| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Have You Had a bad Rudy Broens Experience?
George M. Middius wrote:
Clyde Slick said: Mr. Bath said he was banned for comments about the moderators. I assume they were critical. Let's hope that the moderators don't consider themselves immune to criticism. Now, if it were for repeated fallacious and defamatory comments, that is another story. I don't know what Arny said, so I withhold my judgement. Do you really think Krooger made a well-founded criticism? After all the ridiculous accusations he's made against JA, Wheeler, Bamborough, etc.? It was probably just a gratuitous personal slur, the kind we know all too well on RAO. I can tell you from personal experience on RAHE, that Krueger's attempts to smear those that don't agree with his views was carried over there. As long as he met the RAHE criteria of attacking the message, but not the messenger, he got away with it - as did many others. However, I know on a firsthand basis that he attempted to smear me there on more than one occasion, had some of his smears rejected, and to be fair, which is more than he ever deserves, of course, I got a few responses to his smears rejected by the moderators. However, unlike Krueger, I was able to modify them so that they would be accepted for posting there by the moderators for the most part. As you are suggesting, the moderators are, in my view, pretty fair in how they screen the posts submitted. It's a thankless job and they do their best. But Krueger, as I recall, accused them on RAO of various behaviors that were never proven to exist. The details are no doubt in the Google record. The fact remains that most other posters from RAO that have wanted to post on RAHE, including myself, have had very little problem in getting their posts accepted. We all know why Krueger is the exception. Bruce J. Richman |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message ... George M. Middius wrote: Clyde Slick said: Mr. Bath said he was banned for comments about the moderators. I assume they were critical. Let's hope that the moderators don't consider themselves immune to criticism. Now, if it were for repeated fallacious and defamatory comments, that is another story. I don't know what Arny said, so I withhold my judgement. Do you really think Krooger made a well-founded criticism? After all the ridiculous accusations he's made against JA, Wheeler, Bamborough, etc.? It was probably just a gratuitous personal slur, the kind we know all too well on RAO. I can tell you from personal experience on RAHE, that Krueger's attempts to smear those that don't agree with his views was carried over there. Yeah yeah, like you told us that bull**** about the moderators discussing why AK was banned. Snip of usual Richman revisonist history. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael McKelvy lied again:
: Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message ... George M. Middius wrote: Clyde Slick said: Mr. Bath said he was banned for comments about the moderators. I assume they were critical. Let's hope that the moderators don't consider themselves immune to criticism. Now, if it were for repeated fallacious and defamatory comments, that is another story. I don't know what Arny said, so I withhold my judgement. Do you really think Krooger made a well-founded criticism? After all the ridiculous accusations he's made against JA, Wheeler, Bamborough, etc.? It was probably just a gratuitous personal slur, the kind we know all too well on RAO. I can tell you from personal experience on RAHE, that Krueger's attempts to smear those that don't agree with his views was carried over there. McKelvy's attempts to change the subject by his usual misrepresentations of what others have said, deleted For those that doubt that the above statement is true, I'm sure they can find plenty of examples of Krueger's confrontational and insulting posts on RAHE. Nobody has to take my word for it, unless like Krueger and McKelvy, they think Google is "lying to them". It is also a fact that since I had some posts rejected by the moderators because I fired back at Krueger's smears, I was told on several occasions by the moderators, that compared to posts of mine that were submitted but sent back to me for revision, some from Krueger were much worse than anything I wrote. McKelvy has a documented history of constantly trying to rationalize, justify, and in general lie about Krueger's antisocial behavior on RAO. Therefore, it's not at all surprising that he would try and misrepresent Krueger's posts on RAHE as well. Bruce J. Richman |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message . net... "Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message ... George M. Middius wrote: Clyde Slick said: Mr. Bath said he was banned for comments about the moderators. I assume they were critical. Let's hope that the moderators don't consider themselves immune to criticism. Now, if it were for repeated fallacious and defamatory comments, that is another story. I don't know what Arny said, so I withhold my judgement. Do you really think Krooger made a well-founded criticism? After all the ridiculous accusations he's made against JA, Wheeler, Bamborough, etc.? It was probably just a gratuitous personal slur, the kind we know all too well on RAO. I can tell you from personal experience on RAHE, that Krueger's attempts to smear those that don't agree with his views was carried over there. Yeah yeah, like you told us that bull**** about the moderators discussing why AK was banned. Snip of usual Richman revisonist history. Mikey, what's your explanation of why Arny was banned? |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
. net "Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message ... George M. Middius wrote: Clyde Slick said: Mr. Bath said he was banned for comments about the moderators. Which is contrary to the posted RAHE guidelines. I assume they were critical. They were on RAO. Where were you when they were posted? Let's hope that the moderators don't consider themselves immune to criticism. Let the facts stand for themselves. Now, if it were for repeated fallacious and defamatory comments, that is another story. Then they should ban Richman for his repeated and fallacious and defamatory comments about me on RAO. After all, I got banned for what I said on RAO, why shouldn't he? I don't know what Arny said, so I withhold my judgement. Ignorance of recent history noted. Do you really think Krooger made a well-founded criticism? My comments were factual. I think the straw that broke the camel's back was when the moderators refused one of my posts because it mentioned DBTs, when so did the OP of the thread. It became clear to me that the RAHE agenda at the time was to try to keep an apparent balance between the pro-DBT and anti-DBT posts, despite the fact that Science and Logic favor the pro-DBT side. After all the ridiculous accusations he's made against JA, Wheeler, Bamborough, etc.? Yes, those guys are all innocent lambs, and butter wouldn't melt in their mouths. It was probably just a gratuitous personal slur, the kind we know all too well on RAO. Not even funny, given who the author of this crap is. Speaks to the *Normals* lack of self awareness, for sure. I can tell you from personal experience on RAHE, that Krueger's attempts to smear those that don't agree with his views was carried over there. If this happened, it would be contrary to the RAHE posting guidelines. IOW its author just criticized the RAHE moderators for not following their posting guidelines, just like I did. Chances that the author will be banned from RAHE is in my estimate, zero. After all, he represents the sacred anti-DBT viewpoint. Yeah yeah, like you told us that bull**** about the moderators discussing why AK was banned. Sure, but false claims become true when they are posted by one of the self-appointed *Normals*. Snip of usual Richman revisonist history. Of course. In Richman revisionist history, the *Normals* are all innocent lambs, and butter wouldn't melt in their mouths. And, if you believe that, I've got a copy of the Stereophile Recommended Components List for you to base your buying decisions on. ;-) |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message .net "Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message ... George M. Middius wrote: Clyde Slick said: Mr. Bath said he was banned for comments about the moderators. Which is contrary to the posted RAHE guidelines. I assume they were critical. They were on RAO. Where were you when they were posted? Let's hope that the moderators don't consider themselves immune to criticism. Let the facts stand for themselves. Now, if it were for repeated fallacious and defamatory comments, that is another story. Then they should ban Richman for his repeated and fallacious and defamatory comments about me on RAO. After all, I got banned for what I said on RAO, why shouldn't he? The above statement is more of Krueger's standard repetititve bull****. If Krueger's lies are to be believed, and most rational people know better, than fhe first person to be banned from RAHE should be McKelvy, who has an almost 7 year proven history of libel and lies about me on RAO). No doubt what Dr. Bath was referring to were Kruegers's comments about RAHE's moderators and its criteria for posting and/or moderation, AND NOTHING ELSE. Krueger is just lying again if he thinks that anybody gets banned from RAHE because of comments they make about other RAO posters - on RAO. The undeniable and provable fact is that Krueger has made defamatory and unsubstantiated negative commenjtes about RAHE and its moderators on RAO. According to Dr. Bath, that is why he was banned. AFAIK, no poster other than Krueger has made any similar negative and/or defamatory comments about RAHE's moderators or their policieis - on RAO - except Krueger. I don't know what Arny said, so I withhold my judgement. Ignorance of recent history noted. Do you really think Krooger made a well-founded criticism? My comments were factual. I think the straw that broke the camel's back was when the moderators refused one of my posts because it mentioned DBTs, when so did the OP of the thread. It became clear to me that the RAHE agenda at the time was to try to keep an apparent balance between the pro-DBT and anti-DBT posts, despite the fact that Science and Logic favor the pro-DBT side. After all the ridiculous accusations he's made against JA, Wheeler, Bamborough, etc.? Yes, those guys are all innocent lambs, and butter wouldn't melt in their mouths. It was probably just a gratuitous personal slur, the kind we know all too well on RAO. Not even funny, given who the author of this crap is. Speaks to the *Normals* lack of self awareness, for sure. I can tell you from personal experience on RAHE, that Krueger's attempts to smear those that don't agree with his views was carried over there. If this happened, it would be contrary to the RAHE posting guidelines. IOW its author just criticized the RAHE moderators for not following their posting guidelines, just like I did. Chances that the author will be banned from RAHE is in my estimate, zero. After all, he represents the sacred anti-DBT viewpoint. Yeah yeah, like you told us that bull**** about the moderators discussing why AK was banned. Sure, but false claims become true when they are posted by one of the self-appointed *Normals*. Snip of usual Richman revisonist history. Of course. In Richman revisionist history, the *Normals* are all innocent lambs, and butter wouldn't melt in their mouths. And, if you believe that, I've got a copy of the Stereophile Recommended Components List for you to base your buying decisions on. ;-) Anybody that wants to get a clear idea of Krueger's history on RAO can, for openers, read a thread entitled "Have You Had A Bad Krueger Experience" initiated by Ed Shain in 1999. Part of that thread makes specific reference to Krueger's long known and documented opposition to moderation of audio news groups, for obvious reasons. Around the time of that thread there were efforts being made by several of RAO's posters, including people from both the objectivist and subjectivist side to try and form a moderated version of RAO which would be called RAMod. Krueger was one of the few people that vigorously opposed it, accusing those involved of planning to have a moderation team that would be "controlled" by people that opposed his views. THAT'S THE HISTORY. Krueger can claim others now trying to revise it, but the Google record documents these events. When Krueger tries to cover his tracks by talking about myself or others revsing history, he's just projecting his own documented Google behavior, and lying, of course. Bruce J. Richman |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Audio Guy" wrote in message
