I can't confirm what I said about Bush and Top Gun.

To say I'm embarrassed is an understatement.

I never knowingly say anything I know to be untrue.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...
I can't confirm what I said about Bush and Top Gun.

To say I'm embarrassed is an understatement.

Congratulations, Mr. McKelvy!

Now if you could only persuade George W. Bush to follow your example. :-)

Michael McKelvy wrote:

I can't confirm what I said about Bush and Top Gun.

To say I'm embarrassed is an understatement.

I never knowingly say anything I know to be untrue.

Good show, Mike.

GZ

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:37:32 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

To say I'm embarrassed is an understatement.

Don't be. There's nothing wrong with making a mistake. It's covering
it up or lying about it that's unethical. Admitting a mistake and
moving on is exactly what a person should do.

--

Jacob Kramer

"Sandman" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...
I can't confirm what I said about Bush and Top Gun.

To say I'm embarrassed is an understatement.

Congratulations, Mr. McKelvy!

Now if you could only persuade George W. Bush to follow your example. :-)


How about you following it?

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:37:32 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

To say I'm embarrassed is an understatement.

Don't be. There's nothing wrong with making a mistake. It's covering
it up or lying about it that's unethical. Admitting a mistake and
moving on is exactly what a person should do.

--

Jacob Kramer

If you believe the above to be true then tell me what you think of Michael
Moore. Do you think Bowling for Columbine should be considered a
documentary or a satire?

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:57:25 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:37:32 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

To say I'm embarrassed is an understatement.

Don't be. There's nothing wrong with making a mistake. It's covering
it up or lying about it that's unethical. Admitting a mistake and
moving on is exactly what a person should do.

--

Jacob Kramer

If you believe the above to be true then tell me what you think of Michael
Moore. Do you think Bowling for Columbine should be considered a
documentary or a satire?

Well I thought it was a documentary--are there untrue statements in it
he hasn't conceded?

--

Jacob Kramer

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:57:25 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:37:32 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

To say I'm embarrassed is an understatement.

Don't be. There's nothing wrong with making a mistake. It's covering
it up or lying about it that's unethical. Admitting a mistake and
moving on is exactly what a person should do.

--

Jacob Kramer

If you believe the above to be true then tell me what you think of
Michael
Moore. Do you think Bowling for Columbine should be considered a
documentary or a satire?

Well I thought it was a documentary--are there untrue statements in it
he hasn't conceded?

--

Jacob Kramer


: www.moorexposed.com. will give you more info if you so desire.

BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE

Documentary or Fiction?

-David T. Hardy-

Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" won the Oscar for best documentary.
Unfortunately, it is not a documentary, by the Academy's own definition.

The injustice here is not so much to the viewer, as to the independent
producers of real documentaries. These struggle in a field which receives
but a fraction of the recognition and financing of the "entertainment
industry." They are protected by Academy rules limiting the documentary
competition to nonfiction.

Bowling is fiction. It makes its points by deceiving and by misleading the
viewer. Statements are made which are false. Moore leads the reader to draw
inferences which he must have known were wrong. Indeed, even speeches shown
on screen are heavily edited, so that sentences are assembled in the
speaker's voice, but which were not sentences he uttered. Bowling uses
deception as its primary tool of persuasion and effect.

A film which does this may be a commercial success. It may be entertaining.
But it is not a documentary. One need only consult Rule 12 of the rules for
the Academy Award: a documentary is a non-fictional movie.

The point is not that Bowling is biased. No, the point is that Bowling is
deliberately, seriously, and consistently deceptive.

1. Willie Horton. The first edition of the webpage had a section on
falsification of the election ad regarding Willie Horton (the convict, not
the baseball star). This was one of the earliest criticisms of Bowling--Ben
Fritz caught it back in November, 2002.

To illustrate politicians' (and especially Republican politicians')
willingness to play the "race card," Bowling shows what purports to be a
television ad run by George Bush, Sr., in his race against Governor Dukakis.
For those who weren't around back then -- Massachusetts had a "prison
furlough" program where prisoners could be given short releases from the
clink. Unfortunately, some of them never came back. Dukakis vetoed
legislation which would have forbidden furlough to persons with "life
without parole" sentences for murder, and authorities thereafter furloughed
a number of murderers. Horton, in prison for a brutal stabbing murder, got a
furlough, never returned, and then attacked a couple, assaulting both and
raping the woman. His opponents in the presidential race took advantage of
the veto.

The ad as shown by Moore begins with a "revolving door" of justice,
progresses to a picture of Willie Horton (who is black), and ends with
dramatic subtitle: "Willie Horton released. Then kills again."

Fact: Bowling splices together two different election ads, one run by the
Bush campaign (featuring a revolving door, and not even mentioning Horton)
and another run by an independent expenditure campaign (naming Horton, and
showing footage from which it can be seen that he is black). At the end, the
ad ala' Moore has the customary note that it was paid for by the Bush-Quayle
campaign. Moore intones "whether you're a psychotic killer or running for
president of the United States, the one thing you can always count on is
white America's fear of the black man." There is nothing to reveal that most
of the ad just seen (and all of it that was relevant to Moore's claim) was
not the Bush-Quayle ad, which didn't even name Horton.

Fact: Apparently unsatisfied with splicing the ads, Bowling's editors added
a subtitle "Willie Horton released. Then kills again."

Fact: Ben Fitz also noted that Bowling's editors didn't bother to research
the events before doctoring the ads. Horton's second arrest was not for
murder. (The second set of charges were aggravated assault and rape).


I originally deleted this from the main webpage, because in the VHS version
of Bowling Moore had the decency to remove the misleading footage. But as
Brendan Nyhan recently wrote in Spinsanity, he put it back in in the DVD
version! He did make one minor change, switching his edited-in caption to
"Willie Horton released. Then rapes a woman." Obviously Moore had been
informed of the Spinsanity criticism. He responded by correcting his own
typo, not by removing the edited in caption, nor by revealing that the ad
being shown was not in fact a Bush-Quayle ad.

2. NRA and the Reaction To Tragedy. A major theme in Bowling is that NRA is
callous toward slayings. In order to make this theme fit the facts, however,
Bowling repeatedly distorts the evidence.

A. Columbine Shooting/Denver NRA Meeting. Bowling portrays this with the
following sequence:

Weeping children outside Columbine;

Cut to Charlton Heston holding a musket and proclaiming "I have only five
words for you: 'from my cold, dead, hands'";

Cut to billboard advertising the meeting, while Moore intones "Just ten days
after the Columbine killings, despite the pleas of a community in mourning,
Charlton Heston came to Denver and held a large pro-gun rally for the
National Rifle Association;"

Cut to Heston (supposedly) continuing speech... "I have a message from the
Mayor, Mr. Wellington Webb, the Mayor of Denver. He sent me this; it says
'don't come here. We don't want you here.' I say to the Mayor this is our
country, as Americans we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad
land. Don't come here? We're already here!"

The portrayal is one of an arrogant protest in response to the deaths -- or,
as one reviewer put it, "it seemed that Charlton Heston and others rushed to
Littleton to hold rallies and demonstrations directly after the tragedy."
The portrayal is in fact false.


Fact: The Denver event was not a demonstration relating to Columbine, but an
annual meeting (see links below), whose place and date had been fixed years
in advance.


Fact: At Denver, the NRA cancelled all events (normally several days of
committee meetings, sporting events, dinners, and rallies) save the annual
members' voting meeting -- that could not be cancelled because the state law
governing nonprofits required that it be held. [No way to change location,
since under NY law you have to give 10 days' advance notice of that to the
members, there were upwards of 4,000,000 members -- and Columbine happened
11 days before the scheduled meeting.] As a newspaper reported:

In a letter to NRA members Wednesday, President Charlton Heston and the
group's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, said all seminars,
workshops, luncheons, exhibits by gun makers and other vendors, and
festivities are canceled.

All that's left is a members' reception with Rep. J.C. Watts, R-Okla., and
the annual meeting, set for 10 a.m. May 1 in the Colorado Convention Center.

Under its bylaws and New York state law, the NRA must hold an annual
meeting.

The NRA convention April 30-May 2 was expected to draw 22,000 members and
give the city a $17.9 million economic boost.

"But the tragedy in Littleton last Tuesday calls upon us to take steps,
along with dozens of other planned public events, to modify our schedule to
show our profound sympathy and respect for the families and communities in
the Denver area in their time of great loss," Heston and LaPierre wrote.


Fact: Heston's "cold dead hands" speech, which leads off Moore's depiction
of the Denver meeting, was not given at Denver after Columbine. It was given
a year later in Charlotte, North Carolina, and was his gesture of gratitude
upon his being given a handmade musket, at that annual meeting.

Fact: When Bowling continues on to the speech which Heston did give in
Denver, it carefully edits it to change its theme.

Moore's fabrication here cannot be described by any polite term. It is a
lie, a fraud, and a few other things. Carrying it out required a LOT of
editing to mislead the viewer, as I will show below. I transcribed Heston's
speech as Moore has it, and compared it to a news agency's transcript, color
coding the passages. CLICK HERE for the comparison, with links to the
original transcript.

Moore has actually taken audio of seven sentences, from five different parts
of the speech, and a section given in a different speech entirely, and
spliced them together. Each edit is cleverly covered by inserting a still or
video footage for a few seconds.

First, right after the weeping victims, Moore puts on Heston's "I have only
five words for you . . . cold dead hands" statement, making it seem directed
at them. As noted above, it's actually a thank-you speech given a year later
in North Carolina.

Moore then has an interlude -- a visual of a billboard and his narration.
This is vital. He can't go directly to Heston's real Denver speech. If he
did that, you might ask why Heston in mid-speech changed from a purple tie
and lavender shirt to a white shirt and red tie, and the background
draperies went from maroon to blue. Moore has to separate the two segments.



