Lionel wrote:


Bob I'm a little bit ashamed to request this service...
...I believe to remember that once you told me a story about one of your
friend or perhaps the husband, wife, girl/boy friend of one of your friend
who was a french psychologist and has some problems to excerce his/her
profession in USA.

I know it's not really important for you but Bruce is challanging in an
other thread.

Thank you for your help,
Lionel








This is, needless to say, a misrepresentation of the tacts. Lionel has
unforunately tried to justify character assassination by bringing up a
discussion between Bob Morein and himself re. a "French psycholoigst". Lionel
is now lying about what I've said. He has also claimed that you told him the
French psychologist suffered from "mentality incompatibility" and he further
claims, as part of his ongoing character assassination games, that after
talking to me, he understands this.

He now is claiming ignorance and claims he can't find the relevant Google post,
even though he was provided with a link to it and was quoted directly.




Bruce J. Richman

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
Lionel wrote:


Bob I'm a little bit ashamed to request this service...
...I believe to remember that once you told me a story about one of your
friend or perhaps the husband, wife, girl/boy friend of one of your
friend
who was a french psychologist and has some problems to excerce his/her
profession in USA.

I know it's not really important for you but Bruce is challanging in an
other thread.

Thank you for your help,
Lionel

This is, needless to say, a misrepresentation of the tacts. Lionel has
unforunately tried to justify character assassination by bringing up a
discussion between Bob Morein and himself re. a "French psycholoigst".
Lionel
is now lying about what I've said. He has also claimed that you told him
the
French psychologist suffered from "mentality incompatibility" and he
further
claims, as part of his ongoing character assassination games, that after
talking to me, he understands this.

He now is claiming ignorance and claims he can't find the relevant Google
post,
even though he was provided with a link to it and was quoted directly.

I like you both, so this is hard to take.
This story was given to me by a family relation who knows the woman in
question. Therefore, I can't provide the depth that either of you would
require to assassinate the other .
The woman is a French national, and was a practicing psychotherapist in
France.
She emigrated to the U.S., and became a permanent resident here.
She does not practice psychotherapy here, because, she states, her
training/orientation would have been useless. She attributed this to a
profound difference in culture.
My relative has negotiated with French businessmen, both in and out of
France.
He was given lessons on how to interact with persons of French culture, so
as to avoid misunderstanding by inadvertent subconscious miscues.

In particular, I was told, the French regard direct, intense eye contact as
a vital proof of sincerity. In Anglo Saxon culture, eye contact is more
fleeting. Apparently, I would do well in France, because I have a very
intense stare .

There is also a difference in the handshake, but I can't remember what it
was.

Another example: the French, I am told, prefer to do business by direct,
face-to-face contact. In Anglo-Saxon culture, arranging a visit to a
person's office may be regarded as superflous, or in some cases, even
offensive. For example, in the entertainment industry, which is my current
focus, it is regarded as an offense to request to visit an agent, rep, or
manager. When the possibility of a definite contractual relationship arises,
there may be a visit, but not before then.

I can tell you that I offended a French person mortally, some years ago, by
picking my teeth in front of him. All I can say in defense is that my gums
were killing me .

I do not know the full extent of it, but it would appear to me that there is
much of interest here.

Robert Morein wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
Lionel wrote:


Bob I'm a little bit ashamed to request this service...
...I believe to remember that once you told me a story about one of your
friend or perhaps the husband, wife, girl/boy friend of one of your
friend
who was a french psychologist and has some problems to excerce his/her
profession in USA.

I know it's not really important for you but Bruce is challanging in an
other thread.

Thank you for your help,
Lionel

This is, needless to say, a misrepresentation of the tacts. Lionel has
unforunately tried to justify character assassination by bringing up a
discussion between Bob Morein and himself re. a "French psycholoigst".
Lionel
is now lying about what I've said. He has also claimed that you told him
the
French psychologist suffered from "mentality incompatibility" and he
further
claims, as part of his ongoing character assassination games, that after
talking to me, he understands this.

He now is claiming ignorance and claims he can't find the relevant Google
post,
even though he was provided with a link to it and was quoted directly.

I like you both, so this is hard to take.

I'm glad to hear it. There is no reason for you to feel otherwise, I would
hope.


This story was given to me by a family relation who knows the woman in
question. Therefore, I can't provide the depth that either of you would
require to assassinate the other .

I have no interest in character assassination. Until he started with personal
insults and thinly veiled attempts at character assassination, I had not made
negative comments about Lionel's "personal": or "intellectual" qualiities. It
appears, unfortunately, that like a few others on RAO (2, in particular ), he
cannot accept disagreement on an issue very easily without responding with
personal insults. If he were in therapy and I noticed this, it would be an
issue to work on .


The woman is a French national, and was a practicing psychotherapist in
France.

Ah, thanks, Bob. That may help to clarify things. Lionel probably mispoke or
misunderstood when she claimed you were talking about a French "psychologist".
As I'm sure you know, "psychotherapist" is a generic term in the US and
generally refers to somebody trained at the Master's level (or even below if
working in a public agency). Most states do not license people at the Master's
level as "psychoterapists{", but rather llicense them as "licensed clinical
social workers" or "licensed mental health counselors" or "licensed marriarge &
family therapists". All of these licenses require a Master's degree at a
minimum.
The minimum requirement to be licensed as a psychologist would be a Ph.D. or
Psy.D. (or its equivalent) from an American University. When evaluating people
from other countries, American licensing boards are very strict and consider
the extent to which the person's training corresponds to that required in the
US. A friend of mine has a doctorate in Psychyology from Columbia (the
country, nhot the university); it is not recognized here as equivalent to an
American doctorate, so she can not be licensed as a psychologist (she is
licensed as a mental health counselor).



