

You mean about your *false claim* of the above subject?

No, about your gratuitous mention of them, Weil.

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:18:06 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message


On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 08:53:23 -0400, in rec.audio.opinion Arny wrote:


Please explain why you want to prattle on about your use of illegal
drugs?

You mean about your *false claim* of the above subject?

No, about your gratuitous mention of them, Weil.

Hardly gratuitious when comparing *your* claim about potentially
actionable libel from someone else to your potentially actionable
libels against me.

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:18:06 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message


On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 08:53:23 -0400, in rec.audio.opinion Arny wrote:


Please explain why you want to prattle on about your use of illegal
drugs?

You mean about your *false claim* of the above subject?

No, about your gratuitous mention of them, Weil.

Hardly gratuitious when comparing *your* claim about potentially
actionable libel from someone else to your potentially actionable
libels against me.

You seem to be very unclear about what constitutes a provable or disprovable
claim.

Let's take the claim that you have never taken an illegal drug, or for that
part, that I have never taken an illegal drug. Where does one start when
proving or disproving the claim? What chemical test would be good evidence
in court? Who can testify to every moment of my life?

Now, let's take the claim that my family put me in a Michigan hospital
against my will. That takes a court order, and courts keep long-lasting
records of their actions.

Can you see the difference, Weil?

No, I didn't think so!

Thanks for sharing...

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:36:53 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:18:06 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message


On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 08:53:23 -0400, in rec.audio.opinion Arny wrote:


Please explain why you want to prattle on about your use of illegal
drugs?

You mean about your *false claim* of the above subject?

No, about your gratuitous mention of them, Weil.

Hardly gratuitious when comparing *your* claim about potentially
actionable libel from someone else to your potentially actionable
libels against me.

You seem to be very unclear about what constitutes a provable or disprovable
claim.

Let's take the claim that you have never taken an illegal drug, or for that
part, that I have never taken an illegal drug. Where does one start when
proving or disproving the claim? What chemical test would be good evidence
in court? Who can testify to every moment of my life?

That's my point exactly. It was *never* a provable or unprovable claim
and yet you made it.

It was a simple attempt to tie my name with drugs in the public record
and that is an *actionable* libelous situation. In fact, libel is
usually considered something that is either unprovable *or* false.

That's also a reason why your requests for an absolute statement about
my nonuse of drugs were totally disingenuous and stupid and that's why
I treated them as such. It's also why I don't consider you an honest
person.

Now, let's take the claim that my family put me in a Michigan hospital
against my will. That takes a court order, and courts keep long-lasting
records of their actions.

There's no difference in terms of what an actionable libel claim is.

Can you see the difference, Weil?

Can you?

No, I didn't think so!

Thanks for sharing...

Thanks for polluting RAO again and thanks for your unwillingness to
"stop the madness".

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:36:53 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:18:06 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message


On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 08:53:23 -0400, in rec.audio.opinion Arny
wrote:


Please explain why you want to prattle on about your use of
illegal drugs?

You mean about your *false claim* of the above subject?

No, about your gratuitous mention of them, Weil.

Hardly gratuitious when comparing *your* claim about potentially
actionable libel from someone else to your potentially actionable
libels against me.

You seem to be very unclear about what constitutes a provable or
disprovable claim.

Let's take the claim that you have never taken an illegal drug, or
for that part, that I have never taken an illegal drug. Where does
one start when proving or disproving the claim? What chemical test
would be good evidence in court? Who can testify to every moment of
my life?

Weil declines to answer any of these simple relevant questions in his
efforts to continue to publicze the details of his use of illegal drugs

Now, let's take the claim that my family put me in a Michigan
hospital against my will. That takes a court order, and courts keep
long-lasting records of their actions.

There's no difference in terms of what an actionable libel claim is.

Ignorance even the basics of law, noted. Every court wants to have cases
that can be decided based on verifiable facts.

Can you see the difference, Weil?

Can you?

Yes. Having a verifiable fact at hand, makes things a lot easier to take to
court.

No, I didn't think so!

Thanks for sharing...

Thanks for polluting RAO again and thanks for your unwillingness to
"stop the madness".