Moore's second edit (covered by splicing in a pan shot of the crowd) deletes
Heston's announcement that NRA has in fact cancelled most of its meeting:

"As you know, we've cancelled the festivities, the fellowship we normally
enjoy at our annual gatherings. This decision has perplexed a few and
inconvenienced thousands. As your president, I apologize for that."

Moore then cuts to Heston noting that Denver's mayor asked NRA not to come,
and shows Heston replying "I said to the Mayor: As Americans, we're free to
travel wherever we want in our broad land. Don't come here? We're already
here!" as if in defiance.

Actually, Moore put an edit right in the middle of the first sentence, and
another at its end! Heston really said (with reference his own WWII vet
status) "I said to the mayor, well, my reply to the mayor is, I volunteered
for the war they wanted me to attend when I was 18 years old. Since then,
I've run small errands for my country, from Nigeria to Vietnam. I know many
of you here in this room could say the same thing."

Moore cuts it after "I said to the Mayor" and attaches a sentence from the
end of the next paragraph: "As Americans, we're free to travel wherever we
want in our broad land." He hides the deletion by cutting to footage of
protestors and a photo of the Mayor before going back and showing Heston.

Moore has Heston then triumphantly announce "Don't come here? We're already
here!" Actually, that sentence is clipped from a segment five paragraphs
farther on in the speech. Again, Moore uses an editing trick to cover the
doctoring, switching to a pan shot of the audience as Heston's (edited)
voice continues.

What Heston said there was:

"NRA members are in city hall, Fort Carson, NORAD, the Air Force Academy and
the Olympic Training Center. And yes, NRA members are surely among the
police and fire and SWAT team heroes who risked their lives to rescue the
students at Columbine.

Don't come here? We're already here. This community is our home. Every
community in America is our home. We are a 128-year-old fixture of
mainstream America. The Second Amendment ethic of lawful, responsible
firearm ownership spans the broadest cross section of American life
imaginable.

So, we have the same right as all other citizens to be here. To help
shoulder the grief and share our sorrow and to offer our respectful,
reassured voice to the national discourse that has erupted around this
tragedy."

"NRA members are, above all, Americans. That means that whatever our
differences, we are respectful of one another and we stand united,
especially in adversity."

I recently discovered that Moore has set up a new webpage to respond to a
chosen few points of criticism, one of which is his, er, creative editing of
Heston's speech. Click here for a link to his page, and for my response to
his attempted defense of what he did. Basically, Moore contends that he
didn't mean for the viewer to get the impression that "cold dead hands" was
spoken at Denver -- that just "appears as Heston is being introduced in
narration." As for the rest, well, "Far from deliberately editing the film
to make Heston look worse, I chose to leave most of this out and not make
Heston look as evil as he actually was." Sure. That's why he left out: "As
you know, we've cancelled the festivities, the fellowship we normally enjoy
at our annual gatherings."

B. Mt. Morris shooting/ Flint rally. Bowling continues by juxtaposing
another Heston speech with a school shooting of Kayla Rolland at Mt. Morris,
MI, just north of Flint. Moore makes the claim that "Just as he did after
the Columbine shooting, Charlton Heston showed up in Flint, to have a big
pro-gun rally."


Fact: Heston's speech was given at a "get out the vote" rally in Flint,
which was held when elections rolled by some eight months after the shooting
( Feb. 29 vs Oct. 17, 2000).

Fact: Bush and Gore were then both in the Flint area, trying to gather
votes. Moore himself had been hosting rallies for Green Party candidate
Nader in Flint a few weeks before.

Here's the real setting, as reported in the Detroit Free Press one day after
Heston's speech:

What do Al Gore, Charlton Heston, Jesse Jackson, Lee Iacocca, and George W.,
Laura and Barbara Bush all agree upon?

That Michigan is a really big deal right now. The candidates, their wives, m
others, and pals are here this week, as post-debate spin control ebbs and
political ground control overtakes Michigan with 20 days left to Election
Day.....Democratic nominee Gore is to campaign in Flint tonight; Texas Gov.
Bush is to visit a Macomb County factory Thursday. . . . . For Republicans,
other surrogates include former auto executive Lee Iacocca touting Bush at a
luncheon today in Troy, and Tuesday's visit by National Rifle Association
President and movie-Moses Charlton Heston.

For the Democrats, the Rev. Jesse Jackson is seeking to mobilize black
voters for the Gore ticket Thursday at Detroit's King High School, and
Energy Secretary Bill Richardson will do the same at an Arab-American
Chamber of Commerce dinner Friday in Livonia.

How does Moore trick the viewer into believing that this speech, given in
this context, was actually a defiant response to a shooting in a nearby town
months before?

Moore creates the impression that one event was right after the other so
smoothly that I didn't spot his technique. It was picked up by Richard
Rockley, who sent me an email.

Moore works by depriving you of context and guiding your mind to fill the
vacuum -- with completely false ideas. It is brilliantly, if unethically,
done,. Let's deconstruct his method.

The entire sequence takes barely 40 seconds. Images are flying by so rapidly
that you cannot really think about them, you just form impressions.

Shot of Moore comforting Kayla's school principal after she discusses
Kayla's murder. As they turn away, we hear Heston's voice: "From my cold,
dead hands." [Moore is again attibuting it to a speech where it was not
uttered.]

When Heston becomes visible, he's telling a group that freedom needs you
now, more than ever, to come to its defense. Your impression: Heston is
responding to something urgent, presumably the controversy caused by her
death. And he's speaking about it like a fool.

Moo "Just as he did after the Columbine shooting, Charlton Heston showed
up in Flint, to have a big pro-gun rally."

Moore continues on to say that before he came to Flint, Heston had been
interviewed by the Georgetown Hoya about Kayla's death... Why would this be
important?

Image of Hoya (a student paper) appears on screen, with highlighting on
words of reporter mentioning Kayla Rolland's name, and highlighting on
Heston's name (only his name, not his reply) as he answers. Image is on
screen only a few seconds.

Ah, you think you spot the relevance: he obviously was alerted to the case,
and that's why be came.

And, Moore continues, the case was discussed on Heston's "own NRA"
webpage... Again, your mind seeks relevance....

Image of a webpage for America's First Freedom (a website for NRA, not for
Heston) with text "48 hours after Kayla Rolland was prounced dead"
highlighted and zoomed in on.

Your impression: Heston did something 48 hours after she died. Why else
would "his" webpage note this event, whatever it is? What would Heston's
action have been? It must have been to go to Flint and hold the rally.

Scene cuts to protestors, including a woman with a Million Moms March
t-shirt, who asks how Heston could come here, she's shocked and appalled,
"it's like he's rubbing our face in it." (This speaker and the protest may
be faked, but let's assume for the moment they're real.). This caps your
impression. She's shocked by Heston coming there, 48 hours after the death.
He'd hardly be rubbing faces in it if he came there much later, on a purpose
unrelated to the death.

The viewer thinks he or she understands ....

One reviewer: Heston "held another NRA rally in Flint, Michigan, just 48
hours after a 6 year old shot and killed a classmate in that same town."

Another:"What was Heston thinking going to into Colorado and Michigan
immediately after the massacres of innocent children?"

Let's look at the facts behind the presentation:

Heston's speech, with its sense of urgency, freedom needs you now more than
ever before. As noted above, it's actually an election rally, held weeks
before the closest election in American history.

Moo "Just as at Columbine, Heston showed up in Flint to have a large
pro-gun rally." As noted above, it was an election rally actually held eight
months later.

Georgetown Hoya interview, with highlighting on reporter mentioning Kayla
and on Heston's name where he responds.

What is not highlighted, and impossible to read except by repeating the
scene, is that the reporter asks about Kayla and about the Columbine
shooters, and Heston replies only as to the Columbine shooters. There is no
indication that he recognized Kayla Rolland's case. It flashes past in the
movie: click here to see it frozen.

"His NRA webpage" with highlighted reference to "48 hours after Kayla
Robinson is pronounced dead." Here's where it gets interesting. Moore zooms
in on that phrase so quickly that it blots out the rest of the sentence, and
then takes the image off screen before you can read anything else.



(It's clearer in the movie). The page is long gone, but I finally found an
archived version and also a June 2000 usenet posting usenet posting. Guess
what the page really said happened? Not a Heston trip to Flint, but:
"48-hours after Kayla Rolland is pronounced dead, Bill Clinton is on The
Today Show telling a sympathetic Katie Couric, "Maybe this tragic death will
help."" Nothing to do with Heston. Incidentally, if you have the DVD version
and the right player, you can freeze frame this sequence and see it
yourself. Then go back and freeze frame the rally, and you'll make out
various Bush election posters and tags.

Yep, Moore had a reason for zooming in on the 48 hours. The zooming starts
instantly, and moves sideways to block out the rest of the sentence before
even the quickest viewer could read it.

By the way, when interviewed by a reporter for the Times of London, Moore
had to admit the point: "When I spoke to Moore last week, he confirmed
Hardy's point about the date of the speech, but angrily denied the
allegation that he had misled viewers." Link to Times webpage (charge for
download).

If this is artistic talent, it's not the type that merits an Oscar.

C. Heston Interview. Having created the desired impression, Moore follows
with his Heston interview. Heston's memory of the Flint event is foggy (he
says it was an early morning event, and that they then went on to the next
rally; in fact the rally was at 6 - 7:30 PM. and the last event of the
day.). Heston's lack of recall is not surprising; it was one rally in a
nine-stop tour of three States in three days.

