Bruce J. Richman wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:


Bruce J. Richman wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:


Bruce J. Richman wrote:

Perhaps Krueger should tell us how his "disagreements" earned him
the distinction of being, AFAIK, the only RAO poster to be banned
from RAHE.

I believe that would be a false claim Bruce, but I'll attribute it
to your ignorance, not your bad will.


Your beliefs, as in many cases, are not supported by factual
evidence.

The evidence is posted right here, now. Powell says he was expelled.

Pre-existing factual evidence can be found in the RAO archives in
posts about Duray-bito's ("judge bito")expulsion from RAHE.

Therefore, absent proof, your claims are simply inflammatory and
designed, as usual, to spread disinformation.

Since the proof is not absent but immediately present, we have yet
another example of your ignorance, Bruce.

A mistake, not ignorance, Arny.

Letsee, this was a mistake or an error, but since it was not made in
ignorance, it was made knowingly and therefore intentionally.

That would make it an intentional false claim or a lie, no?

;-)

Sorry to blow away your smoke screen, Bruce. This is about you, not me.

Arny Krueger wrote"


Bruce J. Richman wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:


Bruce J. Richman wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:


Bruce J. Richman wrote:

Perhaps Krueger should tell us how his "disagreements" earned him
the distinction of being, AFAIK, the only RAO poster to be banned
from RAHE.

I believe that would be a false claim Bruce, but I'll attribute it
to your ignorance, not your bad will.


Your beliefs, as in many cases, are not supported by factual
evidence.

The evidence is posted right here, now. Powell says he was expelled.

Pre-existing factual evidence can be found in the RAO archives in
posts about Duray-bito's ("judge bito")expulsion from RAHE.

Therefore, absent proof, your claims are simply inflammatory and
designed, as usual, to spread disinformation.

Since the proof is not absent but immediately present, we have yet
another example of your ignorance, Bruce.

A mistake, not ignorance, Arny.

Letsee, this was a mistake or an error, but since it was not made in
ignorance, it was made knowingly and therefore intentionally.

That would make it an intentional false claim or a lie, no?

;-)

Sorry to blow away your smoke screen, Bruce. This is about you, not me.











Semantics games noted. Obviously, errors can be made for a variety of reasons.
Your comments, Krueger, are simply indicative of your ongoing paranoia about
all with shom you disagree.

Shall we conclude that your constantly referring to Scott Wheeler as a
sockpuppet is (a) ignorance, or (b) deliberate lies that you feel compelled to
make. Or how about your listing a post containing a discussion of the music of
Daniel Lanois in which I was involved as a personal attack against you? Was
that an example of your ignorance or just another one of your deliberate lies?

LOL! When talking about lying, you no doubt have more personal experience than
anybody here.



Bruce J. Richman

Bruce J. Richman wrote:

Note total obfuscation of the issue of his intention false claim that I was
the only RAO poster who had been banned from RAHE.

Recall, that Bruce brought this issue completely gratuitously, no doubt in
an effort to make trouble for me. It backfired because if anything, I'm a
little proud of being banned from RAHE. It has certainly led me to more
productive audio engagements.

Shall we conclude that your constantly referring to Scott Wheeler as a
sockpuppet is (a) ignorance, or (b) deliberate lies that you feel
compelled to make.

As paranoid as you are Bruce, you obviously think that I am omniscient and
actually know for sure who posts as "S888wheel". I don't. I don't know for
sure who "Scott Wheeler" is, either. And as I've long said, I don't know who
"Bruce Richman" is. I have seen more than enough evidence to know that not
all I see around here is what it seems, taken at face value.

Or how about your listing a post containing a
discussion of the music of Daniel Lanois in which I was involved as a
personal attack against you?

I don't know what this sentence means, or do I care what it means. For
example, I don't know for sure who "Daniel Lanois" is.

Was that an example of your ignorance or just another one of your
deliberate lies?

Bruce, there's lots of things that I don't know for sure. If you wish to
call that "ignorance", so be it. Unlike you, I find it tolerable to be
ignorant of certain things. I don't have your demonstrated need to be
all-knowing and all-controlling.