In article , (Bruce J. Richman) writes: AFAIK, no poster other than Krueger has made any similar negative and/or defamatory comments about RAHE's moderators or their policieis - on RAO - except Krueger. Oh I believe there are others who have also disparaged the RAHE moderators here on RAO. Powell thinks they are "book-burning brown shirts", Middius isn't a fan either. Jborg spewed some nasty stuff somewhat recently too. None of them get posted to RAHE that I can tell. ....not to mention Richman himself who posts there with impunity to reprisals from the moderators desipte his comments about them. |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audio Guy wrote: In article , (Bruce J. Richman) writes: AFAIK, no poster other than Krueger has made any similar negative and/or defamatory comments about RAHE's moderators or their policieis - on RAO - except Krueger. Oh I believe there are others who have also disparaged the RAHE moderators here on RAO. Powell thinks they are "book-burning brown shirts", Middius isn't a fan either. Jborg spewed some nasty stuff somewhat recently too. None of them get posted to RAHE that I can tell. Is there any evidence that they have ever tried to get anything posted on RAHE? Powell, George Middius and JBorg would have to answer this question. Otherwise, no conclusions can be drawn about there not getting anything posted there. RAHE does require that every poster there provide an email addfress by which they contact posters in case they want to send a post back for revision. While some people such as Scott Wheeler can and do post there under pseudonyms, everybody knows both his real name and his email address. I don't know whether George's eaail address with a spam blocker and/or JBorg's pseudonym would be alloweed. All that said, I think you're missing the basic intent of my assertion. I should have been more specific. What I meant to say was that unless Google can demonstrate otherwise, nobody but Krueger has claimed the moderators have conspired against him or been prejudiced against him. This goes way beyond the name-calling that many use just because they've had a disagreement. The accusations of conspiracy and/or prejudice by the moderators from Krueger is consistent with his paranoid accusations directdd against others such as John Atkinson and cliques, dupes, sockpuppets, etc. that he's alleged, without proof are directed by various RAO posters. What's really laughable about Krueger's baseless claims of prejudice by the moderators is the well-known fact tha RAHE is by and large one of the few discussion groups on Usenet where proponents of Krueger's dogma are often found - e.g. Pinkerton, Chung, Sullivan, etc. Krueger would have a very hard time explaining why they are allowed to post on RAHE freely while he has been banned. Obviously, it has nothing to do with his beliefs, and everything to do with his antiwocial behavior direted towards the moderators on RAHE. IOW, he's lied about their moderating practices and got caught. |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
George M. Middius wrote: Audio Guy said: Oh I believe there are others who have also disparaged the RAHE moderators here on RAO. Powell thinks they are "book-burning brown shirts", Middius isn't a fan either. Really? I hope you're talking about Birdbrain and not "RAHE moderators" in general. Birdy attacked me out of the blue, for no discernible reason. Don't you think he deserves some animosity for that? As we all know, Krueger's versions of events are usually self=serving, distorted, and not backed by factual evidence. Are you referring to David Bath or somebody else as Birdbrain? (No matter who it was, that name should properly be reserved for cortically-challenged losers like McKelvy, so I think you owe some moderator an apology). :-) While the moderators of RAHE would have to address this issue, I'm not aware of the moderators banning anybody from posting just because they've been called a few names by a few posters. However, accusing them of deliberate prejudice and bias, as Krueger has done - and continues to do in this thread in reference to double-blind testing - obiously crosses the line, especially when done publically. It appears that they have very ggod cause for banning Krueger from posting there. |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
oups.com What's really laughable about Krueger's baseless claims of prejudice by the moderators is the well-known fact tha RAHE is by and large one of the few discussion groups on Usenet where proponents of Krueger's dogma are often found - e.g. Pinkerton, Chung, Sullivan, etc. None of them happen to be the guy who built the first ABX comparator or did the first ABX test. None of them are the proprietor of the PCABX web site. I've got a far stronger background in DBTs than just about anybody who posts on Usenet these days. In essence, the guys who remain are my disciples. Krueger would have a very hard time explaining why they are allowed to post on RAHE freely while he has been banned. It's easy, I'm by far the stronger advocate of DBTs. Check our respective track records. Many of my posts have driven some of the golden ears over there like Harry Lavo absolutely nuts, based on their posts that somehow made it through moderation. Obviously, it has nothing to do with his beliefs, and everything to do with his antisocial behavior direted towards the moderators on RAHE. Richman arrogantly and stupidly contradicts recent statements by a RAHE moderator that it was my criticism of the moderators as posted on RAO that got me banned: David E. Bath" wrote in message "He was banned for his comments on RAO about the moderators, nothing more." Since Richman responded to a post that quoted this information, he can't plead ignorance. His false claim about the facts of this matter can't be blamed on ignorance. This is absolute proof that Richman is a liar. IOW, he's lied about their moderating practices and got caught. In fact my comments were factual, and documented. But,.we've caught Richman lying about moderator statements right here and now. If irony killed, Richman would be more than just brain dead. |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger wrote: "Audio Guy" wrote in message In article , (Bruce J. Richman) writes: AFAIK, no poster other than Krueger has made any similar negative and/or defamatory comments about RAHE's moderators or their policieis - on RAO - except Krueger. Oh I believe there are others who have also disparaged the RAHE moderators here on RAO. Powell thinks they are "book-burning brown shirts", Middius isn't a fan either. Jborg spewed some nasty stuff somewhat recently too. None of them get posted to RAHE that I can tell. ...not to mention Richman himself who posts there with impunity to reprisals from the moderators desipte his comments about them. Krueger is lying again. I haven't made negative comments about the RAHE moderators, and unlike compulsive liar Krueger, have not publically claimed that their moderating criteria are pejudiced, biased, designed to favor the pro- or anti-dbt crowd, etc. In point of fact with the exception of myself, Scott Wheeler, Ludovic Mirabel, Harry Lavo, and a few others most of the posters on RAHE are as dogmatically opposed to those that believe in differences in audio equipment as Krueger. IOW, they preach the same dogma that he does, and will often challenge people to "prove it" (metaphorically speaking) as often as he does. Therefore, Krueger's claims of moderator bias or prejudice to have more balance on RAHE are clearly ludicrous and unbelievable. Krueger also neglects to mention how often he *has* had posts rejected because they have smeared other RAHE posters such as myself and others. While I have no way of knowing the quantity, I would be willing to bet money that the number of posts he has had rejected by the RAHE moderators significantly exceeds the number that either I or other posters there have had rejected. Krueger has also made a false statement when he claims that I have posted there "with impugnity". Since I've had some posts rejected - primarily ones made in response to personal attacks made against me by Krueger - I obviously haven't operated there with impugnity. In a moderated NG, nobody posts with impugnity. |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
George M. Middius wrote: Bruce J. Richman said: Oh I believe there are others who have also disparaged the RAHE moderators here on RAO. Powell thinks they are "book-burning brown shirts", Middius isn't a fan either. Really? I hope you're talking about Birdbrain and not "RAHE moderators" in general. Birdy attacked me out of the blue, for no discernible reason. Don't you think he deserves some animosity for that? As we all know, Krueger's versions of events are usually self=serving, distorted, and not backed by factual evidence. Are you referring to David Bath or somebody else as Birdbrain? That would be affirmative as to Bath, the slimy little rascal. ;-) (No matter who it was, that name should properly be reserved for cortically-challenged losers like McKelvy, so I think you owe some moderator an apology). :-) I thought we settled on McDickhead for him..... While that would be one of the many appropriate names for him that has been used, I don't think that it conveys the essential stupidity for which he is so widely known and ridiculed. Either his old, well-known appelation of duh-Mikey, my suggestion of Mikey the Moron (which has a nice alliterative rhythm to it), McStupid or some of Paul Dormer's more creative and accurate salutations that he has used recently should also be seriously considered. While the moderators of RAHE would have to address this issue, I'm not aware of the moderators banning anybody from posting just because they've been called a few names by a few posters. However, accusing them of deliberate prejudice and bias, as Krueger has done - and continues to do in this thread in reference to double-blind testing - obviously crosses the line, especially when done publically. It appears that they have very ggod cause for banning Krueger from posting there. You mean some cause other than Krooger's dedication to a fecal lifestyle, a ****-brained religion, and a reputation as the foremost in ****tiness throughout all of Usenet? Could be. |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger wrote: "Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message oups.com What's really laughable about Krueger's baseless claims of prejudice by the moderators is the well-known fact tha RAHE is by and large one of the few discussion groups on Usenet where proponents of Krueger's dogma are often found - e.g. Pinkerton, Chung, Sullivan, etc. None of them happen to be the guy who built the first ABX comparator or did the first ABX test. None of them are the proprietor of the PCABX web site. I've got a far stronger background in DBTs than just about anybody who posts on Usenet these days. In essence, the guys who remain are my disciples. Bull****. There is no evidence that they depended in any way, shape, or form on Krueger's dogma for arriving at their views. As the megalomaniacal (as indicated by the above ludicrous claim) likes to say about others that he smears........ "delusions of omniscience noted". It is also totally irrelevant to the factual observation that no evidence has been produced to indicate that Krueger's posts were ever rejected because of pro-dbt statements. So once again, absent any evidence substantiating Krueger's claim, it is fair for us to conclude that he is lying. Krueger would have a very hard time explaining why they are allowed to post on RAHE freely while he has been banned. It's easy, I'm by far the stronger advocate of DBTs. Check our respective track records. Many of my posts have driven some of the golden ears over there like Harry Lavo absolutely nuts, based on their posts that somehow made it through moderation. Since there is absolutely no evidence on RAHE that Harry Lavo "is nuts" or that Krueger's claimed effects have had that effect on any RAHE poster, Krueger is clearly lying when he makes that statement. He is also lying when he claims he was discriminated against because of his strong pro-dbt views. Unlike some of Krueger's, their posts have made it through moderation because, in the judgment of the moderators, they have not crossed the line and engaged in personal attacks. Krueger cnn't say that about his posts, however. Obviously, it has nothing to do with his beliefs, and everything to do with his antisocial behavior direted towards the moderators on RAHE. Richman arrogantly and stupidly contradicts recent statements by a RAHE moderator that it was my criticism of the moderators as posted on RAO that got me banned: Krueger self-righteously and falsely contradicts the statements of David Bath thaT he was banned because of his criticisms of the moderators on RAHE - as posted on RAO. News Alert - Krueger's decision to smear the RAHE moderators by making statements about them on RAO which apparently David Bath (and perhaps other moderators) thought were inapropriate - IS ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR. David E. Bath" wrote in message "He was banned for his comments on RAO about the moderators, nothing more." Since Richman responded to a post that quoted this information, he can't plead ignorance. His false claim about the facts of this matter can't be blamed on ignorance. This is absolute proof that Richman is a liar. Krueger's attempt to spin reality is pretty transparent. The RAHE moderators, as reported by David Bath, banned Krueger because of his criticisms of RAHE on another NG, namely, RAO. That behavior of Krueger's was, apparently, as indicated by their actions and decisioins. both inappropriate and antisocial. If that had not been the case, perhaps they would have let him continue there/ Krueger is a proven liar - just as he has been shown to be many times before - when he tries to rationalize and justify the reasons for his being banished. Since he has prsented no evidence to indicate that the moderators EVER rejected one of his posts because it was pro-dbt, it is fair to conclude that he is also lying about this as well. IOW, he's lied about their moderating practices and got caught. In fact my comments were factual, and documented. Krueger has once again been caught lying, as is the habit of this transparent charlatan and intellectually challenged fool Hde has predictably tried to shift the blame for his antisocial and inappropriate behavior - dumping on the RAHE moderators on RAO - on to others. As he rotinely has demonstrated, he refuses to accept responsibility for this reprehensible, antisocial behavior, and therefore, refuses to issue and apology for his actios as requested by Dr. Bath. It appears that Krueger, in his stupidity, thought that because he could get away with trashing people on an unmoderated NG with no consequences, he could also smear the moderators of RAHE with a similar degree of immunity. Unfortunately for him, his own arrogance and intellectually challenged behavior "convicted" him with negative consequences as a result. |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
George M. Middius said:
The above-quoted authors have long since departed RAO. Like Krooger and the other disgusting 'borgs, these people (Real Audio Guys all) prefer an "objectivist" approach to audio. Unlike the Krazy One, however, they understand that consumers choosing goods for their own use is not science. After they left, these people (and others like them) told me and others that they couldn't stand to advocate for any viewpoint, no matter how righteous, if they had to be seen as aligned with Arnii Kroo****. That's how noxious this creature is. I can confirm this about at least one well-known "objectivist" . The name can be sent upon request, as well as his verbatim reply. He told me in so many words he doesn't want to be lumped in with Arnold, about *anything*. -- Sander de Waal " SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. " |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sander deWaal wrote:
George M. Middius said: The above-quoted authors have long since departed RAO. Like Krooger and the other disgusting 'borgs, these people (Real Audio Guys all) prefer an "objectivist" approach to audio. Unlike the Krazy One, however, they understand that consumers choosing goods for their own use is not science. After they left, these people (and others like them) told me and others that they couldn't stand to advocate for any viewpoint, no matter how righteous, if they had to be seen as aligned with Arnii Kroo****. That's how noxious this creature is. I can confirm this about at least one well-known "objectivist" . The name can be sent upon request, as well as his verbatim reply. He told me in so many words he doesn't want to be lumped in with Arnold, about *anything*. -- Sander de Waal " SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. " This comes as no surprise to the majority of us that have had Bad Krueger Experiences. The decrease in the number of posters on RAO is in all probability a direct consequence of his continued presence. Bruce J. Richman |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message oups.com What's really laughable about Krueger's baseless claims of prejudice by the moderators is the well-known fact tha RAHE is by and large one of the few discussion groups on Usenet where proponents of Krueger's dogma are often found - e.g. Pinkerton, Chung, Sullivan, etc. None of them happen to be the guy who built the first ABX comparator or did the first ABX test. None of them are the proprietor of the PCABX web site. I've got a far stronger background in DBTs than just about anybody who posts on Usenet these days. In essence, the guys who remain are my disciples. Krueger would have a very hard time explaining why they are allowed to post on RAHE freely while he has been banned. It's easy, I'm by far the stronger advocate of DBTs. Check our respective track records. Many of my posts have driven some of the golden ears over there like Harry Lavo absolutely nuts, based on their posts that somehow made it through moderation. Obviously, it has nothing to do with his beliefs, and everything to do with his antisocial behavior direted towards the moderators on RAHE. Richman arrogantly and stupidly contradicts recent statements by a RAHE moderator that it was my criticism of the moderators as posted on RAO that got me banned: David E. Bath" wrote in message "He was banned for his comments on RAO about the moderators, nothing more." Since Richman responded to a post that quoted this information, he can't plead ignorance. His false claim about the facts of this matter can't be blamed on ignorance. This is absolute proof that Richman is a liar. A public thank you from me to Dr. Bath as he was responding to an inquiry from me on this subject. Having read some comments that did not make sense about moderators discussing the nature of posts that were declined by you, I did the unthinkable, I asked. As we now know, such discussions do not happen and those who claim to have had them are being less than truthful. IOW, he's lied about their moderating practices and got caught. In fact my comments were factual, and documented. But,.we've caught Richman lying about moderator statements right here and now. If irony killed, Richman would be more than just brain dead. |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael McKelvy wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message oups.com What's really laughable about Krueger's baseless claims of prejudice by the moderators is the well-known fact tha RAHE is by and large one of the few discussion groups on Usenet where proponents of Krueger's dogma are often found - e.g. Pinkerton, Chung, Sullivan, etc. None of them happen to be the guy who built the first ABX comparator or did the first ABX test. None of them are the proprietor of the PCABX web site. I've got a far stronger background in DBTs than just about anybody who posts on Usenet these days. In essence, the guys who remain are my disciples. Krueger would have a very hard time explaining why they are allowed to post on RAHE freely while he has been banned. It's easy, I'm by far the stronger advocate of DBTs. Check our respective track records. Many of my posts have driven some of the golden ears over there like Harry Lavo absolutely nuts, based on their posts that somehow made it through moderation. Obviously, it has nothing to do with his beliefs, and everything to do with his antisocial behavior direted towards the moderators on RAHE. Richman arrogantly and stupidly contradicts recent statements by a RAHE moderator that it was my criticism of the moderators as posted on RAO that got me banned: David E. Bath" wrote in message "He was banned for his comments on RAO about the moderators, nothing more." Since Richman responded to a post that quoted this information, he can't plead ignorance. His false claim about the facts of this matter can't be blamed on ignorance. This is absolute proof that Richman is a liar. A public thank you from me to Dr. Bath as he was responding to an inquiry from me on this subject. Having read some comments that did not make sense about moderators discussing the nature of posts that were declined by you, I did the unthinkable, I asked. As we now know, such discussions do not happen and those who claim to have had them are being less than truthful. IOW, he's lied about their moderating practices and got caught. In fact my comments were factual, and documented. But,.we've caught Richman lying about moderator statements right here and now. If irony killed, Richman would be more than just brain dead. There is no evidence presented by anybody, including Dr. Bath or any other moderator, that discusssions have not taken place between posters and Dr. Bath about posts that have been rejected. I have personally had discussions via email with Dr. Bath about posts of mine that have been rejected. On at least one occasion in which I objected to a post of mine - made in response to a personal attack by Krueger on RAHE - being reejected and sent back by me for revision, I was told by Dr. Bath that he had rejected posts that were much worse than mine from Krueger. I suppose he said that by way of consolation to me. Therefore, the claim made above by McKelvy represents his opinion only, and is not based on any actual evidence. Since Krueger has a highly documented history on RAO of lying about the actions of many other people, as does McKelvy, statements such as those above by these 2 proven liars are self-serving, misleading and not worth the serious consideration of any person who bases their conclusions on facts rather than fiction. |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
"George M. Middius" wrote in message
In rebuttal to your typically self-serving and preposterous claim, allow me to offer some quotes from people who actually do know something about using listening tests in a clinical environment. Middius your first mistake number one is that audio equipment tests have very little to listening tests in a clinical environment. These quotes are from emails I received. I solicited these opinions in response to what I saw as mollycodding (of you) on RAO. Right Middius you were ****ed because I was still alive. The writers assured me they were trying to educate you, not help you promote your dogmatism and religion. I can pretty well guess at the name of the writers. The fact that they would try to seriously correspond with you Middius pretty well limits how much common sense they have. Anyway, here they are. Remember, these are just excerpts. "I wouldn't let [Arnii Krooger] design a test of sandpaper. He has the worst biases for a researcher: he's complacent and smug about what he thinks he knows. [Krooger] is the opposite of a scientist; he's into religion and propaganda." --- PhD holder with experience in professional test design Test design of what? IC chips? "The only place for the kind of science [Arnii Krooger] knows is in the garden. And not because he's an expert horticulturalist." --- Design and Marketing Manager at a Real Audio Company Real Audio in your book Middius includes tubes and vinyl. This could easily be Ed Shain. You call it Real Audio companies, but in the mainstream of audio, they are often called *nuts*. "That so-called 'laboratory' where [Krooger] does his so-called 'tests' is a total ****ing disaster. It's noisy beyond belief. His babbling about testing is like a medieval mystic reading some ancient runes after snorting heroin." --- Leading R&D guy in a cutting-edge audio company Which laboratory was he speaking of? There is an extant picture on the web of a laboratory I use for repair and fabrication. Needless to say, I never did any serious listening tests there. In fact a great deal of the listening tests I did were off-premise. This guy is no doubt making ton of presumptions, all wrong. The above-quoted authors have long since departed RAO. Most with their tales between their legs because the crap they were trying to sell didn't. Like Krooger and the other disgusting 'borgs, these people (Real Audio Guys all) prefer an "objectivist" approach to audio. Whatever that means, given who they are. Unlike the Krazy One, however, they understand that consumers choosing goods for their own use is not science. Yet another incorrect presumption. After they left, these people (and others like them) told me and others that they couldn't stand to advocate for any viewpoint, no matter how righteous, if they had to be seen as aligned with Arnii Kroo****. That's how noxious this creature is. I found them equally noxious in most cases. Turnabout is fair play. It appears that Krueger, in his stupidity, thought that because he could get away with trashing people on an unmoderated NG with no consequences, he could also smear the moderators of RAHE with a similar degree of immunity. Not at all. I figured that there was a good chance that they would take their revenge on me. I decided that having a good reason to not post on RAHE would be a good thing, since the forum has become such a cosmic waste of time. Unfortunately for him, his own arrogance and intellectually challenged behavior "convicted" him with negative consequences as a result. More incorrect presumptions. In short, why eat **** when you can have normal food? Fecal obsession noted. |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
Paul Dormer wrote:
"Arny Krueger" emitted : He was banned for his comments on RAO about the moderators, nothing more. If he was to apologise, he would be allowed to post in RAHE again. This offer was never offered to me. I'll consider it. Will you provide a resolution by February 1st? S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t ----------------------------------- It's Grim down south.. LOL !!! It will no doubt be the same as for the other event to which you are referring. Bruce J. Richman |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message oups.com... Michael McKelvy wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message oups.com What's really laughable about Krueger's baseless claims of prejudice by the moderators is the well-known fact tha RAHE is by and large one of the few discussion groups on Usenet where proponents of Krueger's dogma are often found - e.g. Pinkerton, Chung, Sullivan, etc. None of them happen to be the guy who built the first ABX comparator or did the first ABX test. None of them are the proprietor of the PCABX web site. I've got a far stronger background in DBTs than just about anybody who posts on Usenet these days. In essence, the guys who remain are my disciples. Krueger would have a very hard time explaining why they are allowed to post on RAHE freely while he has been banned. It's easy, I'm by far the stronger advocate of DBTs. Check our respective track records. Many of my posts have driven some of the golden ears over there like Harry Lavo absolutely nuts, based on their posts that somehow made it through moderation. Obviously, it has nothing to do with his beliefs, and everything to do with his antisocial behavior direted towards the moderators on RAHE. Richman arrogantly and stupidly contradicts recent statements by a RAHE moderator that it was my criticism of the moderators as posted on RAO that got me banned: David E. Bath" wrote in message "He was banned for his comments on RAO about the moderators, nothing more." Since Richman responded to a post that quoted this information, he can't plead ignorance. His false claim about the facts of this matter can't be blamed on ignorance. This is absolute proof that Richman is a liar. A public thank you from me to Dr. Bath as he was responding to an inquiry from me on this subject. Having read some comments that did not make sense about moderators discussing the nature of posts that were declined by you, I did the unthinkable, I asked. As we now know, such discussions do not happen and those who claim to have had them are being less than truthful. IOW, he's lied about their moderating practices and got caught. In fact my comments were factual, and documented. But,.we've caught Richman lying about moderator statements right here and now. If irony killed, Richman would be more than just brain dead. There is no evidence presented by anybody, including Dr. Bath or any other moderator, that discusssions have not taken place between posters and Dr. Bath about posts that have been rejected. I have personally had discussions via email with Dr. Bath about posts of mine that have been rejected. On at least one occasion in which I objected to a post of mine - made in response to a personal attack by Krueger on RAHE - being reejected and sent back by me for revision, I was told by Dr. Bath that he had rejected posts that were much worse than mine from Krueger. On this point I concede. I suppose he said that by way of consolation to me. Therefore, the claim made above by McKelvy represents his opinion only, and is not based on any actual evidence. It was mistaken interpretation, my mistake. Since Krueger has a highly documented history on RAO of lying about the actions