She emigrated to the U.S., and became a permanent resident here.
She does not practice psychotherapy here, because, she states, her
training/orientation would have been useless. She attributed this to a
profound difference in culture.

This is a strange conclusiion, IMHO, for her to reach. While I certainly make
no pretense of being familiar with French trainign programs in psychotherapy,
there are very few mainstream approaches to therapy that are almost universally
practiced, and are relatively culture-free. The 2 major approaches employed by
most professionals are (1) psychodynamic, insight-oriented therapy, and (2)
coginitive-behavioral, learning-theory-oriented therapy,


My relative has negotiated with French businessmen, both in and out of
France.
He was given lessons on how to interact with persons of French culture, so
as to avoid misunderstanding by inadvertent subconscious miscues.

In particular, I was told, the French regard direct, intense eye contact as
a vital proof of sincerity. In Anglo Saxon culture, eye contact is more
fleeting. Apparently, I would do well in France, because I have a very
intense stare .


Are you saying that this woman found it difficult to conduct therapy because of
stylistic differences in which her "therapy style" favors a lot of eye contact
and direct communication. If so, she should not find that incompatible with a
cognitive-behavioral approach to therapy.
(Not the spproach used on The Sopranos, regrettably).

My post-doctoral training program (in Philadephia, btw - Temple Medical School
and EPPI) had psychologists and psychiatrists present from a number of
Euriopean countries, so at least as regards a behavioral approach, cuiltural
differences did not appear to be an issue.

There is also a difference in the handshake, but I can't remember what it
was.

Another example: the French, I am told, prefer to do business by direct,
face-to-face contact. In Anglo-Saxon culture, arranging a visit to a
person's office may be regarded as superflous, or in some cases, even
offensive. For example, in the entertainment industry, which is my current
focus, it is regarded as an offense to request to visit an agent, rep, or
manager. When the possibility of a definite contractual relationship arises,
there may be a visit, but not before then.

I can tell you that I offended a French person mortally, some years ago, by
picking my teeth in front of him. All I can say in defense is that my gums
were killing me .

I do not know the full extent of it, but it would appear to me that there is
much of interest here.




Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Perhaps part of the problem is Lionel's
desire to demonstrate his "flaming skills" (I think he regards this all as a
big game), coupled with a poor choice of vocabulary.
Certainly nothing you've said about this woman indicates that she suffered from
what Lionel called "mentality incompatibility". Although it's just my
subjective opinion, I would advise her to discuss her "culture shock" problem
re. the practice of psychotherapy in the US with a licensed therapist with whom
she feels comfortable. It may also be advisable for her to consider getting
additional training. Philadelphia is an excellent center for training in CBT,
with the most well known facility being the Center for Cognitive Therapy.



Bruce J. Richman

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
Robert Morein wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
Lionel wrote:


Bob I'm a little bit ashamed to request this service...
...I believe to remember that once you told me a story about one of
your
friend or perhaps the husband, wife, girl/boy friend of one of your
friend
who was a french psychologist and has some problems to excerce his/her
profession in USA.

I know it's not really important for you but Bruce is challanging in
an
other thread.

Thank you for your help,
Lionel

This is, needless to say, a misrepresentation of the tacts. Lionel has
unforunately tried to justify character assassination by bringing up a
discussion between Bob Morein and himself re. a "French psycholoigst".
Lionel
is now lying about what I've said. He has also claimed that you told
him
the
French psychologist suffered from "mentality incompatibility" and he
further
claims, as part of his ongoing character assassination games, that
after
talking to me, he understands this.

He now is claiming ignorance and claims he can't find the relevant
Google
post,
even though he was provided with a link to it and was quoted directly.

I like you both, so this is hard to take.

I'm glad to hear it. There is no reason for you to feel otherwise, I
would
hope.


This story was given to me by a family relation who knows the woman in
question. Therefore, I can't provide the depth that either of you would
require to assassinate the other .

I have no interest in character assassination. Until he started with
personal
insults and thinly veiled attempts at character assassination, I had not
made
negative comments about Lionel's "personal": or "intellectual" qualiities.
It
appears, unfortunately, that like a few others on RAO (2, in particular
), he
cannot accept disagreement on an issue very easily without responding with
personal insults. If he were in therapy and I noticed this, it would be
an
issue to work on .


The woman is a French national, and was a practicing psychotherapist in
France.

Ah, thanks, Bob. That may help to clarify things. Lionel probably
mispoke or
misunderstood when she claimed you were talking about a French
"psychologist".

I don't mean to undercut you here, but I don't know which category she falls
into.

As I'm sure you know, "psychotherapist" is a generic term in the US and
generally refers to somebody trained at the Master's level (or even below
if
working in a public agency). Most states do not license people at the
Master's
level as "psychoterapists{", but rather llicense them as "licensed
clinical
social workers" or "licensed mental health counselors" or "licensed
marriarge &
family therapists". All of these licenses require a Master's degree at a
minimum.
The minimum requirement to be licensed as a psychologist would be a Ph.D.
or
Psy.D. (or its equivalent) from an American University. When evaluating
people
from other countries, American licensing boards are very strict and
consider
the extent to which the person's training corresponds to that required in
the
US. A friend of mine has a doctorate in Psychyology from Columbia (the
country, nhot the university); it is not recognized here as equivalent to
an
American doctorate, so she can not be licensed as a psychologist (she is
licensed as a mental health counselor).



She emigrated to the U.S., and became a permanent resident here.
She does not practice psychotherapy here, because, she states, her
training/orientation would have been useless. She attributed this to a
profound difference in culture.

