In the dead of summer a fly was resting on a leaf

beside a lake. The

hot, dry fly who said to no one in particular,

"Gosh....if I go down

three inches, I will feel the mist from the water and

I will be

refreshed."


There was a fish in the water thinking, "Gosh...if

that fly goes

down three inches I can jump up and eat him."


There was also a bear resting on the shore thinking

"Gosh...if that

fly goes down three inches...that fish will jump for

the fly....and I

will eat him."


It also happened that there was a hunter was further

up the bank of

the lake preparing to eat a cheese sandwich. "Gosh" he

thought "if that

fly goes down three inches....and that fish leaps for

it....that bear

will expose himself and grab fo! r the fish. I'll

shoot the bear and

then

have a proper lunch."


You probably think this is enough activity for one

bank of a lake,

but I can tell you there was more.


A wee mouse by the hunter's foot was thinking

"Gosh....if that fly

goes down three inches....and that fish jumps for that

fly....and that

bear grabs for that fish....the dumb hunter will shoot

the bear and

drop

his cheese sandwich, which I c! an then eat."


Finally, there was a cat lurking in the bushes took in

this scene

and thought "Gosh....if that fly goes down three

inches....and that

fish

jumps for that fly....and that bear grabs for that

fish...and that

hunters shoots that bear... and that mouse makes off

with the cheese

sandwich....then I can have mouse for lunch while he's

distracted."


The poor fly, who is oblivious to all this activity

around him, is

finally so hot and so dry that he heads down for the

cooling mist of

the

water.

The fish then swallows the fly....the bear grabs the

fish....the

hunter shoots the bear....the mouse grabs the cheese

sandwich....the

cat

jumps for the mouse....the mouse ducks....the cat

falls into the water

and drowns.


The moral of the story is.....whenever a fly goes down

three inches

some pussy is probably in danger





Bruce J. Richman

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
In the dead of summer a fly was resting on a leaf

beside a lake. The

hot, dry fly who said to no one in particular,

"Gosh....if I go down

three inches, I will feel the mist from the water and

I will be

refreshed."


There was a fish in the water thinking, "Gosh...if

that fly goes

down three inches I can jump up and eat him."


There was also a bear resting on the shore thinking

"Gosh...if that

fly goes down three inches...that fish will jump for

the fly....and I

will eat him."


It also happened that there was a hunter was further

up the bank of

the lake preparing to eat a cheese sandwich. "Gosh" he

thought "if that

fly goes down three inches....and that fish leaps for

it....that bear

will expose himself and grab fo! r the fish. I'll

shoot the bear and

then

have a proper lunch."


You probably think this is enough activity for one

bank of a lake,

but I can tell you there was more.


A wee mouse by the hunter's foot was thinking

"Gosh....if that fly

goes down three inches....and that fish jumps for that

fly....and that

bear grabs for that fish....the dumb hunter will shoot

the bear and

drop

his cheese sandwich, which I c! an then eat."


Finally, there was a cat lurking in the bushes took in

this scene

and thought "Gosh....if that fly goes down three

inches....and that

fish

jumps for that fly....and that bear grabs for that

fish...and that

hunters shoots that bear... and that mouse makes off

with the cheese

sandwich....then I can have mouse for lunch while he's

distracted."


The poor fly, who is oblivious to all this activity

around him, is

finally so hot and so dry that he heads down for the

cooling mist of

the

water.

The fish then swallows the fly....the bear grabs the

fish....the

hunter shoots the bear....the mouse grabs the cheese

sandwich....the

cat

jumps for the mouse....the mouse ducks....the cat

falls into the water

and drowns.


The moral of the story is.....whenever a fly goes down

three inches

some pussy is probably in danger



LOL!

Some pussies can be very cunning...just ask poor Kobe.


Cheers,

MvB

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message


snip lots of boring stuff

The moral of the story is.....whenever a fly goes down three inches
some pussy is probably in danger

Bruce J. Richman

Richman, are you a class act or what?

;-(

Arny Krueger wrote:


snip Krueger's deliberate selective editing typical of his pathological
distortion of information

Richman, are you a class act or what?

A typical response from RAO's most despised and hated purveyor of personal
attacks against numerous RAO posters.

Thanks for illustrating once again your psychopathology for all to observe.

Just another predictable example of why this sociopath is hated by most of
RAO's posters.

For further documentation, see the following historical account. The comments
there are as valid today as when they were first made.

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...ews.worldnet.a
tt.net&output=gplain



Bruce J. Richman

Bruce J. Richman said:

A typical response from RAO's most despised and hated purveyor of personal
attacks against numerous RAO posters.

A more interesting list would be the Kroopologists and would-be
allies of Turdy whom Krooger has shat upon despite their good
intentions towards him.

1. Phoebe Johnston
2. Joseph Oberländer
3. Stewart Pinkerton
4. Gary Bosemeier

I'm sure there are others as well.

The only contributors to RAO who avoid getting Kroo-slimed are the
ones who post only rarely. Krooger is, apparently, as threatened
by those who know more than him as by those who actively embrace
his crackpot agendas. In short, speak your mind on RAO at your
own risk -- no matter what you say, Krooger will eventually attack
you for your words.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message

Bruce J. Richman said:

A typical response from RAO's most despised and hated purveyor of
personal attacks against numerous RAO posters.

A more interesting list would be the Kroopologists and would-be
allies of Turdy whom Krooger has shat upon despite their good
intentions towards him.

1. Phoebe Johnston

There is no such person.

2. Joseph Oberländer

Sometimes he screws up like his claim that it was our military leaders who
kept us in Vietnam, and so I correct him. How is that what you claim,
Middius?

3. Stewart Pinkerton

Pinkerton has repeatedly said that he despises me. Here's one example:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...ws.fsnet.co.uk

"Arny, you are the most despicable pile of snot on the newsgroups."

Since you immediately quote his post Middius, we've got proof again that
you're a habitual liar.

4. Gary Bosemeier

Proof?

I'm sure there are others as well.

I'm sure that you're a habitual liar, Middiot. But that's hardly news to
most RAO regulars, right?

The only contributors to RAO who avoid getting Kroo-slimed are the
ones who post only rarely. Krooger is, apparently, as threatened
by those who know more than him as by those who actively embrace
his crackpot agendas. In short, speak your mind on RAO at your
own risk -- no matter what you say, Krooger will eventually attack
you for your words.

I don't attack people for their words unless they are unbelievably foul or
reprehensible lies. That puts you right in the middle of my sights on both
counts, Middiot. As far as your general RAO poster goes, if I disagree with
what they say, I just might say so. I realize that honest reasoned
disagreement is something that you don't understand Middiot, but for
appearances sake, you might want to act like you do understand it.

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


snip Krueger's deliberate selective editing typical of his pathological
distortion of information

Richman, are you a class act or what?

A typical response from RAO's most despised and hated purveyor of personal
attacks against numerous RAO posters.

Thanks for illustrating once again your psychopathology for all to
observe.

Just another predictable example of why this sociopath is hated by most of
RAO's posters.

For further documentation, see the following historical account. The
comments
there are as valid today as when they were first made.

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...ews.worldnet.a
tt.net&output=gplain



Bruce J. Richman

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


snip Krueger's deliberate selective editing typical of his pathological
distortion of information

Richman, are you a class act or what?

A typical response from RAO's most despised and hated purveyor of personal
attacks against numerous RAO posters.

Only by a certain few.

Thanks for illustrating once again your psychopathology for all to
observe.

That he can edit down to a few words to ge is point across?
They have term for for that? Wow!

Just another predictable example of why this sociopath is hated by most of
RAO's posters.

Speak for yourself, you're marginally qualified there.

For further documentation, see the following historical account. The
comments
there are as valid today as when they were first made.

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...ews.worldnet.a
tt.net&output=gplain



Bruce J. Richman


For furter reference on what a dickhead Quackenbush is, read any three
responses of his to anything AK says.

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

snip Krueger's deliberate selective editing typical of his
pathological distortion of information

Notice Richman's deliberate total obliteration of the post he claims to be
commenting on. I guess he's trying to claim that selective editing (done for
the sake of clarity and brevity) is morally worse than totally obliterating
the facts so that people have to scout around to find them.

Richman, are you a class act or what?

A typical response from RAO's most despised and hated purveyor of
personal attacks against numerous RAO posters.

So what are you claiming Richman - that you're not hated or that you're not
a leading purveyor of personal attacks against numerous RAO posters?

Both claims would be lies, of course.

Thanks for illustrating once again your psychopathology for all to
observe.

To review, one symptom of a pathology would be that it makes the
pathological person unhappy and unable to form stable relationships, etc.
Now I'm obviously pretty happy (having this romp at Richman's expense) and
its well-known that in the real world I have many stable and lengthy
relationships. OTOH, in this post Richman seems to be very unhappy and in
fact we know nothing about Richman's real-world relationships. So who's more
pathological, Richman or Krueger?

Just another predictable example of why this sociopath is hated by
most of RAO's posters.

Most of RAO's regular posters are sociopaths or borderline sociopaths, like
Phillips, Richman, Weil, Middius, Devil, Maggie, etc. So the fact that they
would have problems with a person who is reasonably sane and well-adjusted
should be no surprise.

For further documentation, see the following historical account. The
comments there are as valid today as when they were first made.

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...ews.worldnet.a
tt.net&output=gplain

Just another unhappy sociopath (who seems to have almost completely
disappeared off the face of Usenet) venting his frustrations.

BTW, it appears that one of Ed's current ventures (after the collapse of
Vergence) can be examined by visiting www.metropolisdvd.com

Arny Krueger wrote:


Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

snip Krueger's deliberate selective editing typical of his
pathological distortion of information

Notice Richman's deliberate total obliteration of the post he claims to be
commenting on. I guess he's trying to claim that selective editing (done for
the sake of clarity and brevity) is morally worse than totally obliterating
the facts so that people have to scout around to find them.


Just more obfuscation and blather from RAO's most detested poster. Note that
Krueger once again fails to take responsibility for leveling an provoked attack
against me after I posted a joke on RAO which had no reference to him
whatsoever. All that has followed since from his lying responses has been a
pathetic attempt to avoid dealing with this basic fact.



Richman, are you a class act or what?

A typical response from RAO's most despised and hated purveyor of
personal attacks against numerous RAO posters.

So what are you claiming Richman - that you're not hated or that you're not
a leading purveyor of personal attacks against numerous RAO posters?


Note Krueger's attempt to change the subject. His comment above about class
acts in reesponse to a joke I posted on RAO was just one of a 7 year history of
unprovoked personal attacks made against me - as well as many other posters -
by this obnoxious liar and hatemonger.

There is no evidene, as usual, to support any of his claims about hatred
directed at me except by him , of course, and one or two parasitic clones such
as McKelvey.
OTOH, we have a thead entitled, "Have You Had A Bad Krueger Experience?" which
outlines quite clearly the vast number of different posters that have been
slandered, defamed, smeared, and attacked by Krueger for no logical reason.



Both claims would be lies, of course.

Thanks for illustrating once again your psychopathology for all to
observe.

To review, one symptom of a pathology would be that it makes the
pathological person unhappy and unable to form stable relationships, etc.

This is not necessaril;y true, even allowing for your total lack of insight re.
your own psychopathology. It's also circular and unsupported by any facts.
Many scientifically accepted and validated symptoms of psychopathology do not,
as far as has been proven, make people unhappy. For example, Krueger posts
delusional thoughts about sockpuppet conspiracies here on a fairly regular
basis.
(See his comments about Middius, Atkinson, etc. in which he accuses them of
running sockpuppets). There is no evidence that his delusional rantings on
this subject make him unhappy. If, as he claims, without any empricial evidence
to support it (see below), he has no trouble forming interpersonal
relationships that are stable, then apparently his delusiional rantings about
sockpuppets don't interfere with "ability".

Of course, one could also point out that "stable interpersonal relationships"
don't indicate that the other people involve even LIKE Krueger. Once could say
he has *many* stable interpersonal relationships on RAO - and almost all of
them involve people that are disgusted and revolted by his obnoxious and
irrational behavior.

LOL!.


Now I'm obviously pretty happy (having this romp at Richman's expense) and
its well-known that in the real world I have many stable and lengthy
relationships.

There is no eviudence whatsoever, other than in the diseased and empty cavities
of Krueger's "mind" (such as it is) that he has accomplished anything here
other than make a fool of himself by pretending to (a) know something about
psychopathology, (b) know something about how interpersonal relationships
develop), and (c) insult the intelligence of all RAO readers by once again
failing to address the basic fact that he leveled a personal attack against a
joke I posted which never referred to him at all.

There is no evidence provided to substantiate Krueger's probable false claim
that he has many stable and lengthy personal relationships. Are we to take
this proven liar's word for it? I think not. OTOH, there is a 7 year history
of Krueger's "stable and length" interpersonal relationships on RAO that he has
formed. Yes, indeed. They are many. They are stable. They are lengthy. And
has pointed out over by many people over a 7 year period, most of them involve
relationships in which the other party has quickly developed an intense feeling
of revulsion, disgust and dislike because of Krueger's well-documented history
of engaging in unprovoked personal attacks against them.




OTOH, in this post Richman seems to be very unhappy and in
fact we know nothing about Richman's real-world relationships. So who's more
pathological, Richman or Krueger?


Not even a rational or logical try to change the subject under investigation.
Since Krueger's claims about psychopatholgoy and interpersonal relationships
have been shown to be illogical and unsupported by any empirical evidence, who
cares about what questions he now tries, unsuccessfully to raise, to change the
focus - namely, his latest unprovoked personal attack against me - as
exemplified by his comments about a joke that I posted. Note that he has still
not given any defense for this incontrovertible fact. And of course, he never
will, given his basic dishonesty.