of many other people, as does McKelvy, statements such as those above by these 2 proven liars are self-serving, misleading and not worth the serious consideration of any person who bases their conclusions on facts rather than fiction. Not true. I know I correct the record when I know I'm wrong and I've seen Arny do the same. |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael McKelvy wrote: "Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message oups.com... Michael McKelvy wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message oups.com What's really laughable about Krueger's baseless claims of prejudice by the moderators is the well-known fact tha RAHE is by and large one of the few discussion groups on Usenet where proponents of Krueger's dogma are often found - e.g. Pinkerton, Chung, Sullivan, etc. None of them happen to be the guy who built the first ABX comparator or did the first ABX test. None of them are the proprietor of the PCABX web site. I've got a far stronger background in DBTs than just about anybody who posts on Usenet these days. In essence, the guys who remain are my disciples. Krueger would have a very hard time explaining why they are allowed to post on RAHE freely while he has been banned. It's easy, I'm by far the stronger advocate of DBTs. Check our respective track records. Many of my posts have driven some of the golden ears over there like Harry Lavo absolutely nuts, based on their posts that somehow made it through moderation. Obviously, it has nothing to do with his beliefs, and everything to do with his antisocial behavior direted towards the moderators on RAHE. Richman arrogantly and stupidly contradicts recent statements by a RAHE moderator that it was my criticism of the moderators as posted on RAO that got me banned: David E. Bath" wrote in message "He was banned for his comments on RAO about the moderators, nothing more." Since Richman responded to a post that quoted this information, he can't plead ignorance. His false claim about the facts of this matter can't be blamed on ignorance. This is absolute proof that Richman is a liar. A public thank you from me to Dr. Bath as he was responding to an inquiry from me on this subject. Having read some comments that did not make sense about moderators discussing the nature of posts that were declined by you, I did the unthinkable, I asked. As we now know, such discussions do not happen and those who claim to have had them are being less than truthful. IOW, he's lied about their moderating practices and got caught. In fact my comments were factual, and documented. But,.we've caught Richman lying about moderator statements right here and now. If irony killed, Richman would be more than just brain dead. There is no evidence presented by anybody, including Dr. Bath or any other moderator, that discusssions have not taken place between posters and Dr. Bath about posts that have been rejected. I have personally had discussions via email with Dr. Bath about posts of mine that have been rejected. On at least one occasion in which I objected to a post of mine - made in response to a personal attack by Krueger on RAHE - being reejected and sent back by me for revision, I was told by Dr. Bath that he had rejected posts that were much worse than mine from Krueger. On this point I concede. Thank you. I have no reason to make something like this up, and my account of my correspondence with Dr. Bath above is accurate. I suppose he said that by way of consolation to me. Therefore, the claim made above by McKelvy represents his opinion only, and is not based on any actual evidence. It was mistaken interpretation, my mistake. Agreed. Since Krueger has a highly documented history on RAO of lying about the actions of many other people, as does McKelvy, statements such as those above by these 2 proven liars are self-serving, misleading and not worth the serious consideration of any person who bases their conclusions on facts rather than fiction. Not true. I know I correct the record when I know I'm wrong and I've seen Arny do the same. I have yet to see that happen, but do not claim to have seen every post written by either one of them. Both of you have made statements about me that can easily be proven to be wrong, and in many cases, that has already been done. Admissions of error in these cases by Krueger in respect to myself have never been made AFAIK. I will acknowledge that your concession and apology above means that when you claimed that "certain people were being less than truthful" about private conversations with Dr. Bath about moderation policies on RAHE, you now realize you were wrong. (Assuming you were referring me in that comment). Krueger, however, has continued to claim that I've lied about Dr. Bath and the other modrators' reasons for banning him, which is not true. Dr. Bath's own words explain that Krueger's actions on RAO got him banned, and I've explained how that kind of behavior on RAO constitutes inappropriate and antisocial behavior which they apparently decided to reject. It's also worth noting that Krueger has now made more negative comments about RAHE today, so I think we can presume that he won't apologize for his earlier comments about the RAHE moderators. I think that is a clear indication that he is *not* willing to either apologize or admit that he made a mistake when he dumped on them. It is yet another example of his unwillingness to apologize for his negative remarks about other people or admit that they were false. |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message oups.com... Michael McKelvy wrote: "Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message oups.com... Michael McKelvy wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message oups.com What's really laughable about Krueger's baseless claims of prejudice by the moderators is the well-known fact tha RAHE is by and large one of the few discussion groups on Usenet where proponents of Krueger's dogma are often found - e.g. Pinkerton, Chung, Sullivan, etc. None of them happen to be the guy who built the first ABX comparator or did the first ABX test. None of them are the proprietor of the PCABX web site. I've got a far stronger background in DBTs than just about anybody who posts on Usenet these days. In essence, the guys who remain are my disciples. Krueger would have a very hard time explaining why they are allowed to post on RAHE freely while he has been banned. It's easy, I'm by far the stronger advocate of DBTs. Check our respective track records. Many of my posts have driven some of the golden ears over there like Harry Lavo absolutely nuts, based on their posts that somehow made it through moderation. Obviously, it has nothing to do with his beliefs, and everything to do with his antisocial behavior direted towards the moderators on RAHE. Richman arrogantly and stupidly contradicts recent statements by a RAHE moderator that it was my criticism of the moderators as posted on RAO that got me banned: David E. Bath" wrote in message "He was banned for his comments on RAO about the moderators, nothing more." Since Richman responded to a post that quoted this information, he can't plead ignorance. His false claim about the facts of this matter can't be blamed on ignorance. This is absolute proof that Richman is a liar. A public thank you from me to Dr. Bath as he was responding to an inquiry from me on this subject. Having read some comments that did not make sense about moderators discussing the nature of posts that were declined by you, I did the unthinkable, I asked. As we now know, such discussions do not happen and those who claim to have had them are being less than truthful. IOW, he's lied about their moderating practices and got caught. In fact my comments were factual, and documented. But,.we've caught Richman lying about moderator statements right here and now. If irony killed, Richman would be more than just brain dead. There is no evidence presented by anybody, including Dr. Bath or any other moderator, that discusssions have not taken place between posters and Dr. Bath about posts that have been rejected. I have personally had discussions via email with Dr. Bath about posts of mine that have been rejected. On at least one occasion in which I objected to a post of mine - made in response to a personal attack by Krueger on RAHE - being reejected and sent back by me for revision, I was told by Dr. Bath that he had rejected posts that were much worse than mine from Krueger. On this point I concede. Thank you. I have no reason to make something like this up, and my account of my correspondence with Dr. Bath above is accurate. I suppose he said that by way of consolation to me. Therefore, the claim made above by McKelvy represents his opinion only, and is not based on any actual evidence. It was mistaken interpretation, my mistake. Agreed. Since Krueger has a highly documented history on RAO of lying about the actions of many other people, as does McKelvy, statements such as those above by these 2 proven liars are self-serving, misleading and not worth the serious consideration of any person who bases their conclusions on facts rather than fiction. Not true. I know I correct the record when I know I'm wrong and I've seen Arny do the same. I have yet to see that happen, but do not claim to have seen every post written by either one of them. Both of you have made statements about me that can easily be proven to be wrong, and in many cases, that has already been done. Admissions of error in these cases by Krueger in respect to myself have never been made AFAIK. We've both said things about that are true and you deny them. Anything you think that has been proven is AFAIK not been any more than hearsay. I will acknowledge that your concession and apology above means that when you claimed that "certain people were being less than truthful" about private conversations with Dr. Bath about moderation policies on RAHE, you now realize you were wrong. (Assuming you were referring me in that comment). It seemed at the time I thought you were making claims to conversations that the moderators do not engage in per Dr. Bath. |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael McKelvy wrote: "Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message oups.com... Michael McKelvy wrote: "Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message oups.com... Michael McKelvy wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message oups.com What's really laughable about Krueger's baseless claims of prejudice by the moderators is the well-known fact tha RAHE is by and large one of the few discussion groups on Usenet where proponents of Krueger's dogma are often found - e.g. Pinkerton, Chung, Sullivan, etc. None of them happen to be the guy who built the first ABX comparator or did the first ABX test. None of them are the proprietor of the PCABX web site. I've got a far stronger background in DBTs than just about anybody who posts on Usenet these days. In essence, the guys who remain are my disciples. Krueger would have a very hard time explaining why they are allowed to post on RAHE freely while he has been banned. It's easy, I'm by far the stronger advocate of DBTs. Check our respective track records. Many of my posts have driven some of the golden ears over there like Harry Lavo absolutely nuts, based on their posts that somehow made it through moderation. Obviously, it has nothing to do with his beliefs, and everything to do with his antisocial behavior direted towards the moderators on RAHE. Richman arrogantly and stupidly contradicts recent statements by a RAHE moderator that it was my criticism of the moderators as posted on RAO that got me banned: David E. Bath" wrote in message "He was banned for his comments on RAO about the moderators, nothing more." Since Richman responded to a post that quoted this information, he can't plead ignorance. His false claim about the facts of this matter can't be blamed on ignorance. This is absolute proof that Richman is a liar. A public thank you from me to Dr. Bath as he was responding to an inquiry from me on this subject. Having read some comments that did not make sense about moderators discussing the nature of posts that were declined by you, I did the unthinkable, I asked. As we now know, such discussions do not happen and those who claim to have had them are being less than truthful. IOW, he's lied about their moderating practices and got caught. In fact my comments were factual, and documented. But,.we've caught Richman lying about moderator statements right here and now. If irony killed, Richman would be more than just brain dead. There is no evidence presented by anybody, including Dr. Bath or any other moderator, that discusssions have not taken place between posters and Dr. Bath about posts that have been rejected. I have personally had discussions via email with Dr. Bath about posts of mine that have been rejected. On at least one occasion in which I objected to a post of mine - made in response to a personal attack by Krueger on RAHE - being reejected and sent back by me for revision, I was told by Dr. Bath that he had rejected posts that were much worse than mine from Krueger. On this point I concede. Thank you. I have no reason to make something like this up, and my account of my correspondence with Dr. Bath above is accurate. I suppose he said that by way of consolation to me. Therefore, the claim made above by McKelvy represents his opinion only, and is not based on any actual evidence. It was mistaken interpretation, my mistake. Agreed. Since Krueger has a highly documented history on RAO of lying about the actions of many other people, as does McKelvy, statements such as those above by these 2 proven liars are self-serving, misleading and not worth the serious consideration of any person who bases their conclusions on facts rather than fiction. Not true. I know I correct the record when I know I'm wrong and I've seen Arny do the same. I have yet to see that happen, but do not claim to have seen every post written by either one of them. Both of you have made statements about me that can easily be proven to be wrong, and in many cases, that has already been done. Admissions of error in these cases by Krueger in respect to myself have never been made AFAIK. We've both said things about that are true and you deny