This is a strange conclusiion, IMHO, for her to reach. While I certainly
make
no pretense of being familiar with French trainign programs in
psychotherapy,
there are very few mainstream approaches to therapy that are almost
universally
practiced, and are relatively culture-free. The 2 major approaches
employed by
most professionals are (1) psychodynamic, insight-oriented therapy, and
(2)
coginitive-behavioral, learning-theory-oriented therapy,


My relative has negotiated with French businessmen, both in and out of
France.
He was given lessons on how to interact with persons of French culture,
so
as to avoid misunderstanding by inadvertent subconscious miscues.

In particular, I was told, the French regard direct, intense eye contact
as
a vital proof of sincerity. In Anglo Saxon culture, eye contact is more
fleeting. Apparently, I would do well in France, because I have a very
intense stare .


Are you saying that this woman found it difficult to conduct therapy
because of
stylistic differences in which her "therapy style" favors a lot of eye
contact
and direct communication.

No. I'm mixing in comments from my relative (identified as such) with
comments from the French woman.
I have no specific information as to what made her conclude that a
continuation of her professional career in the U.S. was impossible.


If so, she should not find that incompatible with a
cognitive-behavioral approach to therapy.
(Not the spproach used on The Sopranos, regrettably).

My post-doctoral training program (in Philadephia, btw - Temple Medical
School
and EPPI) had psychologists and psychiatrists present from a number of
Euriopean countries, so at least as regards a behavioral approach,
cuiltural
differences did not appear to be an issue.

There is also a difference in the handshake, but I can't remember what it
was.

Another example: the French, I am told, prefer to do business by direct,
face-to-face contact. In Anglo-Saxon culture, arranging a visit to a
person's office may be regarded as superflous, or in some cases, even
offensive. For example, in the entertainment industry, which is my
current
focus, it is regarded as an offense to request to visit an agent, rep, or
manager. When the possibility of a definite contractual relationship
arises,
there may be a visit, but not before then.

I can tell you that I offended a French person mortally, some years ago,
by
picking my teeth in front of him. All I can say in defense is that my
gums
were killing me .

I do not know the full extent of it, but it would appear to me that there
is
much of interest here.




Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Perhaps part of the problem is Lionel's
desire to demonstrate his "flaming skills" (I think he regards this all as
a
big game), coupled with a poor choice of vocabulary.
Certainly nothing you've said about this woman indicates that she suffered
from
what Lionel called "mentality incompatibility". Although it's just my
subjective opinion, I would advise her to discuss her "culture shock"
problem
re. the practice of psychotherapy in the US with a licensed therapist with
whom
she feels comfortable. It may also be advisable for her to consider
getting
additional training. Philadelphia is an excellent center for training in
CBT,
with the most well known facility being the Center for Cognitive Therapy.

Apparently, this goes some years back. I'm not in a communicative position
with her, and she lives in California.

Bruce J. Richman wrote:

Lionel
has unforunately tried to justify character assassination by bringing
up a discussion between Bob Morein and himself re. a "French
psycholoigst".

As if we needed any more evidence that Bruce's clock has an overwound
spring.

There's apparently no such thing as a disagreement in Bruce's world - just
character assassination.

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 00:53:52 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote about French/'merican cultural
differences:

There is also a difference in the handshake, but I can't remember what it
was.

It was probably that the French almost always shake hands upon seeing
someone and shake their hands upon leaving.

If a Frenchperson comes up on a group of four people, they will
generally go down the line, shaking hands with each as they say hello
(the same upon goodbye).

We obviously don't do this nearly as often - in fact, sometimes it's
looked upon as over-formal.

Lionel wrote:

Bruce J. Richman - - mercredi
14 Avril 2004 07:41 wrote:

I have no interest in character assassination. Until he started with
personal insults and thinly veiled attempts at character assassination, I
had not made
negative comments about Lionel's "personal": or "intellectual" qualiities.
It appears, unfortunately, that like a few others on RAO (2, in
particular ), he cannot accept disagreement on an issue very easily
without responding with
personal insults. If he were in therapy and I noticed this, it would be
an issue to work on .

Thank you Doctor I prefer that.
Please believe me I sincerely appreciate you Bruce, you are a good companion
for me.
A little bit like my grand-father, except your occasional incontinence and
the fact that we are obliged to speak loud and repeat 2 times the same
sentences you are friendly and amusing.







As usual, and as I predicted, you can't prevent yourself, apparently, from
engaging in personal attacks. Obviously, you don't know what you're talking
about when you substitute ridiculous false claims for factual information.
But that is what you've become known for on RAO.


Bruce J. Richman

Arny Krueger decidees to throw a few ridiculous lies my way:


Bruce J. Richman wrote:

Lionel
has unforunately tried to justify character assassination by bringing
up a discussion between Bob Morein and himself re. a "French
psycholoigst".

As if we needed any more evidence that Bruce's clock has an overwound
spring.


Who is the "we" you're referring to, pathological liar Krueger? Other than
your puppet, McKelvy, you don't appear to have anybody in agreement with you on
RAO.

As usual, you can always be counted on to insert yourself in a thread for the
purpose of making an unprovoked personal insult based on your *unique* brand of
fbalse information and/or psychobabble.



There's apparently no such thing as a disagreement in Bruce's world - just
character assassination.




Prove it, pathological liar Krueger. How ironic that you've just engaged in
character assassination as you've done for years whiile lying about somebody
else's ways of disagreement.

Perhaps Krueger should tell us how his "disagreements" earned him the
distinction of being, AFAIK, the only RAO poster to be banned from RAHE. Oh
wait, that was for his inability to stop engaging in character assassination of
the many people with whom he disagrees.