Weil, who is it that brought this madness about your use of illegal drugs
up, this morning?

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:52:55 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:36:53 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:18:06 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message


On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 08:53:23 -0400, in rec.audio.opinion Arny
wrote:


Please explain why you want to prattle on about your use of
illegal drugs?

You mean about your *false claim* of the above subject?

No, about your gratuitous mention of them, Weil.

Hardly gratuitious when comparing *your* claim about potentially
actionable libel from someone else to your potentially actionable
libels against me.

You seem to be very unclear about what constitutes a provable or
disprovable claim.

Let's take the claim that you have never taken an illegal drug, or
for that part, that I have never taken an illegal drug. Where does
one start when proving or disproving the claim? What chemical test
would be good evidence in court? Who can testify to every moment of
my life?

Weil declines to answer any of these simple relevant questions in his
efforts to continue to publicze the details of his use of illegal drugs

You can try to change the subject all you want, Arnold.

Now, let's take the claim that my family put me in a Michigan
hospital against my will. That takes a court order, and courts keep
long-lasting records of their actions.

There's no difference in terms of what an actionable libel claim is.

Ignorance even the basics of law, noted. Every court wants to have cases
that can be decided based on verifiable facts.

And if you make a public claim that can't be verified, BOOM, the
hammer gets dropped on you.

Can you see the difference, Weil?

Can you?

Yes. Having a verifiable fact at hand, makes things a lot easier to take to
court.

Actually, no. If that were true, you wouldn't have an "actionable
claim", now would you? That is, unless there's some fire behind the
smoke.

No, I didn't think so!

Thanks for sharing...

Thanks for polluting RAO again and thanks for your unwillingness to
"stop the madness".

Weil, who is it that brought this madness about your use of illegal drugs
up, this morning?

Ahhh, so now you admit that your prior claims were madness. Thank you
for that. I'd rather an explicit, "I'm sorry" though.

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:52:55 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:36:53 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:18:06 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message


On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 08:53:23 -0400, in rec.audio.opinion Arny
wrote:


Please explain why you want to prattle on about your use of
illegal drugs?

You mean about your *false claim* of the above subject?

No, about your gratuitous mention of them, Weil.

Hardly gratuitious when comparing *your* claim about potentially
actionable libel from someone else to your potentially actionable
libels against me.

You seem to be very unclear about what constitutes a provable or
disprovable claim.

Let's take the claim that you have never taken an illegal drug, or
for that part, that I have never taken an illegal drug. Where does
one start when proving or disproving the claim? What chemical test
would be good evidence in court? Who can testify to every moment of
my life?

Weil declines to answer any of these simple relevant questions in
his efforts to continue to publicze the details of his use of
illegal drugs

You can try to change the subject all you want, Arnold.

Now, let's take the claim that my family put me in a Michigan
hospital against my will. That takes a court order, and courts keep
long-lasting records of their actions.

There's no difference in terms of what an actionable libel claim is.

Ignorance even the basics of law, noted. Every court wants to have
cases that can be decided based on verifiable facts.

And if you make a public claim that can't be verified, BOOM, the
hammer gets dropped on you.

Can you see the difference, Weil?

Can you?

Yes. Having a verifiable fact at hand, makes things a lot easier to
take to court.

Actually, no.

Actually yes.

If that were true, you wouldn't have an "actionable claim", now would you?

Why not?

That is, unless there's some fire behind the smoke.

Why would that matter relating to the facts of Richman's many libels of me?

No, I didn't think so!

Thanks for sharing...

Thanks for polluting RAO again and thanks for your unwillingness to
"stop the madness".

Weil, who is it that brought this madness about your use of illegal
drugs up, this morning?

Ahhh, so now you admit that your prior claims were madness


Since you seem to be reading comphension challenged Weil, it was your
illegal drug use that would be representative of madness.

Thank you for that. I'd rather an explicit, "I'm sorry" though.

You can do that any time you want to, Weil.

Only you can stop the madness in your life!