Moore, who had plenty of time to prepare, continues the impression he has
created, asking Heston misleading questions such as: "After that happened
you came to Flint to hold a big rally and, you know, I just, did you feel it
was being at all insensitive to the fact that this community had just gone
through this tragedy?" Moore continues, "you think you'd like to apologize
to the people in Flint for coming and doing that at that time?"

Moore knows the real sequence, and knows that Heston does not. Moore takes
full advantage.

As noted above, Moore's deception works on reviewers. In fact, when Heston
says he did not know about Kayla's shooting when he went to Flint, viewers
see Heston as an inept liar:

"Then, he [Heston] and his ilk held ANOTHER gun-rally shortly after another
child/gun tragedy in Flint, MI where a 6-year old child shot and killed a
6-year old classmate (Heston claims in the final interview of the film that
he didn't know this had just happened when he appeared)." [Click here for
original]

Bowling persuaded these viewers by deceiving them. Moore's creative skills
are used to convince the viewer that things happened which did not and that
a truthful man is a liar when he denies them.

A further question: is the end of the Heston interview faked?

3. Animated sequence equating NRA with KKK. In an animated history send-up,
with the narrator talking rapidly, Bowling equates the NRA with the Klan,
suggesting NRA was founded in 1871, "the same year that the Klan became an
illegal terrorist organization." Bowling goes on to depict Klansmen becoming
the NRA and an NRA character helping to light a burning cross.



This sequence is intended to create the impression either that NRA and the
Klan were parallel groups or that when the Klan was outlawed its members
formed the NRA.

Both impressions are not merely false, but directly opposed to the real
facts.


Fact: The NRA was founded in 1871 -- by act of the New York Legislature, at
request of former Union officers. The Klan was founded in 1866, and quickly
became a terrorist organization. One might claim that while it was an
organization and a terrorist one, it technically became an "illegal" such
with passage of the federal Ku Klux Klan Act and Enforcement Act in 1871.
These criminalized interference with civil rights, and empowered the
President to use troops to suppress the Klan. (Although we'd have to
acknowledge that murder, terror and arson were illegal long before that
time -- the Klan hadn't been operating legally until 1871, it was operating
illegally with the connivance of law enforcement.)


Fact: The Klan Act and Enforcement Act were signed into law by President
Ulysess S. Grant. Grant used their provisions vigorously, suspending habeas
corpus and deploying troops; under his leadership over 5,000 arrests were
made and the Klan was dealt a serious (if all too short-lived) blow.

Fact: Grant's vigor in disrupting the Klan earned him unpopularity among
many whites, but Frederick Douglass praised him, and an associate of
Douglass wrote that African-Americans "will ever cherish a grateful
remembrance of his name, fame and great services."

Fact: After Grant left the White House, the NRA elected him as its eighth
president.

Fact: After Grant's term, the NRA elected General Philip Sheridan, who had
removed the governors of Texas and Lousiana for failure to suppress the KKK.

Fact: The affinity of NRA for enemies of the Klan is hardly surprising. The
NRA was founded by former Union officers, and eight of its first ten
presidents were Union veterans.

Fact: During the 1950s and 1960s, groups of blacks organized as NRA chapters
in order to obtain surplus military rifles to fight off Klansmen.

..4. Shooting at Buell Elementary School in Michigan. Bowling depicts the
juvenile shooter who killed Kayla Rolland as a sympathetic youngster, from a
struggling family, who just found a gun in his uncle's house and took it to
school. "No one knew why the little boy wanted to shoot the little girl."


Fact: The little boy was the class thug, already suspended from school for
stabbing another kid with a pencil, and had fought with Kayla the day
before. Since the incident, he has stabbed another child with a knife.


Fact: The uncle's house was the family business -- the neighborhood
crack-house. The gun was stolen and was purchased by the uncle in exchange
for drugs.The shooter's father was already serving a prison term for theft
and drug offenses. A few weeks later police busted the shooter's grandmother
and aunt for narcotics sales. After police hauled the family away, the
neighbors applauded the officers. This was not a nice but misunderstood
family.


Links:1., 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,

5. The Taliban and American Aid. In discussing military assistance to
various countries, Bowling asserts that the U.S. gave $245 million in aid to
Taliban-ruled Afghanistan in 2000 and 2001.


Fact: The aid in question was humanitarian assistance, given through UN and
nongovernmental organizations, to relieve famine in Afghanistan. [Various
numbers are given for the amount of the aid, and some say several million
went for clearing landmines.]

6. International Comparisons. To pound home its point, Bowling flashes a
dramatic count of gun homicides in various countries: Canada 165, Germany
381, Australia 65, Japan 39, US 11,127. Now that's raw numbers, not rates --
Here's why he doesn't talk rates.

Verifying the figures was difficult, since Moore does not give a year for
them. A lot of Moore's numbers didn't check out for any period I could find.
As a last effort at checking, I did a Google search for each number and the
word "gun" or words "gun homicides" Many traced -- only back to webpages
repeating Bowling's figures. Moore is the only one using these numbers.

Germany: Bowling says 381: 1995 figures put homicides at 1,476, about four
times what Bowling claims, and gun homicides at 168, about half what it
claims: it's either far too high or far too low. ( Jörg Altmeppen has
emailed me a link to a German site putting the figure at Moore's 381, in
1998 -- I have to depend upon his translation here, as German is one of the
languages in which I can only curse.).

Australia: Bowling says 65. This is very close, albeit picking the year to
get the data desired. Between 1980-1995, firearm homicides varied from
64-123, although never exactly 65. In 2000, it was 64, which was proudly
proclaimed as the lowest number in the country's history.

US: Bowling says 11,127. FBI figures put it a lot lower. They report gun
homicides were 8,719 in 2001, 8,661 in 2000, 8,480 in 1999. (2001 UCR, p.
23). Here's the table:



[You can download the entire report, in .pdf format, by clicking here; look
for pt. 2 at p.23.] To be utterly fair, this is a count of the 13,752
homicides for which police submitted supplemental data (including weapon
used): the total homicide count was 15,980. But what weapon, if any, was
used in the other homicide is unknown to us, and was unknown to Moore.
After an email tip, I finally found a way to compute precisely 11,127.
Ignore the FBI, use Nat'l Center for Health Statistics figures. These are
based on doctors' death certificates rather than police investigation.

Then -- to their gun homicide figures, add the figure for legally-justified
homicides: self-defense and police use against criminals. Presto, you have
exactly Moore's 11,127. I can see no other way for him to get it.

Since Moore appears to use police figures for the other countries, it's
hardly a valid comparison. More to the point, it's misleading since it
includes self-defense and police: when we talk of a gun homicide problem we
hardly have in mind a woman defending against a rapist, or a cop taking out
an armed robber.

Canada: Moore's number is correct for 1999, a low point, but he ignores some
obvious differences.

Bias. I wanted to talk about fabrication, not about bias, but I've gotten
emails asking why I didn't mention that Switzerland requires almost all
adult males to have guns, but has a lower homicide rate than Great Britain,
or that Japanese-Americans, with the same proximity to guns as other
Americans, have homicide rates half that of Japan itself. (And, after
posting this, got an email saying that Switzerland doesn't require all adult
males to own guns -- not everyone is in the national militia. Here's an
encyclopedia reference to their system. 36% of entire population is enrolled
in the militia -- which must mean a very great part of the adult male
population, " All of Swiss society celebrates shooting, and skill with the
rifle. For example, each year Zurich shuts down a whole day for its "Boys'
Shooting Festival."" Sounds like a plan to me.)

And, oh, yes, there is an extremely interesting paper by Canadian
criminologist Gary Mauser, presented at a colloquium in, appropriately
enough, the Tower of London, and addressing international comparisons of
firearms laws and firearm crime rates. I highly recommend reading, if you're
interested in serious research rather than Moore's flashing numbers. Okay,
they're mentioned, now back to our regularly scheduled program.

Actually, international comparisons lead to some interesting points. Here's
a webpage which gives worldwide homicide rates. The U.S. comes in at 23rd
place. It only made the list by edging out Armenia and Bulgaria. Its former
rival as a superpower, the states of the former Soviet Union, absolutely
flatten it in this competition. Russia has four times the US rate. Ukraine
and Estonia have twice its rate. Even Poland ranks higher. South Africa's
showing is ten times the US rate! Hmm-- another point from a different
section of that site. In rape rates per 1000 population, the US ranks ninth,
at .32, just ahead of Iceland and Papua New Guinea. Canada is fifth, at .75,
over double the US rate, and Australia is third with .80.

7. Miscellaneous. Even the Canadian government is jumping in. Bowling shows
Moore casually buying ammunition at an Ontario Walmart. He asks us to "look
at what I, a foreign citizen, was able to do at a local Canadian Wal-Mart."
He buys several boxes of ammunition without a question being raised. "That's
right. I could buy as much ammunition as I wanted, in Canada."

Canadian officials have pointed out that the buy is faked or illegal:
Canadian law has since, 1998, required ammunition buyers to present proper
identification. Since Jan. 1, 2001, (sorry--link broke--it was a Canadian
government info site) it has required non-Canadians to present a firearms
borrowing or importation license, too. (Bowling appears to have been filmed
in mid and late 2001).

While we're at it: Bowling shows footage of a B-52 on display at the Air
Force Academy, while Moore scornfully intones that the plaque under it
"proudly proclaims that the plane killed Vietnamese people on Christmas Eve
of 1972."

The plaque actually reads that "Flying out of Utapao Royal Thai Naval
Airfield in southeast Thailand, the crew of 'Diamond Lil' shot down a MIG
northeast of Hanoi during 'Linebacker II' action on Christmas eve 1972."
This is pretty mild compared to the rest of Bowling, but the viewer can't
even trust Moore to honestly read a monument.