LOL!!!



Bruce J. Richman

On 14 Apr 2004 15:04:09 GMT, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

Perhaps Krueger should tell us how his "disagreements" earned him the
distinction of being, AFAIK, the only RAO poster to be banned from RAHE. Oh
wait, that was for his inability to stop engaging in character assassination of
the many people with whom he disagrees.

Yep, that was the very same group that, if one didn't post to it, they
weren't credible, seemingly according to Arnold. He used to use it as
some sort of yardstick to determine someone's worth.

How the "mighty" have fallen...

Bruce J. Richman wrote:

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

I believe that would be a false claim Bruce, but I'll attribute it to your
ignorance, not your bad will. I think your ignorance far outweighs your bad
will, no matter how much bad will you try to spread, and BTW succeed at
spreading.

I obtained this non-existent & totally imaginary distinction by complaining
about the way the moderators randomly threw away my posts, sometimes at the
rate of several a day. They eventually made some vague admissions about
having a problem with doing that to other posters as well. I also complained
about the totally bogus grounds that the moderators refused to post many of
my posts, such as claiming that a thread where the OP post was about DBTs,
was not about DBTs. One such instance is fully documented in the RAO
archives. Needless to say, there were many more.

It turned out to be a big time-saver for me.

RAHE has degenerated into a childish game where delusional golden-ear
audiophiles like Harry Lavo, Michael Scarpitti, S888wheel, Ludivic Mirabel,
etc (no doubt many are pseudonyms)endlessly waste the time of knowledgeable
people such as Tom Nousaine, Dick Pierce, and Steven Sullivan who unlike
them, can actually perceive audio at some level other than magic.

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 18:11:44 +0200, François Yves Le Gal
wrote:

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 17:52:16 +0200, Lionel wrote:

Have a look to RAHE today and try to specially focus on S888Wheel posts. I
challenge you to find *any* interesting information.

RAHE is a barren desert, with self-designated censors posing as moderators.

You know, it's funny that it was that very moderation that people like
Arnold and Howard use to praise, and they would claim that anyone not
willing to submit to such moderation was somehow suspect, or a coward.

I tend to agree with you about RAO though. The political stuff can
generally go to hell. I don'tmind occasionally commenting on an issue
but Sandman's obsession with the Democratic party, and pyjamarama's
need to act as his mirror has choked RAO out.

Of course, there's the fear that if one expresses his subjective
opinion about music, someone like Arnold will soil the thread at the
first opportunity. But that's been going on for years...

dave weil wrote:
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 18:11:44 +0200, François Yves Le Gal
wrote:

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 17:52:16 +0200, Lionel
wrote:

Have a look to RAHE today and try to specially focus on S888Wheel
posts. I challenge you to find *any* interesting information.

RAHE is a barren desert, with self-designated censors posing as
moderators.

You know, it's funny that it was that very moderation that people like
Arnold and Howard use to praise, and they would claim that anyone not
willing to submit to such moderation was somehow suspect, or a coward.

First off, let's point out that Weil has zero personal experience with
posting on RAHE. Search google by group name and poster name and reach your
own conclusions.

In contrast, Le Gal has posted there something like 1,060 times, and
Krueger has posted there 1,860 times as "Krueger" and 509 additional times
as "Kr|ger" which was something that RAHE's moderation engine fabricated
from the proper German spelling of my last name.

So, we've got yet another case of Weil talking about something that he has
no personal experience, with despite the fact that obtaining personal
experience with RAHE can be easy and free.

Of course, there's the fear that if one expresses his subjective
opinion about music, someone like Arnold will soil the thread at the
first opportunity. But that's been going on for years...

Check the Usenet archives folks. Weil generally posts personal attacks or
off-the-topic of audio. I generally make technical posts on the topic of
audio. I guess that means that in Weil's book, on-topic, audio-related posts
are "soil". His behavior corresponds to the idea that on-topic,
audio-related posts are soil, so at least he's consistent. That would be
consistently making personal attacks and/or posting off the topic of audio.

"Arny Krueger" wrote

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

I obtained this non-existent & totally imaginary distinction
by complaining about the way the moderators randomly
threw away my posts, sometimes at the rate of several
a day.

Book-Burner® Bath wrote "There is one thing that the
folks on RAO are correct about: You're as paranoid
as hell."


It turned out to be a big time-saver for me.

If you eliminate a half dozen more groups you might
actually get a life AND a personality, Arny .


RAHE has degenerated into a childish game where
delusional golden-ear audiophiles...

Hehehe...oh, please. I was banned from the group.
You have no idea what/who "golden-ear" represent,
except in your mind. You haven’t achieved/earned the
distinction/threat of being an *independent thinker*.
But I'll have to agree with the Book- Burner® "You're
as paranoid as hell."

Lionel wrote:


Bruce J. Richman - - mercredi
14 Avril 2004 16:59 wrote:

Lionel wrote:

Bruce J. Richman - -
mercredi 14 Avril 2004 07:41 wrote:

I have no interest in character assassination. Until he started with
personal insults and thinly veiled attempts at character assassination,
I had not made
negative comments about Lionel's "personal": or "intellectual"
qualiities.
It appears, unfortunately, that like a few others on RAO (2, in
particular ), he cannot accept disagreement on an issue very easily
without responding with
personal insults. If he were in therapy and I noticed this, it would be
an issue to work on .

Thank you Doctor I prefer that.
Please believe me I sincerely appreciate you Bruce, you are a good
companion for me.
A little bit like my grand-father, except your occasional incontinence and
the fact that we are obliged to speak loud and repeat 2 times the same
sentences you are friendly and amusing.