them. Anything you think that has been proven is AFAIK not been any more than hearsay. That is not true. I will acknowledge that your concession and apology above means that when you claimed that "certain people were being less than truthful" about private conversations with Dr. Bath about moderation policies on RAHE, you now realize you were wrong. (Assuming you were referring me in that comment). It seemed at the time I thought you were making claims to conversations that the moderators do not engage in per Dr. Bath. |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message oups.com... Michael McKelvy wrote: "Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message oups.com... Michael McKelvy wrote: "Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message oups.com... Michael McKelvy wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message oups.com What's really laughable about Krueger's baseless claims of prejudice by the moderators is the well-known fact tha RAHE is by and large one of the few discussion groups on Usenet where proponents of Krueger's dogma are often found - e.g. Pinkerton, Chung, Sullivan, etc. None of them happen to be the guy who built the first ABX comparator or did the first ABX test. None of them are the proprietor of the PCABX web site. I've got a far stronger background in DBTs than just about anybody who posts on Usenet these days. In essence, the guys who remain are my disciples. Krueger would have a very hard time explaining why they are allowed to post on RAHE freely while he has been banned. It's easy, I'm by far the stronger advocate of DBTs. Check our respective track records. Many of my posts have driven some of the golden ears over there like Harry Lavo absolutely nuts, based on their posts that somehow made it through moderation. Obviously, it has nothing to do with his beliefs, and everything to do with his antisocial behavior direted towards the moderators on RAHE. Richman arrogantly and stupidly contradicts recent statements by a RAHE moderator that it was my criticism of the moderators as posted on RAO that got me banned: David E. Bath" wrote in message "He was banned for his comments on RAO about the moderators, nothing more." Since Richman responded to a post that quoted this information, he can't plead ignorance. His false claim about the facts of this matter can't be blamed on ignorance. This is absolute proof that Richman is a liar. A public thank you from me to Dr. Bath as he was responding to an inquiry from me on this subject. Having read some comments that did not make sense about moderators discussing the nature of posts that were declined by you, I did the unthinkable, I asked. As we now know, such discussions do not happen and those who claim to have had them are being less than truthful. IOW, he's lied about their moderating practices and got caught. In fact my comments were factual, and documented. But,.we've caught Richman lying about moderator statements right here and now. If irony killed, Richman would be more than just brain dead. There is no evidence presented by anybody, including Dr. Bath or any other moderator, that discusssions have not taken place between posters and Dr. Bath about posts that have been rejected. I have personally had discussions via email with Dr. Bath about posts of mine that have been rejected. On at least one occasion in which I objected to a post of mine - made in response to a personal attack by Krueger on RAHE - being reejected and sent back by me for revision, I was told by Dr. Bath that he had rejected posts that were much worse than mine from Krueger. On this point I concede. Thank you. I have no reason to make something like this up, and my account of my correspondence with Dr. Bath above is accurate. I suppose he said that by way of consolation to me. Therefore, the claim made above by McKelvy represents his opinion only, and is not based on any actual evidence. It was mistaken interpretation, my mistake. Agreed. Since Krueger has a highly documented history on RAO of lying about the actions of many other people, as does McKelvy, statements such as those above by these 2 proven liars are self-serving, misleading and not worth the serious consideration of any person who bases their conclusions on facts rather than fiction. Not true. I know I correct the record when I know I'm wrong and I've seen Arny do the same. I have yet to see that happen, but do not claim to have seen every post written by either one of them. Both of you have made statements about me that can easily be proven to be wrong, and in many cases, that has already been done. Admissions of error in these cases by Krueger in respect to myself have never been made AFAIK. We've both said things about that are true and you deny them. Anything you think that has been proven is AFAIK not been any more than hearsay. That is not true. It is true, and you won't accept that what you've claimed as proof doesn't prove that the person posting as Bruce Richman IS Bruce Richman. Get it through your head, I'm not saying conclusively you're not, only that conclusive proof has not been offered. In the end it would more scary if it were true, than if it were not. For all your constant complaining about my alleged lies, you have not shown one single instance where I have actually said something about you that I KNEW was untrue. I may have made incorrect assumptions or formed invalid conclusions, but none of those are lies. |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael McKelvy wrote: "Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message oups.com... Michael McKelvy wrote: "Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message oups.com... Michael McKelvy wrote: "Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message oups.com... Michael McKelvy wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message oups.com What's really laughable about Krueger's baseless claims of prejudice by the moderators is the well-known fact tha RAHE is by and large one of the few discussion groups on Usenet where proponents of Krueger's dogma are often found - e.g. Pinkerton, Chung, Sullivan, etc. None of them happen to be the guy who built the first ABX comparator or did the first ABX test. None of them are the proprietor of the PCABX web site. I've got a far stronger background in DBTs than just about anybody who posts on Usenet these days. In essence, the guys who remain are my disciples. Krueger would have a very hard time explaining why they are allowed to post on RAHE freely while he has been banned. It's easy, I'm by far the stronger advocate of DBTs. Check our respective track records. Many of my posts have driven some of the golden ears over there like Harry Lavo absolutely nuts, based on their posts that somehow made it through moderation. Obviously, it has nothing to do with his beliefs, and everything to do with his antisocial behavior direted towards the moderators on RAHE. Richman arrogantly and stupidly contradicts recent statements by a RAHE moderator that it was my criticism of the moderators as posted on RAO that got me banned: David E. Bath" wrote in message "He was banned for his comments on RAO about the moderators, nothing more." Since Richman responded to a post that quoted this information, he can't plead ignorance. His false claim about the facts of this matter can't be blamed on ignorance. This is absolute proof that Richman is a liar. A public thank you from me to Dr. Bath as he was responding to an inquiry from me on this subject. Having read some comments that did not make sense about moderators discussing the nature of posts that were declined by you, I did the unthinkable, I asked. As we now know, such discussions do not happen and those who claim to have had them are being less than truthful. IOW, he's lied about their moderating practices and got caught. In fact my comments were factual, and documented. But,.we've caught Richman lying about moderator statements right here and now. If irony killed, Richman would be more than just brain dead. There is no evidence presented by anybody, including Dr. Bath or any other moderator, that discusssions have not taken place between posters and Dr. Bath about posts that have been rejected. I have personally had discussions via email with Dr. Bath about posts of mine that have been rejected. On at least one occasion in which I objected to a post of mine - made in response to a personal attack by Krueger on RAHE - being reejected and sent back by me for revision, I was told by Dr. Bath that he had rejected posts that were much worse than mine from Krueger. On this point I concede. Thank you. I have no reason to make something like this up, and my account of my correspondence with Dr. Bath above is accurate. I suppose he said that by way of consolation to me. Therefore, the claim made above by McKelvy represents his opinion only, and is not based on any actual evidence. It was mistaken interpretation, my mistake. Agreed. Since Krueger has a highly documented history on RAO of lying about the actions of many other people, as does McKelvy, statements such as those above by these 2 proven liars are self-serving, misleading and not worth the serious consideration of any person who bases their conclusions on facts rather than fiction. Not true. I know I correct the record when I know I'm wrong and I've seen Arny do the same. I have yet to see that happen, but do not claim to have seen every post written by either one of them. Both of you have made statements about me that can easily be proven to be wrong, and in many cases, that has already been done. Admissions of error in these cases by Krueger in respect to myself have never been made AFAIK. We've both said things about that are true and you deny them. Anything you think that has been proven is AFAIK not been any more than hearsay. That is not true. It is true, and you won't accept that what you've claimed as proof doesn't prove that the person posting as Bruce Richman IS Bruce Richman. Get it through your head, I'm not saying conclusively you're not, only that conclusive proof has not been offered. You can deny that conclusive evidence is been provided over and over again from Leslie Van Vreeland, others who have checked with the appropriate authorities, etc. I'm not going to waste my time trying to argue with a person such as yourself that has deliberately ignored aqnd denied concrete evidence for almost 7 years and then proceded to lie about my identiy. In the end it would more scary if it were true, than if it were not. The only thing scary is that people like you are so stupid that they actually think that a licensed psychologist would allow himself to be impersonated by a non-licensed person or somebody with a different identiy and then be subject to criminal prosecution for breaking the law. If you believe that, then your credibility is zero, and your statements about me are, as we all know, worthless. For all your constant complaining about my alleged lies, you have not shown one single instance where I have actually said something about you that I KNEW was untrue. I may have made incorrect assumptions or formed invalid conclusions, but none of those are lies. YOU were the one that undertook your latest little game by making a proposal based on a totally unsolicited (by me) attempt to either (a) disprove my statements by calling my telephone number, or (b) getting me to agree to a proposal upon which you could easily welch or cheat after the fact. If you want to end this nonsenwe once and for all, you can accept my proposal as follows: (1) We will mutually agree on a time you can call the telephone number you have. (2) It will be answered by my telephone machine in my voice. The message is fairly standard and basically says "This is Dr. Bruce Richman, I'm unable to answer the telephone right name, so at th sound of the tone, please leave your name, time of your call, and as long a message as you would like". (3) At that point you can simply say whatever you want. If you want to put in the last 4 digits of the number from which you called - or anything else for that matter - I will get the message. (4) I will then simply report what happened WITHOUT ANY MODIFICATIONS on RAO. The time of your call (if you indicate the time), your name, and the 4 digits (or any other message) you leave. (5) After that, I expect you, as you have claimed you will do, to cease and desist from making further false statements about my identity, my profeswional activities or background, etc. (You've actually claimed you won't mention my name at all, so therefore I expect that claim to be honored). Since both voices - yours and mine - will be on tape - there will be a record of what was said by both parties. I also have no objection to your taping your telephone call from your end. That is a fair and objective proposal, and guards against cheating by either party. Since you claim you don't trust me, and I certainly have no reason to trust you - and many not to - you can check Google and note that I've had a prior telephone conjversation with Gene Steinberg - and not just an answering machine either. Following that conversation, both he and I made a few comments on RAO, and that was the end of it. As most RAO posters that have been here for a while know, Gene Steinberg was certainly as virulently anti-subjecitivists as any poster on RAO. And he and I had certainly got at it on RAO. After our conversation,AFAIK, he never a negative word about my identity or activities again. |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 22:47:23 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message roups.com What's really laughable about Krueger's baseless claims of prejudice by the moderators is the well-known fact tha RAHE is by and large one of the few discussion groups on Usenet where proponents of Krueger's dogma are often found - e.g. Pinkerton, Chung, Sullivan, etc. None of them happen to be the guy who built the first ABX comparator or did the first ABX test. None of them are the proprietor of the PCABX web site. I've got a far stronger background in DBTs than just about anybody who posts on Usenet these days. In essence, the guys who remain are my disciples. So sayeth Jim Jones. Drinking Arnold's koolaid can have disastrous result, note. |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 22:47:23 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: Krueger would have a very hard time explaining why they are allowed to post on RAHE freely while he has been banned. It's easy, I'm by far the stronger advocate of DBTs. Check our respective track records. Many of my posts have driven some of the golden ears over there like Harry Lavo absolutely nuts, based on their posts that somehow made it through moderation. Obviously, it has nothing to do with his beliefs, and everything to do with his antisocial behavior direted towards the moderators on RAHE. Richman arrogantly and stupidly contradicts recent statements by a RAHE moderator that it was my criticism of the moderators as posted on RAO that got me banned Actually it's *you* who has contradicted yourself. You claim it was your beliefs and advocacy of DBTs and Richman claims that it was your behavior toward the moderators that was the cause of your dismissal. Here's what Dr. Bath said: David E. Bath" wrote in message "He was banned for his comments on RAO about the moderators, nothing more." Therefore, Dr. Richman is right and you are wrong. You lose. Again. |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
David E. Bath" wrote in message "He was banned for his comments on RAO about the moderators, nothing more." If that's true, Bath should be ashamed of himself. Comments made outside of RAHE shouldn't have any effect on RAHE. Furthermore, I question the appropriateness of "banning" any particular poster. It's the post that should be banned, not the poster. Norm Strong |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message oups.com... Michael McKelvy wrote: "Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message oups.com... Michael McKelvy wrote: "Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message oups.com... Michael McKelvy wrote: "Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message oups.com... Michael McKelvy wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message oups.com What's really laughable about Krueger's baseless claims of prejudice by the moderators is the well-known fact tha RAHE is by and large one of the few discussion groups on Usenet where proponents of Krueger's dogma are often found - e.g. Pinkerton, Chung, Sullivan, etc. None of them happen to be the guy who built the first ABX comparator or did the first ABX test. None of them are the proprietor of the PCABX web site. I've got a far stronger background in DBTs than just about anybody who posts on Usenet these days. In essence, the guys who remain are my disciples. Krueger would have a very hard time explaining why they are allowed to post on RAHE freely while he has been banned. It's easy, I'm by far the stronger advocate of DBTs. Check our respective track records. Many of my posts have driven some of the golden ears over there like Harry Lavo absolutely nuts, based on their posts that somehow made it through moderation. Obviously, it has nothing to do with his beliefs, and everything to do with his antisocial behavior direted towards the moderators on RAHE. Richman arrogantly and stupidly contradicts recent statements by a RAHE moderator that it was my criticism of the moderators as posted on RAO that got me banned: David E. Bath" wrote in message "He was banned for his comments on RAO about the moderators, nothing more." Since Richman responded to a post that quoted this information, he can't plead ignorance. His false claim about the facts of this matter can't be blamed on ignorance. This is absolute proof that Richman is a liar. A public thank you from me to Dr. Bath as he was responding to an inquiry from me on this subject. Having read some comments that did not make sense about moderators discussing the nature of posts that were declined by you, I did the unthinkable, I asked. As we now know, such discussions do not happen and those who claim to have had them are being less than truthful. IOW, he's lied about their moderating practices and got caught. In fact my comments were factual, and documented. But,.we've caught Richman lying about moderator statements right here and now. If irony killed, Richman would be more than just brain dead. There is no evidence presented by anybody, including Dr. Bath or any other moderator, that discusssions have not taken place between posters and Dr. Bath about posts that have been rejected. I have personally had discussions via email with Dr. Bath about posts of mine that have been rejected. On at least one occasion in which I objected to a post of mine - made in response to a personal attack by Krueger on RAHE - being reejected and sent back by me for revision, I was told by Dr. Bath that he had rejected posts that were much worse than mine from Krueger. On this point I concede. Thank you. I have no reason to make something like this up, and my account of my correspondence with Dr. Bath above is accurate. I suppose he said that by way of consolation to me. Therefore, the claim made above by McKelvy represents his opinion only, and is not based on any actual evidence. It was mistaken interpretation, my mistake. Agreed. Since Krueger has a highly documented history on RAO of lying about the actions of many other people, as does McKelvy, statements such as those above by these 2 proven liars are self-serving, misleading and not worth the serious consideration of any person who bases their conclusions on facts rather than fiction. Not true. I know I correct the record when I know I'm wrong and I've seen Arny do the same. I have yet to see that happen, but do not claim to have seen every post written by either one of them. Both of you have made statements about me that can easily be proven to be wrong, and in many cases, that has already been done. Admissions of error in these cases by Krueger in respect to myself have never been made AFAIK. We've both said things about you that are true and you deny them. Anything you think that has been proven is AFAIK not been any more than hearsay. That is not true. It is true, and you won't accept that what you've claimed as proof doesn't prove that the person posting as Bruce Richman IS Bruce Richman. Get it through your head, I'm not saying conclusively you're not, only that conclusive proof has not been offered. You can deny that conclusive evidence is been provided over and over again from Leslie Van Vreeland, others who have checked with the appropriate authorities, etc. I'm not going to waste my time trying to argue with a person such as yourself that has deliberately ignored aqnd denied concrete evidence for almost 7 years and then proceded to lie about my identiy. In the end it would more scary if it were true, than if it were not. The only thing scary is that people like you are so stupid that they actually think that a licensed psychologist would allow himself to be impersonated by a non-licensed person or somebody with a different identiy and then be subject to criminal prosecution for breaking the law. If you believe that, then your credibility is zero, and your statements about me are, as we all know, worthless. It's scary that you might be as ****ed up in real life as you are here. For all your constant complaining about my alleged lies, you have not shown one single instance where I have actually said something about you that I KNEW was untrue. I may have made incorrect assumptions or formed invalid conclusions, but none of those are lies. YOU were the one that undertook your latest little game by making a proposal based on a totally unsolicited (by me) attempt to either (a) disprove my statements by calling my telephone number, or (b) getting me to agree to a proposal upon which you could easily welch or cheat after the fact. For what reason? The goal was confirmation. If you want to end this nonsenwe once and for all, you can accept my proposal as follows: (1) We will mutually agree on a time you can call the telephone number you have. (2) It will be answered by my telephone machine in my voice. How would I know what your voice sounds like? The message is fairly standard and basically says "This is Dr. Bruce Richman, I'm unable to answer the telephone right name, so at th sound of the tone, please leave your name, time of your call, and as long a message as you would like". (3) At that point you can simply say whatever you want. If you want to put in the last 4 digits of the number from which you called - or anything else for that matter - I will get the message. (4) I will then simply report what happened WITHOUT ANY MODIFICATIONS on RAO. Sure, like you simply reprot what people say about you on RAO, I don't think so. The time of your call (if you indicate the time), your name, and the 4 digits (or any other message) you leave. (5) After that, I expect you, as you have claimed you will do, to cease and desist from making further false statements about my identity, my profeswional activities or background, etc. (You've actually claimed you won't mention my name at all, so therefore I expect that claim to be honored). I reserve the right to call you on despicable behavior like your attack in the Julian Hirsch thread. I don't give a **** who you are or what beef you beleive you have, that was beyond the pale, pointless and asinine. Since both voices - yours and mine - will be on tape - there will be a record of what was said by both parties. I also have no objection to your taping your telephone call from your end. That is a fair and objective proposal, and guards against cheating by either party. Since you claim you don't trust me, and I certainly have no reason to trust you - and many not to - you can check Google and note that I've had a prior telephone conjversation with Gene Steinberg - and not just an answering machine either. Following that conversation, both he and I made a few comments on RAO, and that was the end of it. As most RAO posters that have been here for a while know, Gene Steinberg was certainly as virulently anti-subjecitivists as any poster on RAO. And he and I had certainly got at it on RAO. After our conversation,AFAIK, he never a negative word about my identity or activities again. He's just one of the people you've made ad hominem attacks against. How about this, I just stop challenging you on your credentials and you stop acting like your constant attacks and lies about people you don't agree with are justified? I told long ago that if JJ was convinced of who you are, that was good enough for me. Why not just stop jerking people's chains and act like a responsible human and not someone who has noting better to do than create and/or fuel endless flame fests? Why not just admit that the flaming is pointless and be big enough to not participate in it. Try criticizing the ideas and not the person. You were all hot to trot on the idea of RAM but you don't seem to show any inclination toward being part of the solution here, you are part of the problem, a big part of the problem. Frankly what you do in private life is of no consequence here, unless it has to with audio. |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
deletion of McKelvy's repetitious lies and distortions of history mandated by desire to spare RAO readers from his fabrications which insult the intelligence of all RAO readers For proof of his lies and fabrications, just read the Google record. The following response is factual, provable, documented and naturally, the type of information that McKelvy will try to deny, but unsuccessfully. His repetition of the same false statements for almost 7 years have completely destroyed his credibility. His reputation as RAO's most stupid poster has been confirmed over and over again during that period. Similarly, his reputation as one of RAO's most chronic posters of libel and lies has also been proven over and over again. In response to proven libeler and pathological liar McKelvy's continued repetition of false claims, coupled with a laughable "demand" that I produce evidence that he has a lengthy history of lying and libeling me on RAO, I decided to call this cretin's pathetic attempts to dodge responsibility for his despicable behavior with the following response. A couple of observations, should be added re. my post of April 9, 2004, which is reproduced below: 1. In the first example of libel by McKelvy which I cite, he initiated libel thread with the title "Richman's ethical lapses". It is worth noting that he does not and CAN NOT list any. So obviously, his sole purpose was to libel and defame another person. I chose to ignore this piece of unprovoked garbage which he initiated. As did every other RAO poster. 2. As of the time of this writing, 4:00 PM EST on 4/10/04, the proven liar and libeler Mckelvy has failed to respond directly to the post reproduced below. It is obvious that his latest bluff/bull**** has been called and he's been exposed for what most on RAO already have known him to be for a long time - a hatemongering, bitter, delusional liar and character assassin whose primary purpose in posting on RAO is to smear others with whatever lies, libelous false claims and libelous labels of other people his diseased, delusional "mind" (such as it is in its primitive state) can regurgitate. 3. Proven liar and libeler McKelvy has been challenged to submit his delusional "complaints" about my professional and ethical behavior (about which he has admitted he knows nothing - one of the few true things he has ever said) to the appropriate licensing board in my state. Of course, he has failed to do so, most likely because he knows that he's full of it, and will be sued by me after he does so. 4. I could have provided many more examples of McKelvy's compulsive lies and libels against me, but felt that for now, 2 would be sufficient. Pending the results of Mr. Wheeler's case, and in consultation with my attornies, I may elect to pursue legal action against him and use a quite impressive and lengthy file of false, libelous claims he has made against me as evidence. No doubt, he will "help" by continuing to provide further evidence that can be used against him. 5. I apologize for the lengfh of this post in advance, but in consideration of McKelvy's obvious compulsive, pathological responses which almost always consist of further lies and libelous false statements about me, this response is IMHO, quite appropriate. 6. This response will be the one used in the future to deal with McKelvy's subsequent sociopathic, delusional, false, and libelous personal attacks against me. Mike McKelvy continues to avoid providing proof of his slander: From: (Bruce J. Richman) Mike McKelvy wrote: From: (Bruce J. Richman) deletion of further lies in which McKelvy tries to avoid responsibility for lengthy history of lying and committing slander re. my credentials, training and professional activities. This despicable scumbag, after first admitting he knows nothing about my credentials, training and professional activities, then laughingly trying to claim his slanderous bull**** was merely opinions, and now attempting to deny all responsibility for his ridiculous lies ? insults the intelligence of all RAO readers. His requests for "proof" ? like all his imbecilic grunts and mutterings concerning me ? are a joke. As is his very RAO existence. While he continue to deny slandering me, and requesting proof, his credibility remains zero (except perhaps, in the eyes of his hero, Krueger). His false claims re. my professional background are a matter of record, and virtually all RAO readers at all familiar with this sociopath's imbecilic bull**** re. my background know this to be the case. Since he's been purveying lies about me, he needs to present the proof for all his nonsense, or stick his head further up the orifice in which it's obviously been inserted for so long. Bruce J. Richman repetitive bull**** similar to that pruveyed over a 6 year period by this pathological liar and proven slanderer deleted For this pathological liar, all false claims about another person's training, credentials, professional experience, etc. ? are only "opinions" ? a piece of bull**** nobody other than this lying cretin believes. Here's just one example of his slander: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...thbp0ffk2j625% 40corp.supernews.com&rnum=7&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DMcKelvy%2Band%2Blicensing%2 Bboard%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF?8%26sa%3DN%26t ab%3Dwg Note that this was an attack thread started by McKelvy, in which this fool, reproduces the Ethical Code followed by psychologists. Note the slanderous title of the post. Note also the question, this proven slanderer asks in the last line after quoting the Ethical code. Needless to say, this pathological liar has no evidence that I have ever committed any ethics violations, and in fact his use of the title of this thread, to which nobody responded, constitutes slander. I have directly challenged this despicable cretin and proven liar to submit any complaints he has to the Florida State Licensing Board. He has refused to do so, because he knows he's been lying about me for 6 years. This fool, in a conversation with Scott Wheeler commiitted another blatant lie: "The person claiming to be B.J. Richman, a Ph.D is a fake as should be obvious to anybody with more than 2 active neurons." The reference for this is http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...igk0458h89%40c orp.supernews.com Now, no doubt, proven liar and slanderer McKelvy will claim he's just voiced an opinion, but defamation and libel of a licensed psychologist, whose identity is acknowledged and has been proven on RAO to the satisfaction of virtually all conscious lifeforms with the exception of McKelvy and Krueger, is *not* an opinion. His lies are a matter of public record, and these 2 examples are just a few of many that could be easily obtained from the Google record. He has also deliberately ignored the following evidence presented on Google: "The University of Texas at Austin, has long had one of the most highly regarded doctoral programs in Clinical Psychology in the United States (top 10 ranking). Since I had the good fortune to have a very good record in my Master's propgram at Clinical Psychology at Boston College,l and perhaps becauise I hit the 99th %ile on the Graduate Record Examination (Verbal Portion) and the 99th %ile examination on the Psychology Acvhievement section, I had the rather odd experience of being actively recruited by schools to which I applied. (I had always thought this just happened to jocks, but I was wrong). One unforgettable day, I got a call from the head of the Clinical Psychology program at the University of Texas, a Dr. James Bieri, who basically said "We've seen your application, we'd like you to come here, and we're prepared to make you a nice offfer". That nice offer, which I accepted, turned out to be a NIMH (National Institutes of Mental Health) Traineeship in Clinical Psychology, for an unlimited period of time, with no strings attached other than that I meet the academic requirements of the program (maintain a B average).. It took care of all my expenses (tuition, room & board, books, etc.) and gave me s small stipend to live on as well. Some of my classmates congratulated me on my good fortune (many of them had to accept teaching assistantships to help pay their bills, while all I had to do was hit the books). The program turned out to be a real meatgrinder (as one of my classmates put it). It made my undergraduate program at an elite "small Ivy League school" (Bowdoin College) and my M.A. program seem like kindergarten. Almost everybody in my entering class of about 20 had either a Phi Beta Kappa key, was published and or came from Ivy League schools or places like U. of Chicago, Stanford or Berkeley. Of the 20 who started the program, only 5 of us survived and got our doctorates. It took not only a high degree of intelligence and perserverance, but also a large ability to deal with the stress of knowing that you were in a program with a very high attrition rate and some professors, who frankly, until you got to the 2nd year and had "paid your dues", didn't give a damn if you survived or not. I'll never forgot one of my Statistics professors who used to get up in front of the class and say "Even if you don't make it through graduate school, you can still be a good citizen"" and the following: "I was accepted for an Internship in Clnical Psycnology at Massachusetts General Hospital, which I accepted and completed" and the followiong: "After obtaining my doctorate, I was also accepted for postdoctoral training at Temple Medical School, Department of Psychiary, Institute for Behavior Therapy, in Philadelphia. I enjoyed my time there had learned a lot under the supervision of the late Dr. Joseph Wolpe, a world famous psychiatrist who is considered to be one of the founders of Cognitive?Behavioral Therapy, the predominant type of therapy now practiced by most psychologists and psychiatrists (aside from pharmacotherapy). " The above quotes are from a post written in response to Howard Ferstler, another well known zealot, pathological liar, and purveyor of libel on RAO (not surprisingly, frequently defended by Krueger, McKelvy's role model). The complete post (and thread) can be referened at: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...0203225629.076 19.00000418%40mb?mg.aol.com&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DFerstler%2Band%2BRichman%2B and%2BUniversity%2Bof%2BTexas%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26 ie%3DUTF?8%26sa%3DN%26ta b%3Dwg So McKelvy's slandeous claims about quacks, frauds, and fakes are nothing more than the delusional, sociopathic rantings and repetitions of a proven liar and libeler. No doubt he will claim that this is all made up, but the only thing made up are his nonsensical departures from reality which pollute RAO whenever he continues to libel me and others. One further fact, which I may or may not be able to prove since it happened a long time ago, and I don't know if the radio station keeps records. And I challenge the cretin and liar, McKelvy, to disprove it ? LOL! : In about 1976 or 1977, I was employed as the "Psychology Director" of a private Cardiac Rehabilitation Center based in Miami, Florida. The center ran a 30?day, interdisciplinary inpatient program for patients who were either at high risk for cardiac disease or had already undergone such procedures as cardiac bypass surgery. My main responsibility was to direct the behavioral component of this intensive program (which also involved dieticians, exercise physiologists, cardiologists, and RNs). Areas such as stress management, smoking cessation, behavioral approaches to obesity, etc. were among the targets that I had to address. One of my other responsibilities was, in conjunction with the medical director, to promote the program through various media appearances in both TV and radio. Two interviews in particular stand out in my mind. The first came in the wee hours of the morning in New York City on a nationally syndicated program ? "The Long John Nebel Show" (New Yorkers old enough may remember this). The second occurred in my home base on the 79th Street Causeway in Miami Beach at a radio station where Miami's best known talk show host (at the time) was carrying forth ? I spent 2 hours being interviewed very incisively on the main topic which was "Stress and Heart Disease". I remember coming away from that interview thinking that the interviewer was very sharp and well prepared to really grill me. The name of the radio station (and I'm relying on long ago recall was, I believe either WKAT or WIOD). The name of the host ? Larry King. Shortly thereafter, Larry left Miami and the rest is history. I challenge the proven liar, and libeler, McKelvy to dispute any of these facts with any factual evidence he cares to fabricate from the diseased empty spaces composing his deluded cranium. No doubt he will choose to delete most of this post instead. LOL!!! (I apologize for appearing to be bragging about past or present accomplishments, but since this despicable, loudmouthed, unbelievably stupid, delusional, libeler and liar decided to completely embarass himself once again, it was just too tempting to not assist him in making a fool of himself and exposing his sociopathic behavior once again). Nothing more needs to be said about his lies, so when he responds with more bull****, I will respond with a standard, previously used, canned response that perfectly describes this moron's basic character, motivations, and irrational behaviors. Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D. Licensed Psychologist (FL PY 2543) |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
dave weil wrote: On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 22:47:23 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Krueger would have a very hard time explaining why they are allowed to post on RAHE freely while he has been banned. It's easy, I'm by far the stronger advocate of DBTs. Check our respective track records. Many of my posts have driven some of the golden ears over there like Harry Lavo absolutely nuts, based on their posts that somehow made it through moderation. Obviously, it has nothing to do with his beliefs, and everything to do with his antisocial behavior direted towards the moderators on RAHE. Richman arrogantly and stupidly contradicts recent statements by a RAHE moderator that it was my criticism of the moderators as posted on RAO that got me banned Actually it's *you* who has contradicted yourself. You claim it was your beliefs and advocacy of DBTs and Richman claims that it was your behavior toward the moderators that was the cause of your dismissal. Here's what Dr. Bath said: David E. Bath" wrote in message "He was banned for his comments on RAO about the moderators, nothing more." Therefore, Dr. Richman is right and you are wrong. You lose. Again. The above statement by Krueger about me is just the latest one of many lies he has routinely posted. And as is always the case, proven liar McKelvy has recently claimed that neither he nor Krueger has knowingly lied about me. Anybody who believes these two should immediately get on the waiting list for purchasing the Brooklyn Bridge and space trips with the Raelians. |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Bruce J. Richman" said:
The above statement by Krueger about me is just the latest one of many lies he has routinely posted. And as is always the case, proven liar McKelvy has recently claimed that neither he nor Krueger has knowingly lied about me. Anybody who believes these two should immediately get on the waiting list for purchasing the Brooklyn Bridge and space trips with the Raelians. What? Is there a waiting list? Man, I've been obducted 3 times now, without warning, and they've shown me Unobtainius III, their home planet. They all use tube amps and turntables there, after they spotted them here on earth. They think of them as ultra-cool! They also promised me to obduct Arnold and keep him there, as a specimen of failed evolution. They didn't say when, though, since he never seems to leave the house........ -- Sander de Waal " SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. " |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sander deWaal wrote: "Bruce J. Richman" said: The above statement by Krueger about me is just the latest one of many lies he has routinely posted. And as is always the case, proven liar McKelvy has recently claimed that neither he nor Krueger has knowingly lied about me. Anybody who believes these two should immediately get on the waiting list for purchasing the Brooklyn Bridge and space trips with the Raelians. What? Is there a waiting list? Man, I've been obducted 3 times now, without warning, and they've shown me Unobtainius III, their home planet. They all use tube amps and turntables there, after they spotted them here on earth. They think of them as ultra-cool! They also promised me to obduct Arnold and keep him there, as a specimen of failed evolution. They didn't say when, though, since he never seems to leave the house........ Very true. It would also be difficult to get past his loyal guard dog and public relations staff, who constantly claims that neither he nor Arnold ever knowingly lies. Both have had their statements authenticated by the Pinocchio Institute's founder and president, Dr. Gepetto. Extensive objectivist-style measurements were taken with both polygraphs and sodium pentothal (truth serum)and the results were conclusive. -- Sander de Waal " SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. " |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thanks for proving my point.
You enjoy being a pain in the ass. I just agreed to stop commenting on your professional life and you come back with this bull****. "Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message oups.com... deletion of McKelvy's repetitious lies and distortions of history mandated by desire to spare RAO readers from his fabrications which insult the intelligence of all RAO readers For proof of his lies and fabrications, just read the Google record. The following response is factual, provable, documented and naturally, the type of information that McKelvy will try to deny, but unsuccessfully. His repetition of the same false statements for almost 7 years have completely destroyed his credibility. His reputation as RAO's most stupid poster has been confirmed over and over again during that period. Similarly, his reputation as one of RAO's most chronic posters of libel and lies has also been proven over and over again. In response to proven libeler and pathological liar McKelvy's continued repetition of false claims, coupled with a laughable "demand" that I produce evidence that he has a lengthy history of lying and libeling me on RAO, I decided to call this cretin's pathetic attempts to dodge responsibility for his despicable behavior with the following response. A couple of observations, should be added re. my post of April 9, 2004, which is reproduced below: 1. In the first example of libel by McKelvy which I cite, he initiated libel thread with the title "Richman's ethical lapses". It is worth noting that he does not and CAN NOT list any. So obviously, his sole purpose was to libel and defame another person. I chose to ignore this piece of unprovoked garbage which he initiated. As did every other RAO poster. 2. As of the time of this writing, 4:00 PM EST on 4/10/04, the proven liar and libeler Mckelvy has failed to respond directly to the post reproduced below. It is obvious that his latest bluff/bull**** has been called and he's been exposed for what most on RAO already have known him to be for a long time - a hatemongering, bitter, delusional liar and character assassin whose primary purpose in posting on RAO is to smear others with whatever lies, libelous false claims and libelous labels of other people his diseased, delusional "mind" (such as it is in its primitive state) can regurgitate. 3. Proven liar and libeler McKelvy has been challenged to submit his delusional "complaints" about my professional and ethical behavior (about which he has admitted he knows nothing - one of the few true things he has ever said) to the appropriate licensing board in my state. Of course, he has failed to do so, most likely because he knows that he's full of it, and will be sued by me after he does so. 4. I could have provided many more examples of McKelvy's compulsive lies and libels against me, but felt that for now, 2 would be sufficient. Pending the results of Mr. Wheeler's case, and in consultation with my attornies, I may elect to pursue legal action against him and use a quite impressive and lengthy file of false, libelous claims he has made against me as evidence. No doubt, he will "help" by continuing to provide further evidence that can be used against him. 5. I apologize for the lengfh of this post in advance, but in consideration of McKelvy's obvious compulsive, pathological responses which almost always consist of further lies and libelous false statements about me, this response is IMHO, quite appropriate. 6. This response will be the one used in the future to deal with McKelvy's subsequent sociopathic, delusional, false, and libelous personal attacks against me. Mike McKelvy continues to avoid providing proof of his slander: From: (Bruce J. Richman) Mike McKelvy wrote: From: (Bruce J. Richman) deletion of further lies in which McKelvy tries to avoid responsibility for lengthy history of lying and committing slander re. my credentials, training and professional activities. This despicable scumbag, after first admitting he knows nothing about my credentials, training and professional activities, then laughingly trying to claim his slanderous bull**** was merely opinions, and now attempting to deny all responsibility for his ridiculous lies ? insults the intelligence of all RAO readers. His requests for "proof" ? like all his imbecilic grunts and mutterings concerning me ? are a joke. As is his very RAO existence. While he continue to deny slandering me, and requesting proof, his credibility remains zero (except perhaps, in the eyes of his hero, Krueger). His false claims re. my professional background are a matter of record, and virtually all RAO readers at all familiar with this sociopath's imbecilic bull**** re. my background know this to be the case. Since he's been purveying lies about me, he needs to present the proof for all his nonsense, or stick his head further up the orifice in which it's obviously been inserted for so long. Bruce J. Richman repetitive bull**** similar to that pruveyed over a 6 year period by this pathological liar and proven slanderer deleted For this pathological liar, all false claims about another person's training, credentials, professional experience, etc. ? are only "opinions" ? a piece of bull**** nobody other than this lying cretin believes. Here's just one example of his slander: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...thbp0ffk2j625% 40corp.supernews.com&rnum=7&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DMcKelvy%2Band%2Blicensing%2 Bboard%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF?8%26sa%3DN%26t ab%3Dwg Note that this was an attack thread started by McKelvy, in which this fool, reproduces the Ethical Code followed by psychologists. Note the slanderous title of the post. Note also the question, this proven slanderer asks in the last line after quoting the Ethical code. Needless to say, this pathological liar has no evidence that I have ever committed any ethics violations, and in fact his use of the title of this thread, to which nobody responded, constitutes slander. I have directly challenged this despicable cretin and proven liar to submit any complaints he has to the Florida State Licensing Board. He has refused to do so, because he knows he's been lying about me for 6 years. This fool, in a conversation with Scott Wheeler commiitted another blatant lie: "The person claiming to be B.J. Richman, a Ph.D is a fake as should be obvious to anybody with more than 2 active neurons." The reference for this is http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...igk0458h89%40c orp.supernews.com Now, no doubt, proven liar and slanderer McKelvy will claim he's just voiced an opinion, but defamation and libel of a licensed psychologist, whose identity is acknowledged and has been proven on RAO to the satisfaction of virtually all conscious lifeforms with the exception of McKelvy and Krueger, is *not* an opinion. His lies are a matter of public record, and these 2 examples are just a few of many that could be easily obtained from the Google record. He has also deliberately ignored the following evidence presented on Google: "The University of Texas at Austin, has long had one of the most highly regarded doctoral programs in Clinical Psychology in the United States (top 10 ranking). Since I had the good fortune to have a very good record in my Master's propgram at Clinical Psychology at Boston College,l and perhaps becauise I hit the 99th %ile on the Graduate Record Examination (Verbal Portion) and the 99th %ile examination on the Psychology Acvhievement section, I had the rather odd experience of being actively recruited by schools to which I applied. (I had always thought this just happened to jocks, but I was wrong). One unforgettable day, I got a call from the head of the Clinical Psychology program at the University of Texas, a Dr. James Bieri, who basically said "We've seen your application, we'd like you to come here, and we're prepared to make you a nice offfer". That nice offer, which I accepted, turned out to be a NIMH (National Institutes of Mental Health) Traineeship in Clinical Psychology, for an unlimited period of time, with no strings attached other than that I meet the academic requirements of the program (maintain a B average).. It took care of all my expenses (tuition, room & board, books, etc.) and gave me s small stipend to live on as well. Some of my classmates congratulated me on my good fortune (many of them had to accept teaching assistantships to help pay their bills, while all I had to do was hit the books). The program turned out to be a real meatgrinder (as one of my classmates put it). It made my undergraduate program at an elite "small Ivy League school" (Bowdoin College) and my M.A. program seem like kindergarten. Almost everybody in my entering class of about 20 had either a Phi Beta Kappa key, was published and or came from Ivy League schools or places like U. of Chicago, Stanford or Berkeley. Of the 20 who started the program, only 5 of us survived and got our doctorates. It took not only a high degree of intelligence and perserverance, but also a large ability to deal with the stress of knowing that you were in a program with a very high attrition rate and some professors, who frankly, until you got to the 2nd year and had "paid your dues", didn't give a damn if you survived or not. I'll never forgot one of my Statistics professors who used to get up in front of the class and say "Even if you don't make it through graduate school, you can still be a good citizen"" and the following: "I was accepted for an Internship in Clnical Psycnology at Massachusetts General Hospital, which I accepted and completed" and the followiong: "After obtaining my doctorate, I was also accepted for postdoctoral training at Temple Medical School, Department of Psychiary, Institute for Behavior Therapy, in Philadelphia. I enjoyed my time there had learned a lot under the supervision of the late Dr. Joseph Wolpe, a world famous psychiatrist who is considered to be one of the founders of Cognitive?Behavioral Therapy, the predominant type of therapy now practiced by most psychologists and psychiatrists (aside from pharmacotherapy). " The above quotes are from a post written in response to Howard Ferstler, another well known zealot, pathological liar, and purveyor of libel on RAO (not surprisingly, frequently defended by Krueger, McKelvy's role model). The complete post (and thread) can be referened at: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...0203225629.076 19.00000418%40mb?mg.aol.com&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DFerstler%2Band%2BRichman%2B and%2BUniversity%2Bof%2BTexas%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26 ie%3DUTF?8%26sa%3DN%26ta b%3Dwg So McKelvy's slandeous claims about quacks, frauds, and fakes are nothing more than the delusional, sociopathic rantings and repetitions of a proven liar and libeler. No doubt he will claim that this is all made up, but the only thing made up are his nonsensical departures from reality which pollute RAO whenever he continues to libel me and others. One further fact, which I may or may not be able to prove since it happened a long time ago, and I don't know if the radio station keeps records. And I challenge the cretin and liar, McKelvy, to disprove it ? LOL! : In about 1976 or 1977, I was employed as the "Psychology Director" of a private Cardiac Rehabilitation Center based in Miami, Florida. The center ran a 30?day, interdisciplinary inpatient program for patients who were either at high risk for cardiac disease or had already undergone such procedures as cardiac bypass surgery. My main responsibility was to direct the behavioral component of this intensive program (which also involved dieticians, exercise physiologists, cardiologists, and RNs). Areas such as stress management, smoking cessation, behavioral approaches to obesity, etc. were among the targets that I had to address. One of my other responsibilities was, in conjunction with the medical director, to promote the program through various media appearances in both TV and radio. Two interviews in particular stand out in my mind. The first came in the wee hours of the morning in New York City on a nationally syndicated program ? "The Long John Nebel Show" (New Yorkers old enough may remember this). The second occurred in my home base on the 79th Street Causeway in Miami Beach at a radio station where Miami's best known talk show host (at the time) was carrying forth ? I spent 2 hours being interviewed very incisively on the main topic which was "Stress and Heart Disease". I remember coming away from that interview thinking that the interviewer was very sharp and well prepared to really grill me. The name of the radio station (and I'm relying on long ago recall was, I believe either WKAT or WIOD). The name of the host ? Larry King. Shortly thereafter, Larry left Miami and the rest is history. I challenge the proven liar, and libeler, McKelvy to dispute any of these facts with any factual evidence he cares to fabricate from the diseased empty spaces composing his deluded cranium. No doubt he will choose to delete most of this post instead. LOL!!! (I apologize for appearing to be bragging about past or present accomplishments, but since this despicable, loudmouthed, unbelievably stupid, delusional, libeler and liar decided to completely embarass himself once again, it was just too tempting to not assist him in making a fool of himself and exposing his sociopathic behavior once again). Nothing more needs to be said about his lies, so when he responds with more bull****, I will respond with a standard, previously used, canned response that perfectly describes this moron's basic character, motivations, and irrational behaviors. Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D. Licensed Psychologist (FL PY 2543) |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Sander deWaal" wrote in message ... : "Bruce J. Richman" said: : : The above statement by Krueger about me is just the latest one of many : lies he has routinely posted. And as is always the case, proven liar : McKelvy has recently claimed that neither he nor Krueger has knowingly : lied about me. Anybody who believes these two should immediately get : on the waiting list for purchasing the Brooklyn Bridge and space trips : with the Raelians. : : What? Is there a waiting list? : Man, I've been obducted 3 times now, without warning, and they've : shown me Unobtainius III, their home planet. : : They all use tube amps and turntables there, after they spotted them : here on earth. They think of them as ultra-cool! : : They also promised me to obduct Arnold and keep him there, as a : specimen of failed evolution. They didn't say when, though, since he : never seems to leave the house........ : : -- : Sander de Waal : " SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. " As usual, mr de Waal only tells halve the story. He conveniently neglected to mention, they *also* use 28 bit encoded memory sticks for playback. LOL. Rudi |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ruud Broens" said:
As usual, mr de Waal only tells halve the story. He conveniently neglected to mention, they *also* use 28 bit encoded memory sticks for playback. LOL. Rudi The will and intention is there, but you need to brush up your Krooglish, LoT:'S! I can provide you with a Krooglish Koder V.4.2 ( I believe George has the latest version in study now, but AFAIK that one still isn't released). Meet me at pier 14 at midnight and bring ‚¬100.000 in small notes in a black attache case with you. I'll be wearing a cat....ehrm, earwigs. -- Sander de Waal " SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. " |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Sander deWaal" wrote in message ... : "Ruud Broens" said: : : As usual, mr de Waal only tells halve the story. : He conveniently neglected to mention, they *also* : use 28 bit encoded memory sticks for playback. : LOL. : Rudi : : The will and intention is there, but you need to brush up your : Krooglish, LoT:'S! : : I can provide you with a Krooglish Koder V.4.2 ( I believe George has : the latest version in study now, but AFAIK that one still isn't : released). : : Meet me at pier 14 at midnight and bring ?100.000 in small notes in a : black attache case with you. I'll be wearing a cat....ehrm, earwigs. : : -- : Sander de Waal : " SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. " Notes ? Why not coins ?? Lot;Zs of phony ones in EU, u know  I'll have to deduce 400 euro's for the trunk case, though. btw, it *is* possible to overclock the gizmo, isn't it ? (like to tinker!) Rud2 |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ruud Broens" said:
Notes ? Why not coins ?? Lot;Zs of phony ones in EU, u know I do. They smell like Michigan in the morning. Not a pretty sight ;-) © I prefer German Euros, note. I'll have to deduce 400 euro's for the trunk case, though. It is small enough to fit into your Fiat 500. In the front, that is. The back still stuffed with studio monitors? btw, it *is* possible to overclock the gizmo, isn't it ? (like to tinker!) Rud2 Easy. Just replace the 6B4G with a 6AS7 (brown base). Then adjust for maximum Krooput on a BS meter ;-) San3,14 -- Sander de Waal " SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. " |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
David E. Bath" wrote in message "He was banned for his comments on RAO about the moderators, nothing more." If that's true, Bath should be ashamed of himself. Comments made outside of RAHE shouldn't have any effect on RAHE. Furthermore, I question the appropriateness of "banning" any particular poster. It's the post that should be banned, not the poster. As the old saw goes, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Thus the RAHE moderators, being gifted by Usenet with absolute power, use that power to punish people who have disagreements with them. |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Rudy Van Gelder leaves his microphones out all the time question... | Pro Audio | |||
| Rudy Van Gelder leaves his microphones out all the time question... | Pro Audio | |||
| CardDeluxe experience? | Pro Audio | |||
| Libs vs Cons | Audio Opinions | |||
| Experience with ATR-102 and APR-5003 1/2" | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