I'm really not all that interested in the RAO soap opera. I'm in it for the
audio.

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

[snip]

I'm really not all that interested in the RAO soap opera. I'm in it for
the
audio.

Primarily the echo.

Arny Krueger wrote:


Bruce J. Richman wrote:



Recall, that Bruce brought this issue completely gratuitously, no doubt in
an effort to make trouble for me. It backfired because if anything, I'm a
little proud of being banned from RAHE. It has certainly led me to more
productive audio engagements.


Krueger conveniently negflects to mention - or reproduce - how his initial
unprovoked personal attack upon me in this thread lead to my response. He
obviously decided to use this thread as an oppoirtunity to practice his most
frequent activity on RAO - character assassination of others.



Shall we conclude that your constantly referring to Scott Wheeler as a
sockpuppet is (a) ignorance, or (b) deliberate lies that you feel
compelled to make.

As paranoid as you are Bruce,

A delusional belief that you hold, but not one supported by any evidence that a
rational person (yourself excluded of course) would respect. As usual, Krueger
has engaged in projecting his own paranoia on to others. One can easily recall
his paranoid assertion that those he listed on RAO as "golden-eared" were
probably sockpuppets. Just another example of Krueger's ongoing paranoia and
tendency to make things up.



you obviously think that I am omniscient and
actually know for sure who posts as "S888wheel". I don't.

Then you're either woefully ignorant, since that information has been provided
by Mr. Wheeler and he has communicated via law suit with you, or you're
deliberately lying again. So which is it, Arny? Are you simply ignorant as
you now claim, or lying in an effort to avoid the possible legal consequences
of a libel suit?


I don't know for
sure who "Scott Wheeler" is, either. And as I've long said, I don't know who
"Bruce Richman" is.

You have not let your ignorance prevent you, however, from claiming that Mr.
Wheeler is a sockpuppet, or in times past, that I am anybody other than whom
I've described myself as here. In your little love fests with McKelvy in times
past, you've repeatedly lied about my identity on RAO, despite your actually
not having any evidence that what you've said is at all factual.


I have seen more than enough evidence to know that not
all I see around here is what it seems, taken at face value.


On this point we can agree. Your posts often provide convincing evidence of
how deceptive and misleading a person can be.



Or how about your listing a post containing a
discussion of the music of Daniel Lanois in which I was involved as a
personal attack against you?

I don't know what this sentence means, or do I care what it means. For
example, I don't know for sure who "Daniel Lanois" is.


You listed a series of posts with Google references as evidence of unprovoked
personal attacks you claimed that I had made against you. When I went to check
them out, one of the first on the list was a link to a post in which I was
discussing Daniel Lanois. It had no mention of your name and certainly had
nothing to do with a personal attack against you.



Was that an example of your ignorance or just another one of your
deliberate lies?

Bruce, there's lots of things that I don't know for sure. If you wish to
call that "ignorance", so be it. Unlike you, I find it tolerable to be
ignorant of certain things. I don't have your demonstrated need to be
all-knowing and all-controlling.


That, of course, is a lie. I have no need to be omniscient, nor can you
provide any evidence that your false claim above has any substance whatsoever.
And as others on RAO have noted, you rarely, if ever, admit to making errors.


I'm really not all that interested in the RAO soap opera. I'm in it for the
audio.






If that were true, you would not have become RAO's most widely despised poster
primarily because of your chronic tendency to engage in personal attacks upon
those with whom you disagree about audio matters.







Bruce J. Richman

Bruce J. Richman wrote:

He obviously decided to use this thread as an oppoirtunity
to practice his most frequent activity on RAO - character
assassination of others.

Character assasination, character assasination, character assasination.
Notice how repetetive Richman's posts are?


Shall we conclude that your constantly referring to Scott Wheeler
as a sockpuppet is (a) ignorance, or (b) deliberate lies that you
feel compelled to make.

As paranoid as you are Bruce,

A delusional belief that you hold, but not one supported by any
evidence that a rational person (yourself excluded of course) would
respect.

Notice that Richman takes his out-of-context butchering of my posts to such
an extreme that he cannot allow a simple sentence to be presented in its
entirely.

As usual, Krueger has engaged in projecting his own
paranoia on to others. One can easily recall his paranoid assertion
that those he listed on RAO as "golden-eared" were probably
sockpuppets.

A butchered paraphrase, and disproof by means of assertion.

Just another example of Krueger's ongoing paranoia and
tendency to make things up.

What, Richman's tendency to butcher what others write, or his reliance on
disproof or proof by means of assertion?

you obviously think that I am omniscient and
actually know for sure who posts as "S888wheel". I don't.

Then you're either woefully ignorant, since that information has been
provided by Mr. Wheeler and he has communicated via law suit with
you, or you're deliberately lying again.

Richman, you must be privy to facts in this lawsuit that I'm not aware of.
I know of no proof that S888wheel and any particualar legal entity are one
in the same person. I'm under the impression that Mr. Wheeler concealed
the fact that the posts I made that he takes exception to were posted by an
unknown alias with a made-up name that has no legal signfiicance (not a
legally-registered alias, etc.)

So which is it, Arny? Are
you simply ignorant as you now claim, or lying in an effort to avoid
the possible legal consequences of a libel suit?

If you have legal proof that S888wheel is some certain person, that is proof
that would stand up in court, please present it. If you can't present it,
then Bruce you are as ignorant as I am in this matter.

I don't know for
sure who "Scott Wheeler" is, either. And as I've long said, I don't
know who "Bruce Richman" is.

You have not let your ignorance prevent you, however, from claiming
that Mr. Wheeler is a sockpuppet, or in times past, that I am anybody
other than whom I've described myself as here.

Prove that I've said that Mr. Wheeler is surely a sockpuppet.

In your little love
fests with McKelvy in times past, you've repeatedly lied about my
identity on RAO, despite your actually not having any evidence that
what you've said is at all factual.

Prove it.

I have seen more than enough evidence to know that not
all I see around here is what it seems, taken at face value.

On this point we can agree. Your posts often provide convincing
evidence of how deceptive and misleading a person can be.

Prove it Bruce, and not by your accustomed means of double-talk and proof by
assertion.


Or how about your listing a post containing a
discussion of the music of Daniel Lanois in which I was involved as
a personal attack against you?

I don't know what this sentence means, or do I care what it means.
For example, I don't know for sure who "Daniel Lanois" is.

You listed a series of posts with Google references as evidence of
unprovoked personal attacks you claimed that I had made against you.
When I went to check them out, one of the first on the list was a
link to a post in which I was discussing Daniel Lanois.


Which neither proves nor disproves that I know who in fact he is.

It had no mention of your name and certainly had nothing to do with a
personal
attack against you.

You don't seem to know what you are talking about Bruce because your
description of this purported event is very sketchy and presented without an
referereces.


Was that an example of your ignorance or just another one of your
deliberate lies?

Bruce, there's lots of things that I don't know for sure. If you
wish to call that "ignorance", so be it. Unlike you, I find it
tolerable to be ignorant of certain things. I don't have your
demonstrated need to be all-knowing and all-controlling.

That, of course, is a lie.

Claims of mind-reading noted.

I have no need to be omniscient, nor can
you provide any evidence that your false claim above has any
substance whatsoever.

Bruce's apparent ignorant believe that all-controlling is the same the same
as "omniscient" noted.

And as others on RAO have noted, you rarely, if
ever, admit to making errors.

I've made many errors.

I'm really not all that interested in the RAO soap opera. I'm in it
for the audio.

If that were true, you would not have become RAO's most widely
despised poster primarily because of your chronic tendency to engage
in personal attacks upon those with whom you disagree about audio
matters.

Prove that I'm RAOs most widely dispised poster, Bruce. Proof by assertion
is not acceptable.

Arny Krueger wrote:


Bruce J. Richman wrote:

He obviously decided to use this thread as an oppoirtunity
to practice his most frequent activity on RAO - character
assassination of others.

Character assasination, character assasination, character assasination.
Notice how repetetive Richman's posts are?


Another lie by Krueger. Of course, since his lies continue without cessation,
it is entirely appropriate to identify them whenever they occur.



Shall we conclude that your constantly referring to Scott Wheeler
as a sockpuppet is (a) ignorance, or (b) deliberate lies that you
feel compelled to make.

As paranoid as you are Bruce,

A delusional belief that you hold, but not one supported by any
evidence that a rational person (yourself excluded of course) would
respect.

Notice that Richman takes his out-of-context butchering of my posts to such
an extreme that he cannot allow a simple sentence to be presented in its
entirely.

Krueger's use of terms like "butchering" are obvious lies, designed only to try
and discredit the undeniable fact that he has repeatedly accused Mr. Wheeler of
being a sockpuppet in his idiotic conversations with him in which he
continuously calls him 'sockpuppet". Notice how Krueger tries to change the
subject to language usage to avoid this simple fact?


As usual, Krueger has engaged in projecting his own
paranoia on to others. One can easily recall his paranoid assertion
that those he listed on RAO as "golden-eared" were probably
sockpuppets.

A butchered paraphrase, and disproof by means of assertion.


A meaningless attempt at obfuscation. The Google record clearly indicates that
Krueger has recerntly, in this very thread, freferred to those on RAHE with
whom he disagrees (e.g. Lavo, Mirabel, etc.) as "delusional" and
"golden-eared". The facts are evident in his lying post about them.


Just another example of Krueger's ongoing paranoia and
tendency to make things up.







you obviously think that I am omniscient and
actually know for sure who posts as "S888wheel". I don't.

Then you're either woefully ignorant, since that information has been
provided by Mr. Wheeler and he has communicated via law suit with
you, or you're deliberately lying again.

Richman, you must be privy to facts in this lawsuit that I'm not aware of.
I know of no proof that S888wheel and any particualar legal entity are one
in the same person. I'm under the impression that Mr. Wheeler concealed
the fact that the posts I made that he takes exception to were posted by an
unknown alias with a made-up name that has no legal signfiicance (not a
legally-registered alias, etc.)


Tell it to the judge. Prove it.


So which is it, Arny? Are
you simply ignorant as you now claim, or lying in an effort to avoid
the possible legal consequences of a libel suit?

If you have legal proof that S888wheel is some certain person, that is proof
that would stand up in court, please present it. If you can't present it,
then Bruce you are as ignorant as I am in this matter.


I don't have to prevent it in court. I'm sure Mr. Wheeler will accomodate you.
Unlike you, Arny, I don't accuse those with whom I disagree, of being
"sockpuppets".
Conspiracy theories are your problem, not mine.


I don't know for
sure who "Scott Wheeler" is, either. And as I've long said, I don't
know who "Bruce Richman" is.

You have not let your ignorance prevent you, however, from claiming
that Mr. Wheeler is a sockpuppet, or in times past, that I am anybody
other than whom I've described myself as here.

Prove that I've said that Mr. Wheeler is surely a sockpuppet.


I didn't use the word "surely", you did. Nice try to bait me into responding
to somethign I didn't say. Deliberate misrepresentation of my comments noted,
of course.


In your little love
fests with McKelvy in times past, you've repeatedly lied about my
identity on RAO, despite your actually not having any evidence that
what you've said is at all factual.

Prove it.


A matter of Google record.

Here's just one early example:

-----------------------------------------------------------
From: Arny Krüger )
Subject: BJ Richman: quack or fake?


View this article only
Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
Date: 1999/06/19


Zippy wrote in message
...
Or both?

Zip

I'll go for both.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Here's a most recent example of Krueger & McKelvy's mutual bull****/admiration
attack threads:

From: Arny Krueger )
Subject: Statistical Evidence of Bruce Richman's Senile Dementia


View this article only
Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
Date: 2003-12-12 03:57:42 PST


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message


Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist

Notice that Richman is so insecure and so jealous of dominance over RAO that
he feels compelled to post his credentials on RAO quite often.

Followed by his partner-in-libel, Mckelvy's predictable parrot-like refrain:

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


Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist

Notice that Richman is so insecure and so jealous of dominance over RAO that
he feels compelled to post his credentials on RAO quite often.

Google estimates that Bruce Richman has posted this information
approximately 636 times. The first post was August 16, 1998 or 5 years and
4 months ago. That's 64 months ago.

Therefore statistics show that Bruce Richman posts his credentials an
average of 10 times a month. That means that Bruce Richman is so insecure
and so jealous of dominance over RAO that he has to post his credentials on
the average about once every 3 days.

I guess poor old Bruce Richman forgets who he is and has to remind himself
and the rest of us of who he is, on the average of once every three days.
That would appear to indicate a serious state of senile dementia.

There is in fact no relevance of this information to the readers of the
rec.audio.opinion newsgroup. If Bruce Richman were an audio dealer or an
audio engineer or an audio writer, then this would be relevant. But he's
not, he's just a Psychologist. What does that have to do with audio?

Furthermore, there are a number of people who are audio dealers or audio
engineers or audio writers who post here and rarely if ever post anything
about their credentials. Thus, we see that Bruce Richman is posting
irrelevant information of a kind that normal people don't post, even when it
is relevant. This constitutes further evidence that Bruce Richman has severe
mental problems and extreme difficulties forming normal relationships with
other people.




What's the first post he made on RAO and how long did it take before the
unprovoked ad-hominem attacks began?
-----------------------------------------------------------

Prove that you have not libeled many diifferent people on RAO. Oh, wait,
nevermind, defending yourself in one libel suit at a time is probably all you
can handle.


I have seen more than enough evidence to know that not
all I see around here is what it seems, taken at face value.

On this point we can agree. Your posts often provide convincing
evidence of how deceptive and misleading a person can be.

Prove it Bruce, and not by your accustomed means of double-talk and proof by
assertion.


Prove that you haven't been lying about me for 6 years. Prove that you don't
delete relevant information from the posts of others. All the proof necessary
of your libelous posts about myself and others ios contained in the Google
record. A small sample of your libelous claims is presented above.



Or how about your listing a post containing a
discussion of the music of Daniel Lanois in which I was involved as
a personal attack against you?

I don't know what this sentence means, or do I care what it means.
For example, I don't know for sure who "Daniel Lanois" is.

You listed a series of posts with Google references as evidence of
unprovoked personal attacks you claimed that I had made against you.
When I went to check them out, one of the first on the list was a
link to a post in which I was discussing Daniel Lanois.


Which neither proves nor disproves that I know who in fact he is.


It proves that you're engaging in double talk here by deliberately avoiding the
fact - now repeated twice - that you identified a post that I wrote as a
personal attack upon you. In reality, the post contained no reference to you
whatsoever. How often do you intend to try the same evasive tactics?


It had no mention of your name and certainly had nothing to do with a
personal
attack against you.

You don't seem to know what you are talking about Bruce because your
description of this purported event is very sketchy and presented without an
referereces.


No references are necessary, sicne yuu;ve already displayed an obvious attempt
to change the subject. But just to once again expose you as the liar most of
RAO have long known you to be:

Message 2 in thread
From: Arny Krueger )
Subject: Google Proof of An Unprovoked Personal Attack from Krueger


View this article only
Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
Date: 2003-12-06 03:44:01 PST



"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message

In May, 20003, a post was initiated by JBotg dealing with ABX test
methodology. The Google record clearly indicates that I was not
involved in this thread at all and not mentioned Krueger's name prior
to the following unprovoked personal attack from Krueger:

Time and date of the post I made was: 2003-05-16 03:13:29 PST

What Richman doesn't say is that he had attacked me any number of times in
other threads previously on the same day and on previous days. Here's the
proof:


From: Arny Krueger )
Subject: Google Proof of An Unprovoked Personal Attack from Krueger


View this article only
Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
Date: 2003-12-06 03:44:01 PST



"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message

In May, 20003, a post was initiated by JBotg dealing with ABX test
methodology. The Google record clearly indicates that I was not
involved in this thread at all and not mentioned Krueger's name prior
to the following unprovoked personal attack from Krueger:

Time and date of the post I made was: 2003-05-16 03:13:29 PST

What Richman doesn't say is that he had attacked me any number of times in
other threads previously on the same day and on previous days. Here's the
proof:

http://www.google.com/groups?safe=im...uauthors=richm
an%20&as_drrb=b&as_mind=14&as_minm=5&as_miny=2003& as_maxd=16&as_maxm=5&as_ma
xy=2003

Now, when one goes to this so-called evidence of Krueger's., one finds that the
first item he cites is a post entitled " Daniel Lanois".