Just another predictable example of why this sociopath is hated by
most of RAO's posters.

Most of RAO's regular posters are sociopaths or borderline sociopaths, like
Phillips, Richman, Weil, Middius, Devil, Maggie, etc.

Given Kruegerr's basic lack of knowledge about psychopatholgy, the above
comments arre ludicrous and as is typical of Krueger, lies. Unlike myself,
Krueger has no quialifications that would even remotely enable him to comment
meaningfully about psychpathology. His stupidity was very well demonstrated
above when he made the idiotic claim that those with "a symptom of
psychopathology" would be unhappy. This is not necessarily true, as Krueger
himself demonstrates. After all he claims to "enjoy" himself when he makes his
usual; delusional and paranoid (2 symptoms) accuations about Middius, Atkinson
and others having "cliques" or "networks" of sockpuppets that attack him.




So the fact that they
would have problems with a person who is reasonably sane and well-adjusted
should be no surprise.


ROFLMAO!!!!!! Let's let all the posters of RAO decide whether Krueger meets
this criteria. Krueger's pathological psotings are a matter of Google record.
As as pointed out many times in the past by numerous psoters, his behavior on
RAO easily meets the criteria for several diagnostic criteria, most notably
that of Paranoid Personality Disorder. Note that this is not a diagnosis, just
an observation based on his online postings. This current post is just the
latest example of that.





For further documentation, see the following historical account. The
comments there are as valid today as when they were first made.

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...ews.worldnet.a
tt.net&output=gplain

Just another unhappy sociopath (who seems to have almost completely
disappeared off the face of Usenet) venting his frustrations.


There is no evidence that Mr. Shain had any socipathic tendencies whatsoever.
Neither is there any evidence that he was "frustrated". But as usual, Krueger
likes to lie about people without presenting any evidence to support his
delusional claims.

What Mr. Shain's post illustrates, however, is that a significantly large
number of different RAO posters have been attacked, defamed, slandered, lied
about, and attacked without provocation by Krueger. It's also worth pointing
out that no other RAO poster, AFAIK, has *ever* been described in this way -
only Krueger. The reaons for this are quite obvious.




BTW, it appears that one of Ed's current ventures (after the collapse of
Vergence) can be examined by visiting www.metropolisdvd.com











Bruce J. Richman

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message


Arny Krueger wrote:

Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message


Snip previous proof of Richman's lying and intellectual dishonesty

Just more obfuscation and blather from RAO's most detested poster.

Can't read very well, can you Richman? This isn't a Middius post.

Note that Krueger once again fails to take responsibility for
leveling an provoked attack against me after I posted a joke on RAO
which had no reference to him whatsoever.

Which joke might that be, and what was the thread name?

All that has followed
since from his lying responses has been a pathetic attempt to avoid
dealing with this basic fact.

Which basic fact is that Richman? You didn't identify a specific post so I
just don't know what you are talking about. BTW, do YOU know what you are
talking about?

Richman, are you a class act or what?

A typical response from RAO's most despised and hated purveyor of
personal attacks against numerous RAO posters.

So what are you claiming Richman - that you're not hated or that
you're not a leading purveyor of personal attacks against numerous
RAO posters?

Note Krueger's attempt to change the subject.

There's this problem with the vagueness of your statements, Richman.

His comment above
about class acts in reesponse (sic) to a joke I posted on RAO was just one
of a 7 year history of unprovoked personal attacks made against me -
as well as many other posters - by this obnoxious liar and hatemonger.

Could you be more vague, Richman?

There is no evidene (sic), as usual, to support any of his claims about
hatred directed at me except by him , of course, and one or two
parasitic clones such as McKelvey.

Besides your overwhelming self-hatred Richman, there's the matter of your
lying. Here's a negative post about you from someone who is most definitely
not a clone of anybody, but is just his sweet self:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3E...FC%40email.com

trotsky wrote in

"Bruce, I can't stand how weak you are intellectually. Somewhere in your
pea brain you must realize that the Usenet phenomonon brings up peculiar
psychological issues, mob mentality and mass hysteria being two of
them. Do you even have a degree? This is an intelligent and, to me,
somewhat obvious topic of conversation for a guy who supposedly has a
PhD in psychology, but for some reason you are stuck in some kind of
endless loop of only dealing with lowest common denominators.
Regardless of how I slice it, I find both your level of intelligence and
your mental health somewhat suspect. Come clean on what you've been
professionally diagnosed with and we'll have a starting point."

Clearly not a love letter. So Richman, that makes you a proven liar once
again.

delete lame attempt by Richman to change the subject

Don't you mean for those without the gut for anything more than name calling
and ad-hominem attacks, eh Quackenbush?