Arny Krueger wrote:


"Torresists" wrote in message

Subject: "Libel!!" "Sockpuppet!" "Character Assassination!!" The
Richman Chronicles
From: (Torresists)
Date: 8/18/2004 2:21 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

No wonder Quackenbush likes "vinyl": he's a broken record! ;-)

http://tinyurl.com/6d68n

http://tinyurl.com/722dw

http://tinyurl.com/46uks

Enjoy!

UPDATE: Since 9/18/2004 Quacko has made _27 posts_ which include the
word "libel". Amazing, no? ;-)

Especially interesting given the legal definition of actionable libel.

One element of Richman's libel is that he has made factual claims about me
that can proven or disproven in court. We're not talking silly name-calling
here, but distinct events, such as commitment to a hospital against the
patient's will, that have in of themselves have legal significance. IOW,
he's tacitly claimed that a court order was made and executed in the State
of Michigan against me by my family, for example.


The above nonsense written by Krueger is, aas usual, a complete and total
fabrication. His use of the term "tacit claim" actually indicates "silent
claim" or IOW - NO CLAIM THAT CAN BE VERIFIED. As is Krueger's habit, he has
once again attempted to imply things via innuendo and misrepresentation of
what has actually been said about him. Hypotheses raised by myself and others
as to the *possible* reactions of various family members to his abnormal
behavior are not either *explicit* claims or *tacit* claims. Note that the
term *tacit* claim is meaningless. By using it, it appears that Krueger is
claiming that he has a level of hearing that nobody else possesses. It also
suggest that he now claims to be a mind reader.





However, Richman is hiding behind an AOL id that conceals his true identity
and actual physical location. Thus, he cannot be legally served with any
degree of certainty, for example.


The above statement is further evidence of the kind of libelous false claims
Krueger & McKelvy have mader about me for about 7 years. He repeats the
verifiable lie that my identity has been concealed despite easy verification
by honest individuals (which excludes him & McKelvy) that the name used on RAO
is my real one. The idiocy of Krueger's complaints about a person hiding
behind an AOL ID is sheer madness and stupidity. It is worth noting that a
similar blatantly paranoid complaint could be made about EVERY USER OF A SCREEN
NAME ON THE INTERNET.
It is common knowledge that almost all, if not all ISP's keep the identitites
and other personal information of their subscribers private to prevent their
subscribers from being harassed by paranoid stalkers like Krueger. That said,
it is a rather simple matter to verify somebody's identity in numerous wsys
through public records that are available. Of course, Krueger has no interest
in doing this, since it would expose his 7 year history of lies and libelous
false statements made about my identiy, my educational background, my
professional credentials and my professional activities.

His stooge and puppet, McKelvy, has similarly made numerous false, libelous
claims about the same matters listed above. As is the case with Krueger, he
has abysmally failed to provide any evidence to support any of his bull****.
He has brcome so desperate to try and avoid future possible legal action that
he has resorted to even trying to implicate an "unamed source" as the basis of
some of the hearsay nonsense he has tried to sell to RAO readers. Other than a
few cretins such as "Torresists", the known plagiarist and purveyor of phony
DBT methodology, Ferstler, and a French guttersnipe calling himself Lionel,
neither of these easily proven libelers seems to have any support.

Is there not quite a bit of Irony in the fact that Krueger is discussing the
use of "false Identities" with a poster named "Torresists"?

ONce again, his hypocrisy is front and center.



Similar libelous false claims have been made about my mother by the Devil.
He's claimed that she was employed in a certain kind of institution with a
certain job title. Devil uses a commercial email randomizer to conceal his
true identity and location. which unlike AOL, is difficult or impossible to
subpoena.

The bottom line is that RAO's "Normals" are actually quite an abnormal lot
who continue to pollute Usenet with their reprehensible, irresponsible and
potentially actionable insults to common sense and decency. They've been
doing this for years.