(As Spinsanity notes, Moore goes even farther in his add-on DVD. There, he
tells us, "And they've got a plaque on there proudly proclaiming that this
bomber, this B-52, killed thousands upon thousands of Vietnamese -- innocent
civilians.")
8. Race. Moore does not directly state that Heston is a racist--he is the
master of creating the false impression --but reviewers come away saying
"Heston looks like an idiot, and a racist one at that" Source. "BTW, one
thing the Heston interview did clear up, that man is shockingly racist."
Source.

The remarks stem from Heston's answer (after Moore keeps pressing for why
the US has more violence than other countries) that it might be due to the
US "having a more mixed ethnicity" than other nations, and "We had enough
problems with civil rights in the beginning." A viewer who accepts Moore's
theme that gun ownership is driven by racial fears might conclude that
Heston is blaming blacks and the civil rights movement.

But if you look at some history missing from Bowling, you get exactly the
opposite picture. Heston is talking, not about race, but about racism. In
the early 1960s, the civil rights movement was fighting for acceptance.
Civil rights workers were being murdered. The Kennedy Administration, trying
to hold together a Democratic coalition that ranged from liberals to
fire-eater segregationists such as George Wallace and Lester Maddox, found
the issue too hot to touch, and offered little support.

Heston got involved. He picketed discriminating restaurants. He worked with
Martin Luther King, and helped King break Hollywood's color barrier (yes,
there was one.). He led the actors' component of King's 1963 march in
Washington, which set the stage for the key civil rights legislation in
1964.

Here's Heston's comments at the 2001 Congress on Racial Equality Martin
Luther King dinner (presided over by NRA director, and CORE President, Roy
Innes). More on Heston.

Most of the viewers were born long after the events Heston is recalling. To
them, the civil rights struggle consists of Martin Luther King speaking,
people singing "We Shall Overcome," and everyone coming to their senses.
Heston remembers what it was really like.

If Heston fails to explain this in Bowling, we've got to note that Moore
(despite his claim that he left the interview almost unedited) cut a lot of
the interview out. Watch closely and you'll see a clock on the wall near
Moore's head. When it's first seen, the time is about 5:47. When Heston
finally walks out, it reads about 6:10. That's 23 minutes. I clocked the
Heston interview in Bowling at 5 1/4 minutes. About three-quarters of what
Heston did say was trimmed out. [Why the clock indicates six o'clock, when
Moore is specific that he showed up for the interview at 8:30 AM, will have
to await another investigation!]

9. Fear. Bowling probably has a good point when it suggests that the media
feeds off fear in a search for the fast buck. For an interesting analysis of
this, showing how crime news skyrocketed (largely displacing international
coverage) even as crime fell, click here.

Bowling cites some examples: the razor blades in Halloween apples scare, the
flesh-eating bacteria scare, etc. The examples are taken straight from Barry
Glassner's excellent book on the subject, "The Culture of Fear," and Moore
interviews Glassner on-camera for the point.

Then Moore does exactly what he condemns in the media.

Given the prominence of schoolyard killings as a theme in Bowling for
Columbine, Moore must have asked Glassner about that subject. Whatever
Glassner said is, however, left on the cutting-room floor. That's because
Glassner lists schoolyard shootings as one of the mythical fears. He points
out that "More than three times as many people are killed by lightning as by
violence at schools."

This is as close as Moore comes to having a thesis, an explanation for
homicide rate differences. But here he falls flat on his face. As one of his
interviewees notes, over a period when homicide rates were falling, media
coverage of murder increased by 600%. Okay, flip it around. When media
coverage of homicides increased 600%, homicide rates fell. So much for
Moore's explanation. In fact, so much for all of his attempted explanations.
During the 1990s, homicide rates in the US went into their steepest decline
in decades, with handgun homicides leading the way. That was the same period
that saw the welfare reform laws, the bombing in Serbia, several million
firearms sold each year -- everything, in short, that Moore condemns. (For
one source, just go back up the page to the FBI statistics: between 1997 and
2001, firearm homicides fell from 10,729 to 8,719, and 1997 was after the
biggest drop had occured.

I suppose we might go farther, and ask if Moore's film is not illustrative
of what it condemns. Moore argues that the media (a) distorts reality, and
(b) hypes fear of other Americans, because (c) fear is good for a fast buck.
Moore distorts reality, hypes fear of other Americans ("are we nation of gun
nuts, or just nuts?") and, well, made several million fast bucks.

10. Guns (supposedly the point of the film). A point worth making (although
not strictly on theme here): Bowling's theme is, rather curiously, not
opposed to firearms ownership.

After making out Canada to be a haven of nonviolence, Moore asks why. He
proclaims that Canada has "a tremendous amount of gun ownership," somewhat
under one gun per household. He visits Canadian shooting ranges, gun stores,
and in the end proclaims "Canada is a gun loving, gun toting, gun crazy
country!"

Or as he put it elsewhere, "then I learned that Canada has 7 million guns
but they don't kill each other like we do. I thought, gosh, that's
uncomfortably close to the NRA position: Guns don't kill people, people kill
people."

Bowling concludes that Canada isn't peaceful because it lacks guns and gun
nuts -- it has lots of those -- but because the Canadian mass media isn't
into constant hyping of fear and loathing, and the American media is. (One
problem).

Which leaves us to wonder why the Brady Campaign/Million Moms issued a press
release. congratulating Moore on his Oscar nomination.

Or does Bowling have a hidden punch line, and in the end the joke is on
them?

One possible explanation: did Bowling begin as one movie, and end up as
another?

Incidentally, Moore has issued a webpage responding to criticism. In so
doing, he actually admits that much of the above criticism is accurate. He
did splice the Willie Horton ad, and Heston's "cold dead hands" was never
spoken at Denver, and his statistics do stem from those of the Center for
Disease Control, which include self-defense and police shootings of perps.
As far as the rest of the criticisms above -- strange, but Moore doesn't
have an answer. Here's my response.

Conclusion

The point is not that Bowling is unfair, or lacking in objectivity. The
point is far more fundamental: Bowling for Columbine is dishonest. It is
fraudulent. To trash Heston, it even uses the audio/video editor to assemble
a Heston speech that Heston did not give, and sequences images and carefully
highlighted text to spin the viewer's mind to a wrong conclusion. If there
is art in this movie, it is a dishonest art. Moore does not inform his
readers: he plays them like a violin.

A further thought, on a topic far broader (no pun intended) than Moore.
Moore's film is unquestionably popular. He's attracted an almost-cult
following. And judging from the emails I've received, plenty of his
followers don't care a bit about whether they were misled. Can broader
lessons be learned from this?

Suppose for a moment that Moore's behavior can be explained as a product of
Narcisstic Personality Disorder, that he fits the clinical symptoms to a T,
that indeed Bowling is a grand acting out of this character disorder. Does
its popularity suggest something of far greater concern than one more
narcissist in Hollywood? And does that in turn hold a key to mass
slayings?Click here for some thoughts on that score.

David T. Hardy [an amateur who has for the last year been working on a
serious bill of rights documentary], to include the Second Amendment.

dthardy at mindspring.com ["at" instead of "@" used to confuse those blasted
spam robots]

P.S.: I don't have Moore's $4 million budget (and wound up paying over a
thousand in bandwidth overruns, before I found a new host), but if you could
see the way to contribute ten or twenty dollars to this research, and to
preparing a real documentary, please click below.






A few additions:

Links to other Moore & Bowling sites.

Some criticisms not given on this page.

Did Moore appropriate large portions from a webpage?

Equal time: emails critical of this page.

A brief reply to two responses I've received:

Objectivity: (sample email): "Your entire article is retarded. We're talking
about making FILM. ALL film is subjective. Have you not even taken an entry
level course in film before?"

Response: The point is not that Bowling is non-objective, or biased. The
point is that it is intentionally deceptive.

Nothing is real: The camera changes everything, etc., so in video there can
be no truth or falsity. Sample: "tv and movies, newspapers or even
documentaries *are* constructions, not "the truth" ("truth" is subjective
personal opinion/experience, which would be impossible to commit to
videotape or celluloid)."


Response: This certainly has given me some insight into how some in the
media view things! Can we agree upon one core premise: to deliberately
deceive a viewer is wrong?

Talk basic ethics. Is that what you teach your kids? Truth and lies are
ultimately the same, all that matters is whether you're good at it?

And don't give me the claim that filmmaking is somehow different, all
filming departs from reality, so truth and lies exist for written media and
not for film. All communication is symbolic; the use of verbal and written
symbols to convey ideas. If anything, a documentary film purports to be less
symbolic and more real: the viewer is shown things, and assumes he is
himself seeing reality, rather than hearing a speaker's description,
possibly unfair or deceptive, of it. If anything, this should imply a
greater duty to avoid conscious deception than would apply to the written
and spoken word.

Equally to the point: Moore himself repudiates these defenses, insisting
that every iota of his film is objectively true. "I can guarantee to you,
without equivocation, that every fact in my movie is true. Three teams of
fact-checkers and two groups of lawyers went through it with a fine tooth
comb to make sure that every statement of fact is indeed an indisputable
fact.... [F]aced with a thoroughly truthful and honest film, those who
object to the film's political points are left with the choice of debating
us on the issues in the film or resorting to character assassination."
Source.

Moore makes people think. This at least has some merit to it. But deception
is not the way to inspire clear thinking. For that matter ... if the purpose
is to inspire thought, how about giving some data? Homicide, firearm
homicide, and gun use in self-defense have been extensively studied for
forty years now. Kleck, Zimring, Bordua -- there is no shortage of experts
here. And there is a lot of data on other matters, such as relationship of
media coverage to crime. Yet the viewer hears none of this: in terms of
substance, Bowling is thin as an oil slick. The viewer is left with Moore
the criminologist looking at a TV screen and proclaiming TV news just has to
be the answer -- and not stopping long enough to reflect that if homicide
rates fell when news coverage of them went up 600%, this is a most peculiar
answer.