As usual, and as I predicted, you can't prevent yourself, apparently, from
engaging in personal attacks. Obviously, you don't know what you're
talking
about when you substitute ridiculous false claims for factual
information. But that is what you've become known for on RAO.

Ok I will summarize it especially for you Bruce.

I'm usually agree with you except when we attempt to discuss about :

- Israel
- Palestine
- Vinyl records
- Arnold Krueger
- Marc Phillips
- U.N.

This let us a large field, free for fruitful and interesting exchanges.












I can discuss anything with anybody without personal insults getting in the
way. Can you?



Bruce J. Richman

Powell wrote:

I was banned from the group. (RAHE)

Thanks for proving my claim about Richman's ignorance of the relevant facts.

Date: 4/14/2004 8:35 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Bruce J. Richman wrote:

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

I believe that would be a false claim Bruce, but I'll attribute it to your
ignorance, not your bad will. I think your ignorance far outweighs your bad
will, no matter how much bad will you try to spread, and BTW succeed at
spreading.

I obtained this non-existent & totally imaginary distinction by complaining
about the way the moderators randomly threw away my posts, sometimes at the
rate of several a day. They eventually made some vague admissions about
having a problem with doing that to other posters as well. I also complained
about the totally bogus grounds that the moderators refused to post many of
my posts, such as claiming that a thread where the OP post was about DBTs,
was not about DBTs. One such instance is fully documented in the RAO
archives. Needless to say, there were many more.


Cut to the chase Arny. You were banned for being an asshole. That was the only
time I have ever seen an RAHE moderator make such a remark about anyone posting
on RAHE. Nice job.


It turned out to be a big time-saver for me.

Gives you more time for your personal attacks against those who disagree with
you on RAO. Yeah, that's a step up. That's salvation. Sad



RAHE has degenerated into a childish game

The childish games were going on well before I ever heard of RAHE and they will
likely continue with the same old cast of "charctures" with nothing better to
do with their lives than lurk around waiting to pounce on anyone with any real
interst in audio to say something for them to argue about. Most of the
audiophile world has moved on. I'm just about ready to do so myself. I have
seen what the regulars have to offer there. I'm not impressed. Their brand of
bad science is anoying but largely harmless due to the minimal unmovable
audience.


where delusional golden-ear
audiophiles like Harry Lavo, Michael Scarpitti, S888wheel, Ludivic Mirabel,
etc (no doubt many are pseudonyms)

You know my name. LOL do you think avoiding it now will help you in court? That
is my email address. That works as ID thanks.

endlessly waste the time of knowledgeable
people such as Tom Nousaine, Dick Pierce, and Steven Sullivan who unlike
them, can actually perceive audio at some level other than magic.


Nice strawman. Cite one example of any of the above named people making any
claims of paercieving audio to be literal magic. Now if you mean we percieve it
to be magic in a figuritive sense I agree. I hope that Nousaine, Peirce and
Sullivan can enjoy audio in the same figuritve way. Maybe some of them can't.

Lionel Chapuis wrote:


Bruce J. Richman - - mercredi
14 Avril 2004 17:04 wrote:

Perhaps Krueger should tell us how his "disagreements" earned him the
distinction of being, AFAIK, the only RAO poster to be banned from RAHE.
Oh wait, that was for his inability to stop engaging in character
assassination of the many people with whom he disagrees.

LOL!!!

Bruce I'm not trying to extort you some nasty confidences but...
Have a look to RAHE today and try to specially focus on S888Wheel posts. I
challenge you to find *any* interesting information.
Between you and me we are really better here on RAO joking, bellowing and
vociferating.
Why do you think that they always come back ? ;-)








The criteria the moderators use for inclusion of posts on RAHE are a matter of
public record. In fact, they are frequently posted on RAHE. They don't
eliminate posters because of their own personal views of what is "interesting"
or "not interesting". Relatively speaking, RAHE is free of personal insults
due to the presence of moderation. This is also true of such very active
*moderated* forums for audio discussion as Audio Asylum and others. While you
might not know this, Krueger has in the past actively opposed efforts to turn
RAO into a moderated audio NG. Given his preferred method of operation, the
reasons are obvious.



Bruce J. Richman

S888Wheel wrote:

Nice strawman. Cite one example of any of the above named people
making any claims of paercieving audio to be literal magic.

Nice straw man. Cite one example of me making claims that these people
perceive audio to be literal magic.

Now if you mean we percieve it to be magic in a figuritive sense I agree.

Doooh!

I hope that Nousaine, Pierce and Sullivan can enjoy audio in the same
figuritve way.

I don't. I hope they really and truly enjoy audio even though they
understand it well at a detailed level. I know Nousiane well enough to say
that his enjoyment of audio is greatly enhanced by his depth of
understanding of the technology. I suspect the same is true for the others.

Maybe some of them can't.

It's a common naive radical subjectivist conceit that people who have a good
intellectual understanding of audio have somehow diminished their enjoyment
of it.

Thanks for showing how naive pedestrian and anti-intellectual you are,
sockpuppet.

Arny Krueger wrote:



Powell wrote:

I was banned from the group. (RAHE)

Thanks for proving my claim about Richman's ignorance of the relevant facts.










Powell does not mention whether or not he was an active RAO poster at the time.

Krueger's lies conveniently ignore the fact that he was banned from RAHE by the
moderators for unacceptable behavior on a molderated NG. Of course, he
provides evidence of that unacceptable behavior on RAO quite frequently.



Bruce J. Richman

Message-id:


Given your lack of credibility and stupidity (as in labeling a discussion of
mine about Daniel Lanois as an unprovoked personal attack even though it did
not involve you at all), your opinions are predictably misguided and
prejudiced.

Funny, but it seems Arny often finds discussions of excellent music as a
personal attack against him. Maybe that is why he cuompulsively drops trow and
craps threads about music. He seems to hate such discussions on RAO.

Scott Wheeler wrote:


Date: 4/14/2004 8:35 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Bruce J. Richman wrote:

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

I believe that would be a false claim Bruce, but I'll attribute it to your
ignorance, not your bad will. I think your ignorance far outweighs your bad
will, no matter how much bad will you try to spread, and BTW succeed at
spreading.

I obtained this non-existent & totally imaginary distinction by complaining
about the way the moderators randomly threw away my posts, sometimes at the
rate of several a day. They eventually made some vague admissions about
having a problem with doing that to other posters as well. I also complained
about the totally bogus grounds that the moderators refused to post many of
my posts, such as claiming that a thread where the OP post was about DBTs,
was not about DBTs. One such instance is fully documented in the RAO
archives. Needless to say, there were many more.


Cut to the chase Arny. You were banned for being an asshole. That was the
only
time I have ever seen an RAHE moderator make such a remark about anyone
posting
on RAHE. Nice job.


And contrary to Krueger's claims, he certainly does appear to have that
"distinction".



It turned out to be a big time-saver for me.

Gives you more time for your personal attacks against those who disagree with
you on RAO. Yeah, that's a step up. That's salvation. Sad







RAHE has degenerated into a childish game

The childish games were going on well before I ever heard of RAHE and they
will
likely continue with the same old cast of "charctures" with nothing better to
do with their lives than lurk around waiting to pounce on anyone with any
real
interst in audio to say something for them to argue about. Most of the
audiophile world has moved on. I'm just about ready to do so myself. I have
seen what the regulars have to offer there. I'm not impressed. Their brand of
bad science is anoying but largely harmless due to the minimal unmovable
audience.


where delusional golden-ear
audiophiles like Harry Lavo, Michael Scarpitti, S888wheel, Ludivic Mirabel,
etc (no doubt many are pseudonyms)

You know my name. LOL do you think avoiding it now will help you in court?
That
is my email address. That works as ID thanks.

endlessly waste the time of knowledgeable
people such as Tom Nousaine, Dick Pierce, and Steven Sullivan who unlike
them, can actually perceive audio at some level other than magic.


Nice strawman. Cite one example of any of the above named people making any
claims of paercieving audio to be literal magic. Now if you mean we percieve
it
to be magic in a figuritive sense I agree. I hope that Nousaine, Peirce and
Sullivan can enjoy audio in the same figuritve way. Maybe some of them can't.



















Bruce J. Richman

Date: 4/14/2004 8:52 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Bruce J. Richman - - mercredi
14 Avril 2004 17:04 wrote:

Perhaps Krueger should tell us how his "disagreements" earned him the
distinction of being, AFAIK, the only RAO poster to be banned from RAHE.
Oh wait, that was for his inability to stop engaging in character
assassination of the many people with whom he disagrees.

LOL!!!

Bruce I'm not trying to extort you some nasty confidences but...
Have a look to RAHE today and try to specially focus on S888Wheel posts. I
challenge you to find *any* interesting information.
Between you and me we are really better here on RAO joking, bellowing and
vociferating.
Why do you think that they always come back ? ;-)







He might have found this interesting...

"Subject: Art Blakey and the Jazz Messangers
From: (S888Wheel)
Date: 4/13/2004 11:18 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Blue Note record Moanin will be out soon on Classics. This is a truly great
title. I am looking forward to this release."

I'm sure he found your response telling...

"Subject: Art Blakey and the Jazz Messangers
From: Lionel il
Date: 4/14/2004 2:12 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel - - mercredi 14
Avril 2004 08:18 wrote:

Blue Note record Moanin will be out soon on Classics. This is a truly
great title. I am looking forward to this release.

Are you preparing a "big band" orgy at home ?
I guess that Boon is playing the double-bass. ;-)"

You keep shooting yourself in the foot while you do your credibility tap dance.

The great thing about wiping the **** off your shoe is you get to leave it in
the gutter where it belongs. ;-)

Scott Wheeler wrote:


Message-id:


Given your lack of credibility and stupidity (as in labeling a discussion of
mine about Daniel Lanois as an unprovoked personal attack even though it did
not involve you at all), your opinions are predictably misguided and
prejudiced.

Funny, but it seems Arny often finds discussions of excellent music as a
personal attack against him. Maybe that is why he cuompulsively drops trow
and
craps threads about music. He seems to hate such discussions on RAO.







Well, discussions of music involve subjective opinions and individual
preferences, 2 activities anathema to Krueger. Therefore, it's not surprising
he would try and discourage both types of behavior on RAO.

Actually, he foolishly tried to list a series of posts, documented by Google,
in which he claimed I had engaged in unprovoked personal attacks on him. The
first one I checked, not surprisingly, contained a discussion of Daniel Lanois'
activities as an aranger, and of course NO MENTION OF KRUEGER WHATSOEVER. I
just mentioned this to illustrate Krueger's tendency to make things up as he
goes along.



Bruce J. Richman

Bruce J. Richman wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:


Bruce J. Richman wrote:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Bruce J. Richman wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

Powell wrote:

I was banned from the group. (RAHE)

Thanks for proving my claim about Richman's ignorance of the
relevant facts.

Powell does not mention whether or not he was an active RAO poster at
the time.

Classic case of making up a vague rule after being proven wrong quite
conclusively.

Bruce, given how much you are driven by hatred of me, you should attack me
for being unwilling to admit a mistake. I might hurt myself laughing.

S888Wheel wrote:
Message-id:


Given your lack of credibility and stupidity (as in labeling a
discussion of mine about Daniel Lanois as an unprovoked personal
attack even though it did not involve you at all), your opinions are
predictably misguided and prejudiced.

Funny, but it seems Arny often finds discussions of excellent music
as a personal attack against him.

Prove it.

Arny Krueger wrote:


Bruce J. Richman wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:


Bruce J. Richman wrote:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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










A mistake, not ignorance, Arny. And certainly not comparable to your
deliberately lying when you posted a list of alleged unprovoked personal
attacks against me in which the first one you listed involved a discussion of
the music of Daniel Lanois with no reference to you whatsoever. So when
discussing, "ignorance", it appears that you've been much more overt in
displaying yours.

You've also made either deliberately false or simply ignorant comments about
the profession of psychology on RAO, and have been shown to be wrong re. the
training and/or licensing requirements for that field.

It would appear that your ignorance on a variety of topics certainly exceeds my
occasional error on a few.



Bruce J. Richman

Bruce J. Richman wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:


Bruce J. Richman wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:


Bruce J. Richman wrote:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

A mistake, not ignorance, Arny.

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

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

;-)

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

Arny Krueger wrote:


Bruce J. Richman wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

Powell wrote:

I was banned from the group. (RAHE)

Thanks for proving my claim about Richman's ignorance of the
relevant facts.

Powell does not mention whether or not he was an active RAO poster at
the time.

Classic case of making up a vague rule after being proven wrong quite
conclusively.

Dramatic instance of bull**** in which Krueger conveniently ignores the fact
that I qualified my statement in 2 ways: (1) by saying AFAIK - leaving room for
exceptions, and (2) referencing it to RAO posters only. Krueger, as usual, has
deleted the original post, and tried to get mileage from presenting a
deliberately distorted "version" of events in a self-serving fashion.



Bruce, given how much you are driven by hatred of me, you should attack me
for being unwilling to admit a mistake. I might hurt myself laughing.


Mind-reading and projection of Krueger's own despicable behavior on to others
duly noted.

Krueger has been proven to be lying quite frequently on RAO, yet he has never
admitted that he deliberately makes things up for no apparent purpose other
than to either (a) engage in character assassination and/or libel, or (b)
promote his anti-individual-preference, anti-subjective-opinion, anti-vinyl,
anti-tube prejudices



Bruce J. Richman

Arny Krueger wrote"


Bruce J. Richman wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:


Bruce J. Richman wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:


Bruce J. Richman wrote:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

A mistake, not ignorance, Arny.

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

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

;-)

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











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

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

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



Bruce J. Richman

Bruce J. Richman wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:


Bruce J. Richman wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

Powell wrote:

I was banned from the group. (RAHE)

Thanks for proving my claim about Richman's ignorance of the
relevant facts.

Powell does not mention whether or not he was an active RAO poster
at the time.

Classic case of making up a vague rule after being proven wrong quite
conclusively.

Dramatic instance of bull**** in which Krueger conveniently ignores
the fact that I qualified my statement in 2 ways: (1) by saying AFAIK
- leaving room for exceptions,

The allowable exceptions would be based on you not knowing, which would be
your ignorance, right?

and (2) referencing it to RAO posters only.

Thanks Bruce for admitting that your claim related to RAO posters, which
clearly includes Powell.

Bruce, here's the material you posted earlier today, that you are now
claiming I am nefariously somehow keeping people from seeing:

Bruce J. Richman wrote in Message-ID:


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

Note that you said nothing about a requirement for Powell to be an "active
poster". Note that you're now trashing me for pointing out that your new
gratuitously-added qualification is vague.

Krueger, as usual, has deleted the original post, and tried to
get mileage from presenting a deliberately distorted "version" of
events in a self-serving fashion.

Bruce apparently lives in an alternative universe where the posts from
earlier today are not readily available.

Lionel wrote:


Bruce J. Richman - - mercredi
14 Avril 2004 19:18 wrote:

Lionel wrote:


Bruce J. Richman - -
mercredi 14 Avril 2004 16:59 wrote:

Lionel wrote:

Bruce J. Richman - -
mercredi 14 Avril 2004 07:41 wrote:

I have no interest in character assassination. Until he started with
personal insults and thinly veiled attempts at character
assassination, I had not made
negative comments about Lionel's "personal": or "intellectual"
qualiities.
It appears, unfortunately, that like a few others on RAO (2, in
particular ), he cannot accept disagreement on an issue very easily
without responding with
personal insults. If he were in therapy and I noticed this, it would
be an issue to work on .

Thank you Doctor I prefer that.
Please believe me I sincerely appreciate you Bruce, you are a good
companion for me.
A little bit like my grand-father, except your occasional incontinence
and the fact that we are obliged to speak loud and repeat 2 times the
same sentences you are friendly and amusing.


As usual, and as I predicted, you can't prevent yourself, apparently,
from
engaging in personal attacks. Obviously, you don't know what you're
talking
about when you substitute ridiculous false claims for factual
information. But that is what you've become known for on RAO.

Ok I will summarize it especially for you Bruce.

I'm usually agree with you except when we attempt to discuss about :

- Israel
- Palestine
- Vinyl records
- Arnold Krueger
- Marc Phillips
- U.N.

This let us a large field, free for fruitful and interesting exchanges.












I can discuss anything with anybody without personal insults getting in
the
way. Can you?

Because I've seen that it disturbs you so much, I will do my best if I have
further exchanges with you.