Bruce J. Richman

Subject: "Libel!!" "Sockpuppet!" "Character Assassination!!" The Richman
Chronicles
From: (Bruce J. Richman)
Date: 8/20/2004 11:38 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

Arny Krueger wrote:


"Torresists" wrote in message

Subject: "Libel!!" "Sockpuppet!" "Character Assassination!!" The
Richman Chronicles
From: (Torresists)
Date: 8/18/2004 2:21 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

No wonder Quackenbush likes "vinyl": he's a broken record! ;-)

http://tinyurl.com/6d68n

http://tinyurl.com/722dw

http://tinyurl.com/46uks

Enjoy!

UPDATE: Since 9/18/2004 Quacko has made _27 posts_ which include the
word "libel". Amazing, no? ;-)

Especially interesting given the legal definition of actionable libel.

One element of Richman's libel is that he has made factual claims about me
that can proven or disproven in court. We're not talking silly name-calling
here, but distinct events, such as commitment to a hospital against the
patient's will, that have in of themselves have legal significance. IOW,
he's tacitly claimed that a court order was made and executed in the State
of Michigan against me by my family, for example.


The above nonsense written by Krueger is, aas usual, a complete and total
fabrication. His use of the term "tacit claim" actually indicates "silent
claim" or IOW - NO CLAIM THAT CAN BE VERIFIED. As is Krueger's habit, he has
once again attempted to imply things via innuendo and misrepresentation of
what has actually been said about him. Hypotheses raised by myself and
others
as to the *possible* reactions of various family members to his abnormal
behavior are not either *explicit* claims or *tacit* claims. Note that the
term *tacit* claim is meaningless. By using it, it appears that Krueger is
claiming that he has a level of hearing that nobody else possesses. It also
suggest that he now claims to be a mind reader.





However, Richman is hiding behind an AOL id that conceals his true identity
and actual physical location. Thus, he cannot be legally served with any
degree of certainty, for example.


The above statement is further evidence of the kind of libelous false claims
Krueger & McKelvy have mader about me for about 7 years. He repeats the
verifiable lie that my identity has been concealed despite easy verification
by honest individuals (which excludes him & McKelvy) that the name used on
RAO
is my real one. The idiocy of Krueger's complaints about a person hiding
behind an AOL ID is sheer madness and stupidity. It is worth noting that a
similar blatantly paranoid complaint could be made about EVERY USER OF A
SCREEN
NAME ON THE INTERNET.
It is common knowledge that almost all, if not all ISP's keep the identitites
and other personal information of their subscribers private to prevent their
subscribers from being harassed by paranoid stalkers like Krueger. That
said,
it is a rather simple matter to verify somebody's identity in numerous wsys
through public records that are available. Of course, Krueger has no
interest
in doing this, since it would expose his 7 year history of lies and libelous
false statements made about my identiy, my educational background, my
professional credentials and my professional activities.

His stooge and puppet, McKelvy, has similarly made numerous false, libelous
claims about the same matters listed above. As is the case with Krueger, he
has abysmally failed to provide any evidence to support any of his bull****.
He has brcome so desperate to try and avoid future possible legal action that
he has resorted to even trying to implicate an "unamed source" as the basis
of
some of the hearsay nonsense he has tried to sell to RAO readers. Other than
a
few cretins such as "Torresists", the known plagiarist and purveyor of phony
DBT methodology, Ferstler, and a French guttersnipe calling himself Lionel,
neither of these easily proven libelers seems to have any support.

Is there not quite a bit of Irony in the fact that Krueger is discussing the
use of "false Identities" with a poster named "Torresists"?

ONce again, his hypocrisy is front and center.



Similar libelous false claims have been made about my mother by the Devil.
He's claimed that she was employed in a certain kind of institution with a
certain job title. Devil uses a commercial email randomizer to conceal his
true identity and location. which unlike AOL, is difficult or impossible to
subpoena.

The bottom line is that RAO's "Normals" are actually quite an abnormal lot
who continue to pollute Usenet with their reprehensible, irresponsible and
potentially actionable insults to common sense and decency. They've been
doing this for years.











Bruce J. Richman, Legend in His Own Mind
Life Long Failure
Family Embarrassment
Third-rate

Richard Malesweski said:

UPDATE: Since 9/18/2004 Quacko has made _27 posts_ which include the word
"libel". Amazing, no? ;-)


Hey, dumbass...9/18/2004 hasn't happened yet. If you meant 2003, then Dr.
Richman has still said "libel" less than you've said "Porky" in the same time
period.