Needless to say, there is no mention of Krueger in this post. So once again,
we have incontestable evidence of Krueger's necessity to lie about others.







Was that an example of your ignorance or just another one of your
deliberate lies?

Bruce, there's lots of things that I don't know for sure. If you
wish to call that "ignorance", so be it. Unlike you, I find it
tolerable to be ignorant of certain things. I don't have your
demonstrated need to be all-knowing and all-controlling.

That, of course, is a lie.

Claims of mind-reading noted.


Meaningless statement devoid of evidence noted.

I have no need to be omniscient, nor can
you provide any evidence that your false claim above has any
substance whatsoever.

Bruce's apparent ignorant believe that all-controlling is the same the same
as "omniscient" noted.

And as others on RAO have noted, you rarely, if
ever, admit to making errors.

I've made many errors.

I'm really not all that interested in the RAO soap opera. I'm in it
for the audio.

If that were true, you would not have become RAO's most widely
despised poster primarily because of your chronic tendency to engage
in personal attacks upon those with whom you disagree about audio
matters.

Prove that I'm RAOs most widely dispised poster, Bruce. Proof by assertion
is not acceptable.




Interested readers can refer to the well-known, infamous thread entitled "A Bad
Krueger Experience" initiated by Ed Shain on July 27, 1999. In that thread,
Mr. Shain correctly points out that Krueger has engaged in arguments, personal
attacks, etc. with numerous different individuals whom he then proceeds to
list. No similafr observation has ever been made about any other RAO poster.
Of course, Krueger claims this is ancient history and that many of the people
on the list are "sockpuppets". However, he has continued to add to "enemies"
that he has smeared and defamed since then. Also, he has never proved that any
of his "sockpuppets" accusations are accurate.


Bruce J. Richman

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

He obviously decided to use this thread as an oppoirtunity
to practice his most frequent activity on RAO - character
assassination of others.

Character assasination, character assasination, character assasination.
Notice how repetetive Richman's posts are?


Shall we conclude that your constantly referring to Scott Wheeler
as a sockpuppet is (a) ignorance, or (b) deliberate lies that you
feel compelled to make.

As paranoid as you are Bruce,

A delusional belief that you hold, but not one supported by any
evidence that a rational person (yourself excluded of course) would
respect.

Notice that Richman takes his out-of-context butchering of my posts to
such
an extreme that he cannot allow a simple sentence to be presented in its
entirely.

As usual, Krueger has engaged in projecting his own
paranoia on to others. One can easily recall his paranoid assertion
that those he listed on RAO as "golden-eared" were probably
sockpuppets.

A butchered paraphrase, and disproof by means of assertion.

Just another example of Krueger's ongoing paranoia and
tendency to make things up.

What, Richman's tendency to butcher what others write, or his reliance on
disproof or proof by means of assertion?

you obviously think that I am omniscient and
actually know for sure who posts as "S888wheel". I don't.

Then you're either woefully ignorant, since that information has been
provided by Mr. Wheeler and he has communicated via law suit with
you, or you're deliberately lying again.

Richman, you must be privy to facts in this lawsuit that I'm not aware of.
I know of no proof that S888wheel and any particualar legal entity are one
in the same person. I'm under the impression that Mr. Wheeler concealed
the fact that the posts I made that he takes exception to were posted by
an
unknown alias with a made-up name that has no legal signfiicance (not a
legally-registered alias, etc.)

So which is it, Arny? Are
you simply ignorant as you now claim, or lying in an effort to avoid
the possible legal consequences of a libel suit?

If you have legal proof that S888wheel is some certain person, that is
proof
that would stand up in court, please present it. If you can't present it,
then Bruce you are as ignorant as I am in this matter.

I don't know for
sure who "Scott Wheeler" is, either. And as I've long said, I don't
know who "Bruce Richman" is.

You have not let your ignorance prevent you, however, from claiming
that Mr. Wheeler is a sockpuppet, or in times past, that I am anybody
other than whom I've described myself as here.

Prove that I've said that Mr. Wheeler is surely a sockpuppet.

In your little love
fests with McKelvy in times past, you've repeatedly lied about my
identity on RAO, despite your actually not having any evidence that
what you've said is at all factual.

Prove it.

I have seen more than enough evidence to know that not
all I see around here is what it seems, taken at face value.

On this point we can agree. Your posts often provide convincing
evidence of how deceptive and misleading a person can be.

Prove it Bruce, and not by your accustomed means of double-talk and proof
by
assertion.


Or how about your listing a post containing a
discussion of the music of Daniel Lanois in which I was involved as
a personal attack against you?

I don't know what this sentence means, or do I care what it means.
For example, I don't know for sure who "Daniel Lanois" is.

You listed a series of posts with Google references as evidence of
unprovoked personal attacks you claimed that I had made against you.
When I went to check them out, one of the first on the list was a
link to a post in which I was discussing Daniel Lanois.


Which neither proves nor disproves that I know who in fact he is.

It had no mention of your name and certainly had nothing to do with a
personal
attack against you.

You don't seem to know what you are talking about Bruce because your
description of this purported event is very sketchy and presented without
an
referereces.


Was that an example of your ignorance or just another one of your
deliberate lies?

Bruce, there's lots of things that I don't know for sure. If you
wish to call that "ignorance", so be it. Unlike you, I find it
tolerable to be ignorant of certain things. I don't have your
demonstrated need to be all-knowing and all-controlling.

That, of course, is a lie.

Claims of mind-reading noted.

I have no need to be omniscient, nor can
you provide any evidence that your false claim above has any
substance whatsoever.

Bruce's apparent ignorant believe that all-controlling is the same the
same
as "omniscient" noted.

And as others on RAO have noted, you rarely, if
ever, admit to making errors.

I've made many errors.

I'm really not all that interested in the RAO soap opera. I'm in it
for the audio.

If that were true, you would not have become RAO's most widely
despised poster primarily because of your chronic tendency to engage
in personal attacks upon those with whom you disagree about audio
matters.

Prove that I'm RAOs most widely dispised poster, Bruce. Proof by assertion
is not acceptable.


How about proof by poll?

Message-id:

S888Wheel - - mercredi 14
Avril 2004 23:47 wrote:

Who would have known I would be so on the money when I dubbed you the
French Arny Krueger? You are quite amusing. Glad to see you don't take RAO
seriously. LOL

I appreciate your humour but there's still not answer to the question...
You are a fart, an ectoplasm as long as you will not prove the contrary.







Your fantasy that reality revolves around your personal knowledge is yet
another goofy trait you share with Arny.

Message-id:

Bruce J. Richman wrote:

Note total obfuscation of the issue of his intention false claim that I was
the only RAO poster who had been banned from RAHE.

Recall, that Bruce brought this issue completely gratuitously, no doubt in
an effort to make trouble for me. It backfired because if anything, I'm a
little proud of being banned from RAHE. It has certainly led me to more
productive audio engagements.

Shall we conclude that your constantly referring to Scott Wheeler as a
sockpuppet is (a) ignorance, or (b) deliberate lies that you feel
compelled to make.

As paranoid as you are Bruce, you obviously think that I am omniscient and
actually know for sure who posts as "S888wheel". I don't. I don't know for
sure who "Scott Wheeler" is, either.


Wow, that makes you pretty damned stupid. Of course you might be refering to
your inability to figure out what I do for a living despite all the obvious
clues other RAO regulars have given you. But that is just more evidence of your
amazing stupidity.

And as I've long said, I don't know who
"Bruce Richman" is. I have seen more than enough evidence to know that not
all I see around here is what it seems, taken at face value.

Or how about your listing a post containing a
discussion of the music of Daniel Lanois in which I was involved as a
personal attack against you?

I don't know what this sentence means, or do I care what it means. For
example, I don't know for sure who "Daniel Lanois" is.