It doesn't disturb me much at all. Don't flatter yourself . I just find the
personal attacks a waste of time. Inevitably, the attacks become the main
focus and the subject under discussion becomes secondary. A perfect example of
that is Krueger's RAO behavior, in which the large majority of his posts, even
if on topic occasionally, are generally coupled with personal attacks. Of
course, many of them, are made almost entirely for that purpose.



Bruce J. Richman

Arny Krueger wrote:


Bruce J. Richman wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:


Bruce J. Richman wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

Powell wrote:

I was banned from the group. (RAHE)

Thanks for proving my claim about Richman's ignorance of the
relevant facts.

Powell does not mention whether or not he was an active RAO poster
at the time.

Classic case of making up a vague rule after being proven wrong quite
conclusively.

Dramatic instance of bull**** in which Krueger conveniently ignores
the fact that I qualified my statement in 2 ways: (1) by saying AFAIK
- leaving room for exceptions,

The allowable exceptions would be based on you not knowing, which would be
your ignorance, right?

and (2) referencing it to RAO posters only.

Thanks Bruce for admitting that your claim related to RAO posters, which
clearly includes Powell.


There was nothing to admit. The phrase, "RAO posters" was contained in the
original post that I made.


Bruce, here's the material you posted earlier today, that you are now
claiming I am nefariously somehow keeping people from seeing:

Bruce J. Richman wrote in Message-ID:


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

Note that you said nothing about a requirement for Powell to be an "active
poster". Note that you're now trashing me for pointing out that your new
gratuitously-added qualification is vague.


An obvious lie, since my original post clearly claims "RAO poster" banned from
RAHE. Krueger's attempt to claim my post did not include Powell's name is
totally irrelevant.


Krueger, as usual, has deleted the original post, and tried to
get mileage from presenting a deliberately distorted "version" of
events in a self-serving fashion.

Bruce apparently lives in an alternative universe where the posts from
earlier today are not readily available.




Krueger's attempts to rationalize deliberate deletions of previously posted
material are quite predictable. He's been criticized frequently by various RAO
posters for this fraudulent practice. It is quite obvious that when he
deliberately edits the posts of others before responding to them, that he tries
to omit information that shows him in a valid, and often damaging, way.

Apparently Krueger is laboring under the misguided belief that by either
totally eliminating or deceptively editing/deleting the posts of others he can
prevent others (perhaps newbies) from getting a full picture of his behavior on
RAO.



Bruce J. Richman

Bruce J. Richman wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[snip]

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

Primarily the echo.

Arny Krueger wrote:


Bruce J. Richman wrote:



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


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



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

As paranoid as you are Bruce,

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



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

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


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

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


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


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



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

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


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



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

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


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


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






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







Bruce J. Richman

Bruce J. Richman wrote:

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

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


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

As paranoid as you are Bruce,

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

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

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

A butchered paraphrase, and disproof by means of assertion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prove it.

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

That, of course, is a lie.

Claims of mind-reading noted.

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

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

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

I've made many errors.

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

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

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

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:58:29 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

You know, it's funny that it was that very moderation that people like
Arnold and Howard use to praise, and they would claim that anyone not
willing to submit to such moderation was somehow suspect, or a coward.

First off, let's point out that Weil has zero personal experience with
posting on RAHE. Search google by group name and poster name and reach your
own conclusions.

I chose not to post there *precidsely* because of the moderation.
Turns out that I made the right choice.

In contrast, Le Gal has posted there something like 1,060 times, and
Krueger has posted there 1,860 times as "Krueger" and 509 additional times
as "Kr|ger" which was something that RAHE's moderation engine fabricated
from the proper German spelling of my last name.

So, we've got yet another case of Weil talking about something that he has
no personal experience, with despite the fact that obtaining personal
experience with RAHE can be easy and free.

But not free of "moderation". As you found out, to your dismay.

You used to boast that it was this moderation that set it apart from
RAO. Turns out that it ended up biting you in the ass.

Of course, there's the fear that if one expresses his subjective
opinion about music, someone like Arnold will soil the thread at the
first opportunity. But that's been going on for years...

Check the Usenet archives folks. Weil generally posts personal attacks or
off-the-topic of audio. I generally make technical posts on the topic of
audio.

Thisof course, especially the last part, is a lie. The archives proves
this.

I guess that means that in Weil's book, on-topic, audio-related posts
are "soil".

Your abuse of the English language is a constant source of amusement.

His behavior corresponds to the idea that on-topic,
audio-related posts are soil, so at least he's consistent. That would be
consistently making personal attacks and/or posting off the topic of audio.

yawn

dave weil wrote:
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:58:29 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

You know, it's funny that it was that very moderation that people
like Arnold and Howard use to praise, and they would claim that
anyone not willing to submit to such moderation was somehow
suspect, or a coward.

First off, let's point out that Weil has zero personal experience
with posting on RAHE. Search google by group name and poster name
and reach your own conclusions.

I chose not to post there *precidsely* because of the moderation.

Weil, your lack of precision has nothing to do it?

LOL!

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 19:43:50 +0200, François Yves Le Gal
wrote:

Of course, there's the fear that if one expresses his subjective
opinion about music, someone like Arnold will soil the thread at the
first opportunity

Krüger isn't the only problem.

That's why I said "someone like Aronld", which encompasses more than
just Arnold.

Arnold has a unique problem is that certain keywords like "vinyl" seem
to set him off. He almost goes into a Tourette's-style trance. If he
would just leave his biases out of conversations that don't concern
him, he would get a lot less flak. But, let's face it, he seems to
relish being an irritant. He seems to make it his role at RAO.