Amazing, no?

Boon

Arny said:

UPDATE: Since 9/18/2004 Quacko has made _27 posts_ which include the
word "libel". Amazing, no? ;-)

Especially interesting given the legal definition of actionable libel.


Jesus, Arny, you didn't even complain about the date being wrong. If someone
had been disagreeing with you, you would have jumped all over it, right? You
are such a ****ing simpleton once you've been snowed.

Boon

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Torresists" wrote in message

Subject: "Libel!!" "Sockpuppet!" "Character Assassination!!" The
Richman Chronicles
From: (Torresists)
Date: 8/18/2004 2:21 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

No wonder Quackenbush likes "vinyl": he's a broken record! ;-)

http://tinyurl.com/6d68n

http://tinyurl.com/722dw

http://tinyurl.com/46uks

Enjoy!

UPDATE: Since 9/18/2004 Quacko has made _27 posts_ which include the
word "libel". Amazing, no? ;-)

Especially interesting given the legal definition of actionable libel.

One element of Richman's libel is that he has made factual claims about me
that can proven or disproven in court. We're not talking silly
name-calling
here, but distinct events, such as commitment to a hospital against the
patient's will, that have in of themselves have legal significance. IOW,
he's tacitly claimed that a court order was made and executed in the State
of Michigan against me by my family, for example.

However, Richman is hiding behind an AOL id that conceals his true
identity
and actual physical location. Thus, he cannot be legally served with any
degree of certainty, for example.

Similar libelous false claims have been made about my mother by the Devil.
He's claimed that she was employed in a certain kind of institution with a
certain job title. Devil uses a commercial email randomizer to conceal his
true identity and location. which unlike AOL, is difficult or impossible
to
subpoena.

The bottom line is that RAO's "Normals" are actually quite an abnormal lot
who continue to pollute Usenet with their reprehensible, irresponsible and
potentially actionable insults to common sense and decency. They've been
doing this for years.

Richman keeps inviting people to publish their comments about him in a print
publication as if it made a difference. AFAIK Libel is libel.

He's never going to sue anybody because he knows his unprofessional behavior
has done nothing but invite people to dis him.

Then of course there's the matter of his false and idiotic statements about
a host of people here, from about his 3rd or 4th post he was off and
ranting.

This is the first one I could find where he embarrassed himself in public.

From: BJRICHMAN )
Subject: Doctoral dissertations (Was STEVE ZIPSER IS A GOOD GUY)
View: Complete Thread (38 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
Date: 1998/07/07


GVB, hiding behind an alias, wrote:


BJ--Why do I suspect your PhD is from the same institute of learning as the
late, lamented Zachary Pearlstein, "M.D., PhD."?

This is almost as interesting a question as why anyone would want to
correspond with Yankigohom on any topic, let alone a "non-audio related"
one.

Perhaps, however, we should turn our attention to the equally elusive
Ilya Liminov
(what! No PhD?) who has also reemerged just in time to attack Mr. Zipser's
enemies in this thread.

GB
Remove "nospam" for direct replies

BJRICHMAN wrote in message

I recently sent an e-mail to "Yankigohom" to get some advice on a
non-audio
related topic.

The person responding was not Zip. He provided me with his real name -
easily
veifiable.

It's not that difficult to find out the identity of an alias used here -
if you
send a polite e-mail.

Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.







GVB's aptitude for flaming greatly surpasses his intelligence, as evidenced
by
his inability to determine the facts. But, what can you expect from a
nameless
fool who hides behind aliases?

Apparently, verification of an AOL profile was beyond his comprehension.

As a point of clarification, the comment re. Yankigohom was in no way meant
as
a defense of Zip. As Zip knows, I have no reason to defend him .
Yankigohom
was contacted simply to find out about an AOL problem I was having - he
subscribes to the same ISP.

GVB - have a nice day!
WhatI find hilarioous, is that he's complained that Zip was one of the
people I libeled, when it's clear he's done the same thing.

Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.