I put it to you, that Moore is only a slightly cruder version of almost any
(at the Federal level at least) professional Democrat politician.

My position has been and remains, youmay not like the GOP but the Democrats
are far worse.

This campaign is just the latest example of how far they will go to win,
even against each other. Democrats and Meter Maids, eat their young.

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:37:32 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

I can't confirm what I said about Bush and Top Gun.

To say I'm embarrassed is an understatement.

I never knowingly say anything I know to be untrue.

Fair enough.

You probably just misunderstood the news report.
that you heard.

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:57:25 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:37:32 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

To say I'm embarrassed is an understatement.

Don't be. There's nothing wrong with making a mistake. It's covering
it up or lying about it that's unethical. Admitting a mistake and
moving on is exactly what a person should do.

--

Jacob Kramer

If you believe the above to be true then tell me what you think of Michael
Moore. Do you think Bowling for Columbine should be considered a
documentary or a satire?

It's both.

I know that it's a hard concept for you to understand.

Good link, Mr. McKelvy. I'm glad I never wasted any time or money on
"Bowling for Columbine", either in book, video, or DVD form.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:37:32 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

I can't confirm what I said about Bush and Top Gun.

To say I'm embarrassed is an understatement.

I never knowingly say anything I know to be untrue.

Fair enough.

You probably just misunderstood the news report.
that you heard.

Personally, I think he understood it and reported it here perfectly - but
was honestly deceived. My personal recommendation - perhaps this lesson
will help Mr. McKelvy overcome his addiction to Clearchannel talk radio and
Faux News, when it comes to information about world events.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:57:25 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:37:32 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

To say I'm embarrassed is an understatement.

Don't be. There's nothing wrong with making a mistake. It's covering
it up or lying about it that's unethical. Admitting a mistake and
moving on is exactly what a person should do.

--

Jacob Kramer

If you believe the above to be true then tell me what you think of
Michael
Moore. Do you think Bowling for Columbine should be considered a
documentary or a satire?

It's both.

I know that it's a hard concept for you to understand.

Not all. It's hard for I guess, to understand that it not a documentary at
all. It's a propaganda piece. It violates the Academy for a documentary,
it starts with a conclusion and then stuctures the film clips to make it
seem like things happened that didn't. It is typical leftism.

dave weil said to Little ****:

I never knowingly say anything I know to be untrue.

Fair enough.

Mc****ty is a known liar, of course. Let's start with all the
ridiculous accusations of "fraud" he's hurled at Dr. Richman. And
taken as a whole, his support for Krooger constitutes a huge pack of
lies. Such as claiming Krooger is an advocate of "science" or
"truth" or "accuracy" -- those are all ridiculous, and unless
Mc****ty himself claims to be insane, they are all lies as well.

Then there's the infamous Krooger-Atkinson non-debate. Mc****ty
still claims that John Atkinson was the one who chickened out. And
how about the various claims that certain RAO posters are members of
NAMBLA -- are those lies or just clumsy dork humor?

At any rate, duh-Mikey may have choked down a slice today, but it's
a rare occurrence. And he's certainly not above lying about anything
he wants, anytime he wants to.

"Sandman" wrote in message
...
Good link, Mr. McKelvy. I'm glad I never wasted any time or money on
"Bowling for Columbine", either in book, video, or DVD form.


It should make you think about the character of Wes Clark, that he would
associate with a slimeball like Moore.

"Sandman" wrote in message
...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:37:32 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

I can't confirm what I said about Bush and Top Gun.

To say I'm embarrassed is an understatement.

I never knowingly say anything I know to be untrue.

Fair enough.

You probably just misunderstood the news report.
that you heard.

Personally, I think he understood it and reported it here perfectly - but
was honestly deceived. My personal recommendation - perhaps this lesson
will help Mr. McKelvy overcome his addiction to Clearchannel talk radio
and
Faux News, when it comes to information about world events.


I like news and perspective from more than one viewpoint.
I listen to more than Clearchannel, althjought the number one channel in the
US is KFI which is owned by them.

I love John and Ken in the afternoon on KFI. They were a very big part of
why Gray Davis is no longer Governor.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


dave weil said to Little ****:

I never knowingly say anything I know to be untrue.

Fair enough.

Mc****ty is a known liar,

When did you start calling yourself McShiity?

of course. Let's start with all the
ridiculous accusations of "fraud" he's hurled at Dr. Richman.

I said at the time and I still maintain he is either not who he says he is
or that he is not a psychologist.

And
taken as a whole, his support for Krooger constitutes a huge pack of
lies.

Actually it constitutes dislike for a whole pack of lies.

Such as claiming Krooger is an advocate of "science" or
"truth" or "accuracy" -- those are all ridiculous, and unless
Mc****ty himself claims to be insane, they are all lies as well.

When it comes to audio, I beleive that to be true as do others who similar
training and expierince in electronics.

The fact that you don't understand this, or refuse to accept it shows, what
a sack of **** you are. But then we always knew that.



Then there's the infamous Krooger-Atkinson non-debate.

It was a non-debate because Mr. Atkinson never wanted one.

Mc****ty
still claims that John Atkinson was the one who chickened out.

In the first instance when challenged by Arny, Atkinson changed it to a
forum where he would be a moderator and not a debator. I call that
chickening out.

And
how about the various claims that certain RAO posters are members of
NAMBLA -- are those lies or just clumsy dork humor?

I wasn't the one that started accusing people of Being members of NAMBLA. I
don't know who started it, I do know the first instance I SAW OF IT was from
your asshole buddy Singh.

At any rate, duh-Mikey may have choked down a slice today, but it's
a rare occurrence. And he's certainly not above lying about anything
he wants, anytime he wants to.

How is it you figure you can win an argument by claiming that other people
do what you do? Never mind, Iknow, it's not argument, it's parody, right
George?

Oh yeah, who the **** are you?

George M. Middius wrote:


dave weil said to Little ****:

I never knowingly say anything I know to be untrue.

Fair enough.

Mc****ty is a known liar, of course. Let's start with all the
ridiculous accusations of "fraud" he's hurled at Dr. Richman. And
taken as a whole, his support for Krooger constitutes a huge pack of
lies. Such as claiming Krooger is an advocate of "science" or
"truth" or "accuracy" -- those are all ridiculous, and unless
Mc****ty himself claims to be insane, they are all lies as well.


Agreed. As regards my credentials, the Google record clearly indicates a long
history of false statements by McKelvy, unsupported, of course, by any factual
evidence. In relatively recent times, he has even gone so far as to quickly
spread lies that he claims to have "learned" or "heard" from a source whom he
has refused to identify because of alleged confidentiality requests. It
appears, however, that he was very eager to accept these falsehoods from his
source (if such a person even exists) and then spread them on RAO. Needless to
say, he never bothered to check on whether they were true or not. He simply
claimed on RAO, "I have it on good auithority", and then proceeded to spread
more lies about me.

His response to you in this thread indicates that he has no intention of
retracting his lies about me. As for other issues, time will tell. Obviously,
his current claims of never knowingly telling lies about a person are false.



Then there's the infamous Krooger-Atkinson non-debate. Mc****ty
still claims that John Atkinson was the one who chickened out. And
how about the various claims that certain RAO posters are members of
NAMBLA -- are those lies or just clumsy dork humor?


All of these issues certainly raise questions about his credibility. And also
about his tendencies here to call people with whom he disagrees "liars" - e.g.
John Kerry, Democrats, etc.





At any rate, duh-Mikey may have choked down a slice today, but it's
a rare occurrence. And he's certainly not above lying about anything
he wants, anytime he wants to.









Agreed.




Bruce J. Richman

Michael McKelvy wrote:


"George M. Middius" wrote in message
.. .


dave weil said to Little ****:

I never knowingly say anything I know to be untrue.

Fair enough.

Mc****ty is a known liar,

When did you start calling yourself McShiity?

of course. Let's start with all the
ridiculous accusations of "fraud" he's hurled at Dr. Richman.

I said at the time and I still maintain he is either not who he says he is
or that he is not a psychologist.


Then your claims about not knowingly lying about individuals are, themselves,
lies. Either that, or you choose to make statements about myself and others
with no factual evidence to support them. Just as you have chosen to believe
false information about George Bush, because it is congruent with your belief
system, you have chosen for many years to believe false information about me
because of your longstanding vendettas, prejudices and false beliefs about me.
In both cases, you've also chosen to perpetuate this bull**** on RAO. I'm not
surprised that you've issued a retraction re. Bush, since to not do so would
damage your credibility even more. As for your credibility re. the false
statements you've made about me for many years, I neither demand nor expect a
retraction, because quite frankly, other than your role model, Krueger, and a
few other anonymous posters who apparently are afraid to identify themselves,
few take these lies of yours seriously and/or believe them.


Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist





And
taken as a whole, his support for Krooger constitutes a huge pack of
lies.

Actually it constitutes dislike for a whole pack of lies.

Such as claiming Krooger is an advocate of "science" or
"truth" or "accuracy" -- those are all ridiculous, and unless
Mc****ty himself claims to be insane, they are all lies as well.

When it comes to audio, I beleive that to be true as do others who similar
training and expierince in electronics.

The fact that you don't understand this, or refuse to accept it shows, what
a sack of **** you are. But then we always knew that.



Then there's the infamous Krooger-Atkinson non-debate.

It was a non-debate because Mr. Atkinson never wanted one.

Mc****ty
still claims that John Atkinson was the one who chickened out.