No surprise there. He is a fantastic creator of fine music. Who would expect
you to know who he is. Maybe you thought he was the drummer for "Fold es Eg."



Was that an example of your ignorance or just another one of your
deliberate lies?

Bruce, there's lots of things that I don't know for sure. If you wish to
call that "ignorance", so be it. Unlike you, I find it tolerable to be
ignorant of certain things. I don't have your demonstrated need to be
all-knowing and all-controlling.

I'm really not all that interested in the RAO soap opera. I'm in it for the
audio.

Message-id:

Bruce J. Richman - - mercredi
14 Avril 2004 21:28 wrote:

Then you're either woefully ignorant, since that information has been
provided by Mr. Wheeler and he has communicated via law suit with you, or
you're
deliberately lying again. So which is it, Arny? Are you simply ignorant
as you now claim, or lying in an effort to avoid the possible legal
consequences of a libel suit?

BTW Bruce *you* have recently participated to a discussion with "Phillips",
"Middius" concerning my identity. This discussion proves that you could
*never* know who is posting on Usenet.
Do you want that I provide you a Google link ?

So the question is who is S888Wheel ?
Who is the ******* who has insulted my father ?
Some of the Californian regulars pretend that he is a public person who
appears sometime on TV.
Bull**** ! I cannot believe that a public man could take the risk to soil
his reputation, insulting my father on a public newsgroup, playing a
bull**** role in muddy discussions of chidren rape and other sexual
extravagances.
Do you think that a rich public person would take the risk to face the
justice for his exchange with an unknow guy who is living in a hole in a
wall at the end of a small European country ?


Who would have known I would be so on the money when I dubbed you the French
Arny Krueger? You are quite amusing. Glad to see you don't take RAO seriously.
LOL


Have you already met me ?
Have you already met Scott Wheeler ?

I guess that it will not take a long time to verify who is Bruce J. Richman
licenced psychologist, Dave Weil who work in a restaurant in Nashville,
Marc Phillips with his link with vinyl anachronist, Arnold Krueger in
Grosspoint... Lionel Chapuis a French guy who is living in France near
Saint-Etienne.

Sincerely Bruce do you know anything about S888Wheel except that he is
pretending to be one of the numerous Scott Wheeler and that he use to
listen music on vinyl records ?

Be honest Bruce you are like me, just guessing...

Lionel wrote:


Bruce J. Richman - - mercredi
14 Avril 2004 23:35 wrote:

I don't have any reason to disbelieve Scott Wheeler. As for requesting
proof re. your statement about California regulars saying he's a public
person, I didn't ask because I don't believe you. I asked because I
missed those
posts and was curious to see them.

Ok, I'm not really convinced but I your curiosity will be satisfied :

---------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Middius said:

Arnii, have you figured out what Mister Wheeler does for a living?

No gibbering about an "adicton" today, please. As usual, you may bang
your head against the crumbling foundation of your disgusting house if
that will help get you oriented.

BTW, how goes the hunt for John Atkinson's scalp? Have you brought
Stereophile to its knees yet? ;-)

Hint for Arny:**I*saw*Scott*Wheeler*mentioned*on*TV*today*i n*relation*to*his
occupation.**

Remember, Arny, we're all laughing at you right now, not with you.

Boon
---------------------------------------------------------
Lines:
17
X-Admin:

From:
(Marc Phillips)
Newsgroups:
rec.audio.opinion
Date:
03 Apr 2004 19:38:11 GMT
References:

Organization:
AOL http://www.aol.com
Subject:
Kwestion for the Krooborg
Message-ID:

Xref:
news.free.fr rec.audio.opinion:325253
Références*: 1











I remember that post. But we interpret it differently. I think you feel that
meant that Scott Wheeler was specifically mentioned by name. My interpretation
is only that his "occupation" was mentioned by name, not he personally. Now,
George does not live in California and neither do I, so if George say Scott's
occupation mentioned (which is my guess), he probably saw it in advertisement
or perhaps on a news report.

Lionel - American TV often contains ads for people in various professions such
as attornies, physicians, dentists, etc.


Bruce J. Richman