Paul Packer was responsible for this mess below:

Uh, I'm not dead and I didn't go blind, you morons. I can still read
your obsessive garbage about me, and I see that you STILL have nothing
better to do than talk insane, pointless crap about me, ie. whether I'm
an "adolescent psychiatrist from London" or not. One of you sheep
("Wackjob BOb Morein") says I am, and you all follow and go
"baaaaaaaa". Don't think I'm impressed because you're only now
-starting- to question the Wackjob sheep about his claim. Fact is, your
post below shows that you're STILL susceptible to being influenced by
this nutsack. All he has to do is present "secret evidence" to you, and
you're "back on the Graham bandwagon", like the mindless sheep I always
said you were.

Thanks Packer, for reaffirming everything I claimed to be true about
RAO participants in "Message to the ignorant pigs of RAO" and
elsewhere. So sad that you people are wasting your lives around this
nonsense, though. Perhaps its all for the best, because at least you're
not out robbing people.

Robert, I still can't help feeling you're drawing a rather long bow
here. No one is THAT intelligent, still less that vigilant. Little
things such as I pointed out--Mr Sound using the term "off of", which
no one outside North America uses--indicate that he can't be British.
Frankly, in the absence of further evidence we're back to Ockham's
Razor---the most obvious conclusion is probably the correct one.

"Occam's Razor" only applies when Morein SAYS it applies. As with all
the hypocrites here on RAO (Mumbles Middius, etc), none of your
criticisms apply to yourselves, only to others.

Wackjob Bob Morein wrote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Previously, I compared your mode of thinking to a complex,
imaginative
tapestry, while mine is a simple doormat. I am strongly attracted to
the criteria known as Occam's Razor, which states that of competing
theories, the simplest is the most likely to be correct. To apply
Occam's Razor, it is only necessary to pare away every unessential
hypothesis. An intellectual dinner of beans can be most satisfying. "
------------------------------------------------------------------------


By the way, and this is the God's honest truth: I intended to show that
Morein used the Occam's Razor principle in his defense, elsewhere, by
searching for it in his posts. Before I did, I had no way of knowing
that he ever did use it, but I know Morein enough to know it's
something he's likely to have used, and I know enough about what a
filthy hypocrite he is to believe that he did use it. Not only was I
right, but he used it -many times- in his arguments before others. Yet,
blithely ignores it in his own arguments!

You know--and I say this most gently--we're all prone to
over-intellectualise.

Yeah, better make sure you say it "most gently", don't want to offend
your RAO brothers by hitting them too hard with "the truth", now do
you?! Since you're attempting to be honest, which is a very rare
occasion by a RAO regular, why don't we be a little more complete he

RAO regulars are all prone to:

- over-intellectualize
- hypocrisy
- arrogance
- dismiss rational thought
- blind speculation and inference
- narrow-mindedness
- closed-mindedness
- maliciousness
- mean-spiritedness
- paranoid conspiracy theorizing
- lying (consciously or otherwise)
- wasting enormous amounts of time engaging in pointless flame attacks



The reasoning processes by which you arrived at
the conclusion Mr. sound was Richard Graham just strike me as too
subtle and circuitous. Is there any firm evidence not based on
inference and supposition?

Are you kidding me? Since WHEN is that necessary on RAO?! Newsflash
idiot: I already proved it wasn't in my post "Message to the ignorant
pigs of RAO...". "Truth" on RAO, whether it be about audio or me or
someone else, is -only- ever based on "inference and supposition".

That's why I laugh so much when I laugh at you, Packer.

More to the point, if you presented the
evidence you currently have to a court, would they convict or dismiss?
I suspect the latter.

Oh, you "suspect" the latter, do you? No, the entire court would be
laughing even harder than I do at both you fools, if you and Morein
were to present them your "evidence" that I'm Graham!

By the way, I thought you said you didn't care whether I was Graham or
not, and here you are, can't stop talking about this issue with Wackjob
Bob? Refer back to what I said about RAO members being "hypocrites".

Of course you may have other evidence you don't want to disclose.

Oh yes, of course. Morein is closely linked to "the Belt mafia" as we
all know. He's got "so many" sources of contacts within "the network",
so you'd better hang on his every word as you're now doing. Because its
not like he's ****ing with your little Ozzie head, you stupid twit.

But
I can only go on what I read here, and that doesn't convince me Mr.
Sound is other than a very clever, very egotistical, long-time Usenet
poster who, as he claims, has done all this before many times.

You mean I might actually have not lied about something? You mean
Wackjob Bob might actually be wrong?? Preposterous!

Indeed, his easy facility with insult and abuse virtually screams that at us.

And YET.... it still fails to unanimously convince many of you (ie.
you, Wackjob Bob, Ludovic, Middius, Powell, etc.) that I'm not a London
adolescent psychiatrist and uni maths professor, you bleeding
imbeciles. Which proves my point all along: you people are so
incredibly stupid, that one can whack your skulls in with "a
sledgehammer of truth and logic", and you'll STILL not quite "get it",
and cling to your idiotic belief systems. The same idiotic belief
systems that convince you it isn't worth wasting 30 seconds of your
precious usenet flaming time to discover that there's a whole other
world of science in audio you never knew about!

In what other school would he gain these skills? The sheer volume of
his posts indicates that, to say nothing of the (sometimes amusing)
inventiveness of his attacks.

What do you mean "sometimes amusing"? They're ALWAYS amusing!

Maybe the only thing about him that
supports your conclusion is a certain malicious insight in his
posts--insight not necessarily into individuals here but into types.
If he isn't a psychiatrist he probably could have been.

Anyway, that's my 2c.

It may be 2c, but its worth a lot more than anything I've read from
Wackjob Bob. Way to obsess about me, Packer! I can see how important I
am in your life.

On 20 May 2006 12:11:10 -0700, wrote:

Paul Packer was responsible for this mess below:

And where is this mess, pray tell? Below you say: "It may be 2c, but
its worth a lot more than anything I've read from Wackjob Bob." Why
is a post questioning Robert's conclusions "a mess"?

Uh, I'm not dead and I didn't go blind, you morons. I can still read
your obsessive garbage about me,

Funnily enough we were aware of that. After you post to an NG for a
few years, you become slowly aware that anyone can read what you
write. It even says that on Google Groups.

However, you're not very true to your word as in your last post you
said you wouldn't be reading RAO anymore. Naughty, naughty.

and I see that you STILL have nothing
better to do than talk insane, pointless crap about me, ie. whether I'm
an "adolescent psychiatrist from London" or not.

Conjecture is a legitimate human activity, Mr. sound. After all,
you've written so much here about yourself--so inventively and
amusingly too--that we're interested in you. No, we're not
obsessed--or I'M not, anyway. But interested. Not as interested as you
are in yourself, of course, but that wouldn't be possible.

One of you sheep
("Wackjob BOb Morein") says I am, and you all follow and go
"baaaaaaaa".

Really? I thought my post was about not following and going "baaaaa".

Don't think I'm impressed because you're only now
-starting- to question the Wackjob sheep about his claim.

Now you're saying we ought to have said a lot more about you a lot
sooner, when you've just said we say far too much about you as it is.
Fact is, I never bought the "Richard Graham" thing, but since there
were frequent allusions to things going on behind the scenes, I
thought I'd better just shut up. I wasn't that interested anyway.
Since it kept you posting your funny posts (Don Rickles was my
favourite comedian) I was happy to let things drift and continue
rolling on the floor laughing.

Fact is, your
post below shows that you're STILL susceptible to being influenced by
this nutsack. All he has to do is present "secret evidence" to you, and
you're "back on the Graham bandwagon", like the mindless sheep I always
said you were.

And where's the evidence that "all he has to do is present secret
evidence to you and you're back on the Graham bandwagon"? He hasn't
presented the "secret evidence", merely alluded to it. And no one,
least of all me, has suggested that they accept this evidence they
haven't asked for and don't have. Getting a bit ahead of yourself, Mr.
Sound. My whole post is about questioning Robert's evidence and
conclusions. I hear no "baaaaa" in that.

Thanks Packer, for reaffirming everything I claimed to be true about
RAO participants in "Message to the ignorant pigs of RAO" and
elsewhere. So sad that you people are wasting your lives around this
nonsense, though. Perhaps its all for the best, because at least you're
not out robbing people.

The main thing is that we don't rob you of what is most precious to
you---attention. That would be a crime indeed.

Robert, I still can't help feeling you're drawing a rather long bow
here. No one is THAT intelligent, still less that vigilant. Little
things such as I pointed out--Mr Sound using the term "off of", which
no one outside North America uses--indicate that he can't be British.
Frankly, in the absence of further evidence we're back to Ockham's
Razor---the most obvious conclusion is probably the correct one.

"Occam's Razor" only applies when Morein SAYS it applies. As with all
the hypocrites here on RAO (Mumbles Middius, etc), none of your
criticisms apply to yourselves, only to others.

I didn't realize RAO was intended to be a place of self-criticism. I
certainly haven't seen you indulging in it much.

I think you're thinking of the (dare I say it?) psychiatrist's couch.

Wackjob Bob Morein wrote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Previously, I compared your mode of thinking to a complex,
imaginative
tapestry, while mine is a simple doormat. I am strongly attracted to
the criteria known as Occam's Razor, which states that of competing
theories, the simplest is the most likely to be correct. To apply
Occam's Razor, it is only necessary to pare away every unessential
hypothesis. An intellectual dinner of beans can be most satisfying. "
------------------------------------------------------------------------


By the way, and this is the God's honest truth: I intended to show that
Morein used the Occam's Razor principle in his defense, elsewhere, by
searching for it in his posts. Before I did, I had no way of knowing
that he ever did use it, but I know Morein enough to know it's
something he's likely to have used, and I know enough about what a
filthy hypocrite he is to believe that he did use it. Not only was I
right, but he used it -many times- in his arguments before others. Yet,
blithely ignores it in his own arguments!

You know--and I say this most gently--we're all prone to
over-intellectualise.

Yeah, better make sure you say it "most gently", don't want to offend
your RAO brothers by hitting them too hard with "the truth", now do
you?!

Good manners and consideration for others are their own reward. :-)

Since you're attempting to be honest, which is a very rare
occasion by a RAO regular, why don't we be a little more complete he

RAO regulars are all prone to:

- over-intellectualize
- hypocrisy
- arrogance
- dismiss rational thought
- blind speculation and inference
- narrow-mindedness
- closed-mindedness
- maliciousness
- mean-spiritedness
- paranoid conspiracy theorizing
- lying (consciously or otherwise)
- wasting enormous amounts of time engaging in pointless flame attacks

Well, it's easy to list the faults of others. Now let's see a list of
your own faults. Take as much paper as you need, but keep within the
margins .

The reasoning processes by which you arrived at
the conclusion Mr. sound was Richard Graham just strike me as too
subtle and circuitous. Is there any firm evidence not based on
inference and supposition?

Are you kidding me? Since WHEN is that necessary on RAO?! Newsflash
idiot: I already proved it wasn't in my post "Message to the ignorant
pigs of RAO...". "Truth" on RAO, whether it be about audio or me or
someone else, is -only- ever based on "inference and supposition".

That could have something to do with the fact that this is an NG. That
is, we never meet and know nothing about each other but what we read
here. Think that could be a contributing factor, Mr. Sound?

That's why I laugh so much when I laugh at you, Packer.

Good. I owe you a laugh or two back.

More to the point, if you presented the
evidence you currently have to a court, would they convict or dismiss?
I suspect the latter.

Oh, you "suspect" the latter, do you? No, the entire court would be
laughing even harder than I do at both you fools, if you and Morein
were to present them your "evidence" that I'm Graham!

Hang on! How is the evidence "your" evidence? I'm the one questioning
the evidence--why would I be presenting it as my evidence? Fair's
fair, Mr Sound. As for the mild tone of my post, which you're
obviously mocking, it's not everyone's style to burst into a room and
shove everyone back in their chairs. If it works for you, fine, but
some of us like to be a little more polite.

By the way, I thought you said you didn't care whether I was Graham or
not, and here you are, can't stop talking about this issue with Wackjob
Bob? Refer back to what I said about RAO members being "hypocrites".

Of course you may have other evidence you don't want to disclose.

Oh yes, of course. Morein is closely linked to "the Belt mafia" as we
all know. He's got "so many" sources of contacts within "the network",
so you'd better hang on his every word as you're now doing. Because its
not like he's ****ing with your little Ozzie head, you stupid twit.

Every heard the phrase "going off half-cocked"? I'm simply considering
all possibilities. Fact is, I don't know any more of Robert than what
I read here, including the contributions from McCarty. I don't know
who or what his contacts are, so how can I dispute what information he
may or may not have? As for "hanging on his every word", my whole post
is about not accepting his every word, isn't it? So where is he
"****ing with my little Ozzie head"? If that were happening I'd be
saying, "Yes, you're right, Robert; I see your point,
Robert...baaaaa." Where do you see that sentence in my post? Come on,
Mr. Sound. You pride yourself on a superior intellect. A superior
intellect obeys the laws of logic.

But
I can only go on what I read here, and that doesn't convince me Mr.
Sound is other than a very clever, very egotistical, long-time Usenet
poster who, as he claims, has done all this before many times.

You mean I might actually have not lied about something? You mean
Wackjob Bob might actually be wrong?? Preposterous!

Empty sarcasm. The post is about suggesting Robert might be wrong.

Indeed, his easy facility with insult and abuse virtually screams that at us.

And YET.... it still fails to unanimously convince many of you (ie.
you, Wackjob Bob, Ludovic, Middius, Powell, etc.) that I'm not a London
adolescent psychiatrist and uni maths professor, you bleeding
imbeciles.

Not convince me? The whole post is about it not convincing me. And I
don't know that the others have all shown unequivocal support for the
theory either. I think you're convicting here without evidence or due
process, Mr. Sound. Shame. I hope you're not a lawyer.

Which proves my point all along: you people are so
incredibly stupid, that one can whack your skulls in with "a
sledgehammer of truth and logic", and you'll STILL not quite "get it",
and cling to your idiotic belief systems.

More virtual violence. I really think a spot of anger management
should be in your future.

The same idiotic belief
systems that convince you it isn't worth wasting 30 seconds of your
precious usenet flaming time to discover that there's a whole other
world of science in audio you never knew about!

But we prize our usenet flaming time. :-)

In what other school would he gain these skills? The sheer volume of
his posts indicates that, to say nothing of the (sometimes amusing)
inventiveness of his attacks.

What do you mean "sometimes amusing"? They're ALWAYS amusing!

Maybe the only thing about him that
supports your conclusion is a certain malicious insight in his
posts--insight not necessarily into individuals here but into types.
If he isn't a psychiatrist he probably could have been.

Anyway, that's my 2c.

It may be 2c, but its worth a lot more than anything I've read from
Wackjob Bob. Way to obsess about me, Packer! I can see how important I
am in your life.

You're certainly important to my health, as they say laughter is the
best medicine.

BTW, what do you have against Australians? We're not that bad.