In the first instance when challenged by Arny, Atkinson changed it to a
forum where he would be a moderator and not a debator. I call that
chickening out.

And
how about the various claims that certain RAO posters are members of
NAMBLA -- are those lies or just clumsy dork humor?

I wasn't the one that started accusing people of Being members of NAMBLA. I
don't know who started it, I do know the first instance I SAW OF IT was from
your asshole buddy Singh.

At any rate, duh-Mikey may have choked down a slice today, but it's
a rare occurrence. And he's certainly not above lying about anything
he wants, anytime he wants to.

How is it you figure you can win an argument by claiming that other people
do what you do? Never mind, Iknow, it's not argument, it's parody, right
George?

Oh yeah, who the **** are you?

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 08:52:31 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"Sandman" wrote in message
.. .

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:37:32 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

I can't confirm what I said about Bush and Top Gun.

To say I'm embarrassed is an understatement.

I never knowingly say anything I know to be untrue.

Fair enough.

You probably just misunderstood the news report.
that you heard.

Personally, I think he understood it and reported it here perfectly - but
was honestly deceived. My personal recommendation - perhaps this lesson
will help Mr. McKelvy overcome his addiction to Clearchannel talk radio
and
Faux News, when it comes to information about world events.


I like news and perspective from more than one viewpoint.

No you don't. You just like variations on a theme - a rightist theme.

I listen to more than Clearchannel, althjought the number one channel in the
US is KFI which is owned by them.

So, how many left-of-center shows do you listen to?

I love John and Ken in the afternoon on KFI. They were a very big part of
why Gray Davis is no longer Governor.

Listening to talk radio more than just infrequently will rot your
brain, you know. It makes you come out with things like your Top Gun
statement.

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:03:06 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

of course. Let's start with all the
ridiculous accusations of "fraud" he's hurled at Dr. Richman.

I said at the time and I still maintain he is either not who he says he is
or that he is not a psychologist.

What possible proof do you have of this?

Dave Weil wrote:


On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:03:06 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

of course. Let's start with all the
ridiculous accusations of "fraud" he's hurled at Dr. Richman.

I said at the time and I still maintain he is either not who he says he is
or that he is not a psychologist.

What possible proof do you have of this?







Although McKelvy has been making libelous statements like this for about 6 or 7
years on RAO, he's never been able to subxtantiate any of them, nor will he
ever be able to in the future, either. Not that this matters to him, of
course.

In point of fact, I've held a license to practice psychology in the state of
Florida since 1981. In a detailed response to one of Ferstler's idiotic
attempts to smear me, I detailed quite a bit of factual information about my
training, experience, credentials, etc. All of what was stated there could be
easily verified and most of it is a matter of public record. Also, for an
individual to claim that they are a psychologist without being able to prove
it, at least in Florida (and probably most other states), is a felony.
Needless to say, none of this matters to individuals such as McKelvy, who has
demonstrated both in regards to Bush and obviously myself, that he will quickly
say anything about anybody that supports his belief system, irrespective of
whether there are any facts to support it. By his own account, he chose to
"believe" a claim about Bush's pilot status that he heard on the radio; he has
also chosen to believe, and perpetuate on RAO recently, false information about
me that he "heard" from an unidentified source whom he claims requires to
remain anonymous. In both cases, he chose to perpetuate false claims simply
because they were congruent with his belief system. In both cases, he was
lying. In both cases, he was wrong.


Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 08:52:31 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"Sandman" wrote in message
.. .

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:37:32 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

I can't confirm what I said about Bush and Top Gun.

To say I'm embarrassed is an understatement.

I never knowingly say anything I know to be untrue.

Fair enough.

You probably just misunderstood the news report.
that you heard.

Personally, I think he understood it and reported it here perfectly -
but
was honestly deceived. My personal recommendation - perhaps this
lesson
will help Mr. McKelvy overcome his addiction to Clearchannel talk radio
and
Faux News, when it comes to information about world events.


I like news and perspective from more than one viewpoint.

No you don't. You just like variations on a theme - a rightist theme.

Just **** off you idiot, you don't understand or choose not to understand
what my viewpoint is. I have posted my views in favor a drug legalization,
gay marriage, taxation, and other issues and they don't exactly fit into any
sort of rightwing viewpoint.



I listen to more than Clearchannel, althjought the number one channel in
the
US is KFI which is owned by them.

So, how many left-of-center shows do you listen to?

I love John and Ken in the afternoon on KFI. They were a very big part
of
why Gray Davis is no longer Governor.

Listening to talk radio more than just infrequently will rot your
brain, you know. It makes you come out with things like your Top Gun
statement.

What's your excuse? You seem locked into the leftist viewpoint far more
than I might appear to be a rightist.

My viewpoint is find out what the truth is and damn the consequences. Truth
is more important than ideology, it just simply is the truth. I try not to
color it or spin it.

Most of the time I think I do well at it, sometimes not.

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
Michael McKelvy wrote:


"George M. Middius" wrote in message
.. .


dave weil said to Little ****:

I never knowingly say anything I know to be untrue.

Fair enough.

Mc****ty is a known liar,

When did you start calling yourself McShiity?

of course. Let's start with all the
ridiculous accusations of "fraud" he's hurled at Dr. Richman.

I said at the time and I still maintain he is either not who he says he
is
or that he is not a psychologist.


Then your claims about not knowingly lying about individuals are,
themselves,
lies.

It's my opinion. You get yours, I get mine.

Either that, or you choose to make statements about myself and others
with no factual evidence to support them.

I told how I got the info on you. It's either true or not. it changed
nothing about how I see your behavior here.

Just as you have chosen to believe
false information about George Bush, because it is congruent with your
belief
system, you have chosen for many years to believe false information about
me
because of your longstanding vendettas, prejudices and false beliefs about
me.

Now there's something I don't do, I don't just make **** up out of whole
cloth. I don't have any vendettas against you, I just don't like you. I
don't like your trying to claim you know anythiong about anybody bad on you
read on RAO.

Act like the professional you claim to be.

In both cases, you've also chosen to perpetuate this bull**** on RAO. I'm
not
surprised that you've issued a retraction re. Bush, since to not do so
would
damage your credibility even more. As for your credibility re. the false
statements you've made about me for many years, I neither demand nor
expect a
retraction, because quite frankly, other than your role model, Krueger,
and a
few other anonymous posters who apparently are afraid to identify
themselves,
few take these lies of yours seriously and/or believe them.

You really are quite dense. Krueger is not my role model.
I have said this repeatedly and you choose to ignore it.

Once again you accuse me of lying when you have nothing to base that on.
I've told why I don't like or respect you and it has nothing to with
anything anybody said about you, it has only to do with your own deplorable
behavior.

Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist





And
taken as a whole, his support for Krooger constitutes a huge pack of
lies.

Actually it constitutes dislike for a whole pack of lies.

Such as claiming Krooger is an advocate of "science" or
"truth" or "accuracy" -- those are all ridiculous, and unless
Mc****ty himself claims to be insane, they are all lies as well.

When it comes to audio, I beleive that to be true as do others who
similar
training and expierince in electronics.

The fact that you don't understand this, or refuse to accept it shows,
what
a sack of **** you are. But then we always knew that.



Then there's the infamous Krooger-Atkinson non-debate.

It was a non-debate because Mr. Atkinson never wanted one.

Mc****ty
still claims that John Atkinson was the one who chickened out.

In the first instance when challenged by Arny, Atkinson changed it to a
forum where he would be a moderator and not a debator. I call that
chickening out.

And
how about the various claims that certain RAO posters are members of
NAMBLA -- are those lies or just clumsy dork humor?

I wasn't the one that started accusing people of Being members of NAMBLA.
I
don't know who started it, I do know the first instance I SAW OF IT was
from
your asshole buddy Singh.

At any rate, duh-Mikey may have choked down a slice today, but it's
a rare occurrence. And he's certainly not above lying about anything
he wants, anytime he wants to.

How is it you figure you can win an argument by claiming that other
people
do what you do? Never mind, Iknow, it's not argument, it's parody, right
George?

Oh yeah, who the **** are you?

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:03:06 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

of course. Let's start with all the
ridiculous accusations of "fraud" he's hurled at Dr. Richman.

I said at the time and I still maintain he is either not who he says he
is
or that he is not a psychologist.

What possible proof do you have of this?

Absolutely none, it's an opinion I get to have. He acts like a jerk IMO.
He doesn't act like any sort of psychologist I've ever read or met. Having
some idea of professional conduct, I don't believe he's who he says he is.
If he is who he says he is then the world is a sadder place because of it
IMO.

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:13:06 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 08:52:31 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

No you don't. You just like variations on a theme - a rightist theme.

Just **** off you idiot, you don't understand or choose not to understand
what my viewpoint is. I have posted my views in favor a drug legalization,
gay marriage, taxation, and other issues and they don't exactly fit into any
sort of rightwing viewpoint.

Then why don't you support Dennis Kucinich? Or the Cato Institute in
its criticisms of detentions of U.S. citizens without habeas corpus?

--

Jacob Kramer

On 13 Feb 2004 18:08:03 GMT, (Bruce J. Richman)
wrote:

Dave Weil wrote:


On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:03:06 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

of course. Let's start with all the
ridiculous accusations of "fraud" he's hurled at Dr. Richman.

I said at the time and I still maintain he is either not who he says he is
or that he is not a psychologist.

What possible proof do you have of this?


Yeah really how about another retraction.

--

Jacob Kramer

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:13:06 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

I like news and perspective from more than one viewpoint.

No you don't. You just like variations on a theme - a rightist theme.

Just **** off you idiot, you don't understand or choose not to understand
what my viewpoint is. I have posted my views in favor a drug legalization,
gay marriage, taxation, and other issues and they don't exactly fit into any
sort of rightwing viewpoint.

Please tell me which news outlets and talk radio programs you
routinely access.

I listen to more than Clearchannel, althjought the number one channel in
the
US is KFI which is owned by them.

So, how many left-of-center shows do you listen to?

I love John and Ken in the afternoon on KFI. They were a very big part
of
why Gray Davis is no longer Governor.

Listening to talk radio more than just infrequently will rot your
brain, you know. It makes you come out with things like your Top Gun
statement.

What's your excuse? You seem locked into the leftist viewpoint far more
than I might appear to be a rightist.

Untrue. You do nothing but slam Democrats and give passes to
Republicans, no matter whether or not you are a Libertarian, which is
right of center anyway...

My viewpoint is find out what the truth is and damn the consequences. Truth
is more important than ideology, it just simply is the truth. I try not to
color it or spin it.

You constantly spin it. Don't be deluded.

Most of the time I think I do well at it, sometimes not.

No, i think that most of the time, you fail miserably. You are *not* a
good advocate for your position.

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:24:27 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:03:06 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

of course. Let's start with all the
ridiculous accusations of "fraud" he's hurled at Dr. Richman.

I said at the time and I still maintain he is either not who he says he
is
or that he is not a psychologist.

What possible proof do you have of this?

Absolutely none, it's an opinion I get to have.

I see. So if a "liberal" states an "unsubtantiated opinion, he gets
slammed, but if you do it, it's "OK" because you get to express an
opinion.

Nice.

He acts like a jerk IMO.

So do you? So what's your point?

He doesn't act like any sort of psychologist I've ever read or met.

Maybe you could tell us about your psychologist. Does he or she just
nod while you spout off?

Having some idea of professional conduct, I don't believe he's who he says he is.
If he is who he says he is then the world is a sadder place because of it
IMO.

I see. You aren't allowed to defend yourself on RAO or get to play
rough and tumble like everyone else because you are a 'professional".
Sounds like dirty pool to me.

Michael McKelvy wrote:


dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:03:06 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

of course. Let's start with all the
ridiculous accusations of "fraud" he's hurled at Dr. Richman.

I said at the time and I still maintain he is either not who he says he
is
or that he is not a psychologist.

What possible proof do you have of this?

Absolutely none, it's an opinion I get to have.

It's a lie you get to make.,




He acts like a jerk IMO.
He doesn't act like any sort of psychologist I've ever read or met.



Having
some idea of professional conduct, I don't believe he's who he says he is.
If he is who he says he is then the world is a sadder place because of it
IMO.


And there we have it folks, from the person who never knowingly lies according
to his most recent RAO pronouncements.


If McKelvy ever met any psychologists (which is doubtful), he obviously failed
to profit from anything they had to say. Of course, his 7 year history of
libel and false statements disqualifies him from rendering any type of
judgments about professional behavior of psychologists. He also fails to
recognize the rather obvious fact that RAO is not an environment in which
people are required to "act professionally", especially when discussing audio
opinions, not their given vocations.


Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist

Jacob Kramer wrote:


On 13 Feb 2004 18:08:03 GMT, (Bruce J. Richman)
wrote:

Dave Weil wrote:


On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:03:06 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

of course. Let's start with all the
ridiculous accusations of "fraud" he's hurled at Dr. Richman.

I said at the time and I still maintain he is either not who he says he is
or that he is not a psychologist.

What possible proof do you have of this?


Yeah really how about another retraction.

--

Jacob Kramer








A reasonable request, in light of the significant amount of evidence that has
been presented in support of my credentials. Note that McKelvy has now
admitted that he has absolutely no evidence to support his lilbelous lies about
my professional status. Of course, he will never issue a retraction because he
has no honor and prefers to continuous his lies and smear campaigns.


Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:13:06 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 08:52:31 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

No you don't. You just like variations on a theme - a rightist theme.

Just **** off you idiot, you don't understand or choose not to understand
what my viewpoint is. I have posted my views in favor a drug
legalization,
gay marriage, taxation, and other issues and they don't exactly fit into
any
sort of rightwing viewpoint.

Then why don't you support Dennis Kucinich?

Because I can't take anybody seriously who wants to create a Dept. of Peace.
He wants to take money away from Defense spending and he wants more
socialized medicine. IOW he's to the left of Dean. In short I think he's
nuts.

Or the Cato Institute in
its criticisms of detentions of U.S. citizens without habeas corpus?

Because I don't think their criticisms take into account the nature of the
threat of terrorism. In the case of foriegn born terrorsists , they can
rot.

In the case of American citizens who work for foriegn terrorists there is
reason to question the wisdom of some of the Patriot Act. There is however,
the U.S. court system which has in most instnaces found thePatriot act to be
based on previous precedents, mostly in regards to the way we go after
organized crime. I also note that throughout the country's history, during
times of war, some degree of civil liberty has been curtailed. When the
panic is over things return to normal. I have every confidence that it will
do so again.

Jacob Kramer

Michael McKelvy wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
Michael McKelvy wrote:


"George M. Middius" wrote in message
.. .


dave weil said to Little ****:

I never knowingly say anything I know to be untrue.

Fair enough.

Mc****ty is a known liar,

When did you start calling yourself McShiity?

of course. Let's start with all the
ridiculous accusations of "fraud" he's hurled at Dr. Richman.

I said at the time and I still maintain he is either not who he says he
is
or that he is not a psychologist.


Then your claims about not knowingly lying about individuals are,
themselves,
lies.

It's my opinion. You get yours, I get mine.


Wrong. You've repeatedly made a false claim, which is easily provable. My
license in Florida is a matter of public record. You've lied about it for 7
years. Opinions are one thing - deliberate lies that you fail to acknowledge or
retract or another. You can continue to lie and call it an "opinion", but
nobody with any common sense will believe that.



Either that, or you choose to make statements about myself and others
with no factual evidence to support them.

I told how I got the info on you. It's either true or not. it changed
nothing about how I see your behavior here.


I could care less about how you see my behavior here, since you persist in
lying about me as concerns my credentials. You also know absolutely nothing
about my professional activities, but were eager and ready to quickly buy into
the bull**** supposedly obtained from your "source", and then proceed to
quickly use it as part of a smear campaign against me on RAO.



Just as you have chosen to believe
false information about George Bush, because it is congruent with your
belief
system, you have chosen for many years to believe false information about
me
because of your longstanding vendettas, prejudices and false beliefs about
me.

Now there's something I don't do, I don't just make **** up out of whole
cloth.

That is not true. Your comments about me in this thread are made up out of
whole cloth. You have absolutely no evidence to support your false claims
about my not being a psychologist. You've made that up constantly for years,
despite being presented with evidence to the contrary that is a matter of
public record.


I don't have any vendettas against you, I just don't like you. I
don't like your trying to claim you know anythiong about anybody bad on you
read on RAO.


Care to clear up the English on this a bit? I can try and decipher it, but
then you would probably just make some more insulting claims. What does
"anythiong about anybody bad you read" mean?


Act like the professional you claim to be.


I do, at all times, in the appropriate environment. You're hardly in a
position to preach to anybody, given your lengthy history of making false
claims about me and others. It appears that you've confused disagreement with
your radical positions on RAO as lack of professionalism. This is an opinion
forum, not an office.




In both cases, you've also chosen to perpetuate this bull**** on RAO. I'm
not
surprised that you've issued a retraction re. Bush, since to not do so
would
damage your credibility even more. As for your credibility re. the false
statements you've made about me for many years, I neither demand nor
expect a
retraction, because quite frankly, other than your role model, Krueger,
and a
few other anonymous posters who apparently are afraid to identify
themselves,
few take these lies of yours seriously and/or believe them.

You really are quite dense. Krueger is not my role model.
I have said this repeatedly and you choose to ignore it.


You've once again demonstrated your stupidity. People evaluate your support
for Krueger by your actions/behavior, not your words. You have a lengthy RAO
history of almost singlehandedly rushing to his defense whenever he has been
attacked by others. You have also been quite eager to contribute to his smear
campaigns against me and others.




Once again you accuse me of lying when you have nothing to base that on.

See comments above re. licensure.


I've told why I don't like or respect you and it has nothing to with
anything anybody said about you, it has only to do with your own deplorable
behavior.


An opinion you get to have. The feeling is mutual.



Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist





And
taken as a whole, his support for Krooger constitutes a huge pack of
lies.

Actually it constitutes dislike for a whole pack of lies.

Such as claiming Krooger is an advocate of "science" or
"truth" or "accuracy" -- those are all ridiculous, and unless
Mc****ty himself claims to be insane, they are all lies as well.

When it comes to audio, I beleive that to be true as do others who
similar
training and expierince in electronics.

The fact that you don't understand this, or refuse to accept it shows,
what
a sack of **** you are. But then we always knew that.



Then there's the infamous Krooger-Atkinson non-debate.

It was a non-debate because Mr. Atkinson never wanted one.

Mc****ty
still claims that John Atkinson was the one who chickened out.

In the first instance when challenged by Arny, Atkinson changed it to a
forum where he would be a moderator and not a debator. I call that
chickening out.

And
how about the various claims that certain RAO posters are members of
NAMBLA -- are those lies or just clumsy dork humor?

I wasn't the one that started accusing people of Being members of NAMBLA.
I
don't know who started it, I do know the first instance I SAW OF IT was
from
your asshole buddy Singh.

At any rate, duh-Mikey may have choked down a slice today, but it's
a rare occurrence. And he's certainly not above lying about anything
he wants, anytime he wants to.

How is it you figure you can win an argument by claiming that other
people
do what you do? Never mind, Iknow, it's not argument, it's parody, right
George?

Oh yeah, who the **** are you?




















Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:13:06 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

I like news and perspective from more than one viewpoint.

No you don't. You just like variations on a theme - a rightist theme.

Just **** off you idiot, you don't understand or choose not to understand
what my viewpoint is. I have posted my views in favor a drug
legalization,
gay marriage, taxation, and other issues and they don't exactly fit into
any
sort of rightwing viewpoint.

Please tell me which news outlets and talk radio programs you
routinely access.

I listen to more than Clearchannel, althjought the number one channel
in
the
US is KFI which is owned by them.

So, how many left-of-center shows do you listen to?

All Things Considered.

I love John and Ken in the afternoon on KFI. They were a very big
part
of
why Gray Davis is no longer Governor.

Listening to talk radio more than just infrequently will rot your
brain, you know. It makes you come out with things like your Top Gun
statement.

What's your excuse? You seem locked into the leftist viewpoint far more
than I might appear to be a rightist.

Untrue. You do nothing but slam Democrats and give passes to
Republicans, no matter whether or not you are a Libertarian, which is
right of center anyway...

Actually it is the center. I don't just slam Democrats I slam anybody who
who I think is wrong. I have said over and over that I don't agree with the
Farm Bill, the administration stand on cloning, abortion, and other issues.

I don't like teh Democrat party because at the Federal level, it is made up
of people who have an agenda that is anti-Republican on ANY issue. Ted
Kennedy wrote the No Child Left Behind bill and now he slams it. They are
about power and dependency. Their economics are crap and can only lead to
more and more trouble. They claim to be for the working person but they go
out of their way to **** up the system that can lift the working person by
txing the people who create the jobs that would help them.


My viewpoint is find out what the truth is and damn the consequences.
Truth
is more important than ideology, it just simply is the truth. I try not
to
color it or spin it.

You constantly spin it. Don't be deluded.

I'm not spinning. The Democrats are more evil than the GOP.

Most of the time I think I do well at it, sometimes not.

No, i think that most of the time, you fail miserably.

Because you are an avowed liberal and refuse to see the philosophy is
bankrupt.

You are *not* a
good advocate for your position.

There is no good advocate for yours.

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
...
On 13 Feb 2004 18:08:03 GMT, (Bruce J. Richman)
wrote:

Dave Weil wrote:


On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:03:06 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

of course. Let's start with all the
ridiculous accusations of "fraud" he's hurled at Dr. Richman.

I said at the time and I still maintain he is either not who he says he
is
or that he is not a psychologist.

What possible proof do you have of this?


Yeah really how about another retraction.

--

Jacob Kramer

I can't retract my opinion. I think he's an asshole.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:24:27 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:03:06 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

of course. Let's start with all the
ridiculous accusations of "fraud" he's hurled at Dr. Richman.

I said at the time and I still maintain he is either not who he says
he
is
or that he is not a psychologist.

What possible proof do you have of this?

Absolutely none, it's an opinion I get to have.

I see. So if a "liberal" states an "unsubtantiated opinion, he gets
slammed, but if you do it, it's "OK" because you get to express an
opinion.

Nice.

He acts like a jerk IMO.

So do you? So what's your point?

I gave it to you.

He doesn't act like any sort of psychologist I've ever read or met.

Maybe you could tell us about your psychologist.

Don't have one.

Does he or she just
nod while you spout off?

I've never had the oppurtunity to spout off on one to see if she nodded off
after. :-)

Having some idea of professional conduct, I don't believe he's who he
says he is.
If he is who he says he is then the world is a sadder place because of it
IMO.

I see. You aren't allowed to defend yourself on RAO or get to play
rough and tumble like everyone else because you are a 'professional".
Sounds like dirty pool to me.

I'm sure it does.

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
Michael McKelvy wrote:


dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:03:06 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

of course. Let's start with all the
ridiculous accusations of "fraud" he's hurled at Dr. Richman.

I said at the time and I still maintain he is either not who he says
he
is
or that he is not a psychologist.

What possible proof do you have of this?

Absolutely none, it's an opinion I get to have.

It's a lie you get to make.,




He acts like a jerk IMO.
He doesn't act like any sort of psychologist I've ever read or met.



Having
some idea of professional conduct, I don't believe he's who he says he
is.
If he is who he says he is then the world is a sadder place because of it
IMO.


And there we have it folks, from the person who never knowingly lies
according
to his most recent RAO pronouncements.


If McKelvy ever met any psychologists (which is doubtful), he obviously
failed
to profit from anything they had to say. Of course, his 7 year history of
libel and false statements disqualifies him from rendering any type of
judgments about professional behavior of psychologists. He also fails to
recognize the rather obvious fact that RAO is not an environment in which
people are required to "act professionally", especially when discussing
audio
opinions, not their given vocations.


Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist


Thank for demonstrating why I think you are a ****.

Dave Weil wrote:


On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:24:27 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:03:06 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

of course. Let's start with all the
ridiculous accusations of "fraud" he's hurled at Dr. Richman.

I said at the time and I still maintain he is either not who he says he
is
or that he is not a psychologist.

What possible proof do you have of this?

Absolutely none, it's an opinion I get to have.

I see. So if a "liberal" states an "unsubtantiated opinion, he gets
slammed, but if you do it, it's "OK" because you get to express an
opinion.

Nice.


Double standards, anyone? Of course, his claims about my professional identity
are not just opinions, they are lies.




He acts like a jerk IMO.


That, however, is an opinion.


So do you? So what's your point?

He doesn't act like any sort of psychologist I've ever read or met.

Maybe you could tell us about your psychologist. Does he or she just
nod while you spout off?


There's been no evidence presented that he's actually ever met one, of course.
It's doubtful, IMO, that he has ever had the motivation to be truthful enough
to benefit from seeing one.



Having some idea of professional conduct, I don't believe he's who he says
he is.
If he is who he says he is then the world is a sadder place because of it
IMO.

I see. You aren't allowed to defend yourself on RAO or get to play
rough and tumble like everyone else because you are a 'professional".
Sounds like dirty pool to me.





Thank you for making a valuable point, Dave. McKelvy has tried for years to
establish one set of rules for himself and another for a person who happens to
be a member of a profession that he wants to smear. More precisely, he's tried
to equate RAO behavior with the behavior expected of a clinical psychologist in
a professional environment. In both cases, he's simply demonstrated his lack
of credibility and inability to treat people fairly.


Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
George M. Middius wrote:


dave weil said to Little ****:

I never knowingly say anything I know to be untrue.

Fair enough.

Mc****ty is a known liar, of course. Let's start with all the
ridiculous accusations of "fraud" he's hurled at Dr. Richman. And
taken as a whole, his support for Krooger constitutes a huge pack of
lies. Such as claiming Krooger is an advocate of "science" or
"truth" or "accuracy" -- those are all ridiculous, and unless
Mc****ty himself claims to be insane, they are all lies as well.


Agreed. As regards my credentials, the Google record clearly indicates a
long
history of false statements by McKelvy, unsupported, of course, by any
factual
evidence. In relatively recent times, he has even gone so far as to
quickly
spread lies that he claims to have "learned" or "heard" from a source whom
he
has refused to identify because of alleged confidentiality requests. It
appears, however, that he was very eager to accept these falsehoods from
his
source (if such a person even exists) and then spread them on RAO.
Needless to
say, he never bothered to check on whether they were true or not. He
simply
claimed on RAO, "I have it on good auithority", and then proceeded to
spread
more lies about me.

His response to you in this thread indicates that he has no intention of
retracting his lies about me. As for other issues, time will tell.
Obviously,
his current claims of never knowingly telling lies about a person are
false.


No, they are my opinions. In my opinion you are an unprofessional piece of
****.

If you were as smart as you like to think you are you could have found out
who I got the beancounter info from.

Of course, I'm still not unconvinced that that person and you are not one in
the same.


Then there's the infamous Krooger-Atkinson non-debate. Mc****ty
still claims that John Atkinson was the one who chickened out. And
how about the various claims that certain RAO posters are members of
NAMBLA -- are those lies or just clumsy dork humor?


All of these issues certainly raise questions about his credibility. And
also
about his tendencies here to call people with whom he disagrees "liars" -
e.g.
John Kerry, Democrats, etc.

It's not because I disagree with them, it because they lie.


At any rate, duh-Mikey may have choked down a slice today, but it's
a rare occurrence. And he's certainly not above lying about anything
he wants, anytime he wants to.


Apparently neither are you.

Michael McKelvy wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
Michael McKelvy wrote:


dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:03:06 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

of course. Let's start with all the
ridiculous accusations of "fraud" he's hurled at Dr. Richman.

I said at the time and I still maintain he is either not who he says
he
is
or that he is not a psychologist.

What possible proof do you have of this?

Absolutely none, it's an opinion I get to have.

It's a lie you get to make.,




He acts like a jerk IMO.
He doesn't act like any sort of psychologist I've ever read or met.



Having
some idea of professional conduct, I don't believe he's who he says he
is.
If he is who he says he is then the world is a sadder place because of it
IMO.


And there we have it folks, from the person who never knowingly lies
according
to his most recent RAO pronouncements.


If McKelvy ever met any psychologists (which is doubtful), he obviously
failed
to profit from anything they had to say. Of course, his 7 year history of
libel and false statements disqualifies him from rendering any type of
judgments about professional behavior of psychologists. He also fails to
recognize the rather obvious fact that RAO is not an environment in which
people are required to "act professionally", especially when discussing
audio
opinions, not their given vocations.


Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist


Thank for demonstrating why I think you are a ****.










The only thing I've demonstrated is that your 7 year history of lies, libel and
totally unsupported comments about my professional activities, credentials,
etc. is indefensible. Your response is just another proof of that fact, liar.


Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist