Please reference the below post.

Have you had patients present themselves with the symptoms described below?
Individuals with obsessive-compulsive disorder, with which there is a
partial resemblance, occasionally request treatment, even though self-denial
is a usual aspect.


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


Robert Morein said:

1. How long (over what duration) and how many of Kreeger's posts did you
examine before you reached the now indisputable diagnosis?

If you mean the diagnosis that Krooger is nutty as a fruitcake, it's
hard to say with certainty, but not many. I was strongly influenced by
Derrida's similar conclusion back in '97 or '98.

2. Did the diagnosis reveal itself in final form, or did it evolve to
the
present conclusion?

Guh?
In other words, was the first conclusion that you formed basically the same
as the opinion you now hold?
My own personal opinion, which is not to be regarded as fact, progressed as
follows:
1. intolerant and abusive.
2. the rather common need to be regarded as an authority
3. rather unusual lack of intellectual scruples
4. pathological liar
5. need to be victimized, to the extent of setting up confrontations -- this
was a real shocker
6. stereotypical repetition of behavior with the rigidity of
obsessive-compulsive disorder

It was not until I saw "5" and "6" that I concluded that Krueger's
difficulties are more than the rough-shod personalities one so frequently
encounters in life. I'm sure Richman would agree that in the context of the
currently permissive psychotheraputic definitions of insanity, it is
particularly telling when the individual's behavior works to his own
disadvantage.

Five of the above overlap McCarty's behavior. McCarty, however, is
distinguished by a completely different need to encrypt his own identity
into sockpuppets, a syndrome that may have not existed until the advent of
usenet, and the pursuit of personal monetary gain by subterfuge. I see no
sign of that in Kreuger [sic].


My hat is off to you, a first rate diagnostician, for picking this up.

Thanks. Also, it was considerate of you to use your Comcast account in
order to allay suspicions about whether it's really you.

Accidental, I'm afraid, though this post is deliberately from that account.

Robert Morein wrote:


Please reference the below post.


OK. I'll make a few general comments.


Have you had patients present themselves with the symptoms described below?

No, at least not with a *combination* of the 6 characteristics that you
mention. Nor would I necessarily characterize somebody that repeats the same
stock phrases and criticisms over and over again as necessarily "obsessional".
For example, look at the repetitive hatemongering currently being spewed by
RAO's resident extreme right-wing zealot and Democrat basher.

To arrive at a diagnosis of "obsessional", one would need to have some credible
evidence of a fairly frequent set of thought patterns that are (a) intrusive,
(b) involuntary, (c) extremely difficult to either stop or decrease in
frequency without assistance from others, and in most cases, in need of
professional treatment.
All that said, constant repetition of the same types of propaganda would
indicate a set of highly learned, habitual responses that are most likely
"cued" (triggered" by various stimuli (e.g. reflexive responses to certain RAO
posters0. Operant conditioning can be very powerful .

As far as self-defeating, perpetual victim type of behavior is concerned, I've
definitely seen people in therapy that get "secondary gain" or reinforcement
from this form of behavior. But when it occurs, it would be more likely
attached to a personality disorder in which the need for recognition, even if
that "recognition" involves being constantly ridiculed, scorned, insulted, etc.
In other words, for some people, negative attention is much more reinforcing
than simply being ignored. We have a talk show host in Miami, Neil Rogers,
who adopts an on-air persona of bitching about everything to deliberate
generate high ratings. As you might expect, people tune in and call up simply
to criticize him, but for him, the fact that they listen and respond is the
reward. (In real life, however, he is a very nice guy - I've been a guest on
his show in times past, and the onair kvetch/iconoclast/hatemongering is just a
role he plays to generate discussion and get ratings). Sorry for the
digression, but this was one of the best examples of getting reinforced for
being "despised" I could think of besides those who do it on RAO, of course.


Individuals with obsessive-compulsive disorder, with which there is a
partial resemblance, occasionally request treatment, even though self-denial
is a usual aspect.


See above comments. Usually people that are abusive, intolerant, arrogant and
seeing themselves as experts, are unwilling to voluntarily seek treatment for
behavioral and/or emotional problems because they think they "have all the
answers" and regard psychotherapy as a sign of "weakness" or "vulnerability".
Exceptions IME would occur when the person like the one you describe is
convinced to seek treatment for the benefit of other people important to
him/her - e.g. spouse, children, other family members, or in some cases, by an
employer (who might use job stability as leverage). Treatment for such
individuals IME may also occur when there are some legal issues involved - e.g.
divorce, child custody disputes, substance abuse, criminal behavor, legal suits
for slander, libel, etc. In such cases, the person's attorney may well
recommend treatment as part of a defense strategem. I've obtained several
referrals from attornies of people of this type.

Obviously, if somebody were a pathological liar and decided to continue that
role in therapy, it would be a waste of time for both of us. Any professional
psychologist, including myself, would, if at all possible, make every effort to
obtain corollary data from other significant people in the person's life to
either validate or invalidate behavioral evidence presented by the patient. Of
course, this can be and is done only with the patient's permission. Aside from
that, I simply tell all patients in as nonthreatening a way as possible that I
shall expect them to be completely honest with me. I further assure them that
I will do the same with them. Needless to say, I also add that if they don't
follow this simple guideline, they will be wasting their time and money.




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


Robert Morein said:

1. How long (over what duration) and how many of Kreeger's posts did you
examine before you reached the now indisputable diagnosis?

If you mean the diagnosis that Krooger is nutty as a fruitcake, it's
hard to say with certainty, but not many. I was strongly influenced by
Derrida's similar conclusion back in '97 or '98.

2. Did the diagnosis reveal itself in final form, or did it evolve to
the
present conclusion?

Guh?
In other words, was the first conclusion that you formed basically the same
as the opinion you now hold?
My own personal opinion, which is not to be regarded as fact, progressed as
follows:
1. intolerant and abusive.
2. the rather common need to be regarded as an authority
3. rather unusual lack of intellectual scruples
4. pathological liar
5. need to be victimized, to the extent of setting up confrontations -- this
was a real shocker
6. stereotypical repetition of behavior with the rigidity of
obsessive-compulsive disorder

It was not until I saw "5" and "6" that I concluded that Krueger's
difficulties are more than the rough-shod personalities one so frequently
encounters in life. I'm sure Richman would agree that in the context of the
currently permissive psychotheraputic definitions of insanity, it is
particularly telling when the individual's behavior works to his own
disadvantage.


As I've mentioned above, self-defeating behavior in which the likely outcome is
verbal abuse, ridicule, confrontations, while admittedly abnormal, is not, IME,
all that uncommon. For example, people with certain personality disorders
(e.g. narcissistic personality disorder) often have such a strong need for
recognitiion and agrandizement that if they can't achieve this through positive
behavior, will settle for achieving this through negative behavior in which
being the center of attention is a very powerful positive reinforcement.
(And as we know, behavior that is positively reinforced tends to be repeated
over and over again in a very standardized way, as Skinner demonstrated many
years ago. Some of the behaviors seen on RAO remind me quite a bit of the
responses produced by operant conditioning).


A few more comments. Usually, compulsive behavior refers to various types of
"rituals" such as repetitive handwashing, counting various specific objects,
"checking" behaviors (e.g. constantly checking to see if doors are locked or
windows closed), preoccupation with sanitation to an abnormal degree
(sometimes associated with a fear of contamination), and/or an excessive
preoccupation with details in one's work, for example. Regarding the last,
it's a matter of degree as to whether it's abnormal or not. For example, a
detail-oriented, somewhat compulsive scientist or psychologist (who takes
copious notes) might be considered more skiilled than one who is less precise.

Regarding the use of the term "insanity", it is INACCURATE to use it when
talking about the diagnosis. of an individual. "Insanity" is a LEGAL term, not
a MEDICAL OR PSYCHOLOGICAL term. You will not find any psychologist or
psychiatrist describing a patient as "insane" as less it is part of a legal
proceeding. For a number of years, I've been on a panel of psychologists and
psychiatrists that get appointed by judges to detemine whether accused people
are (a) competent to stand trial, (b) meet the criteria for "insanity" at the
time of their alleged crime - i.e. unable to tell the difference between right
and wrong and/or unable to control their behavior at the time of the alleged
crime. As in a couple of recent child murder cases that have made the news,
"insanity defenses" may be used by attornies, and psychological/psychiatric
testimony given concerning some of the issues above. However, aside from
criminal defense proceedings, the term "insanity" is rarely used. Recently in
South Florida, a 14 year old boy went into his public school rest room and slit
another youngster's throat. He is being tried for 1st degree murder as an
adult, and it looks like his attornies will be trying an insanity defense,
since this kid had all sorts of diaries dealing with death, murders, "hit
lists", weapons, etc. It will be interesting to see how this develops.

Regarding the abnormal behavior seen on RAO, you can describe some of it as
"neurotic" (although that term is no longer used in official diagnoses),
"psychotic", or representative of a "personality disorder", but NOT as
"insanity".

As I've said before many times, a formal diagnosis can NOT be given by a
licensed mental health professional without a face-to-face personal evaluation.
Therefore, any labeling done here could merely be descriptive and said to
"resemble" the behavior pattern often found in people with a certain diagnosis.

Also, keep in mind that the behavior presented here on RAO may or may not, of
course, be representative of how they act when they are not online. Reports
from family, friends, enemies, etc. would be needed to establish the extent to
which online behavior is typical of offline behavior. And direct observation
would be the best way of measuring this.

As an aside, there are several excellent, highly sophisticated, extremely well
standardized personality tests that can be quite helpful in establishing a
diagnosis when combined with direct observational data. Both the Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and the Millon Clinical Multiaxial
Inventory (MCMI) have been widely used in both outpatient and hospital settings
to help establish diagnostic pictures of individuals being assessed by
psychologists. These instruments are also sometimes used in legal proceedings.
In addition, they are both quite good at detecting malingering and lying by
testees trying to conceal information or present a misleading picture of
themselves.







Five of the above overlap McCarty's behavior. McCarty, however, is
distinguished by a completely different need to encrypt his own identity
into sockpuppets, a syndrome that may have not existed until the advent of
usenet, and the pursuit of personal monetary gain by subterfuge. I see no
sign of that in Kreuger [sic].


My hat is off to you, a first rate diagnostician, for picking this up.

Thanks. Also, it was considerate of you to use your Comcast account in
order to allay suspicions about whether it's really you.

Accidental, I'm afraid, though this post is deliberately from that account.












Bruce J. Richman

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


Please reference the below post.


OK. I'll make a few general comments.


Have you had patients present themselves with the symptoms described
below?

No, at least not with a *combination* of the 6 characteristics that you
mention. Nor would I necessarily characterize somebody that repeats the
same
stock phrases and criticisms over and over again as necessarily
"obsessional".
For example, look at the repetitive hatemongering currently being spewed
by
RAO's resident extreme right-wing zealot and Democrat basher.

So, you're saying, there are a number of ways that repetitive behavior can
exist without being classified obsessional.

To arrive at a diagnosis of "obsessional", one would need to have some
credible
evidence of a fairly frequent set of thought patterns that are (a)
intrusive,
(b) involuntary, (c) extremely difficult to either stop or decrease in
frequency without assistance from others, and in most cases, in need of
professional treatment.
All that said, constant repetition of the same types of propaganda would
indicate a set of highly learned, habitual responses that are most likely
"cued" (triggered" by various stimuli (e.g. reflexive responses to certain
RAO
posters0. Operant conditioning can be very powerful .

So, if you'll permit a layman to ramble a bit,
1. True obsessive-compulsive behavior is self-contained, ie., internally
triggered, or, if an external trigger exists, it is of the most trivial
kind, such as a pair of lady's shoes to stomp on.

2. Arny's behavior on this newsgroup contains an external component in the
loop, ie. the response of posters to his "bait"; hence it is encompassed
more by the phrase "operant conditioning", although there must be an
internal component that makes him susceptible to conditioning in that
manner.

[snip]
We have a talk show host in Miami, Neil Rogers,
who adopts an on-air persona of bitching about everything to deliberate
generate high ratings. As you might expect, people tune in and call up
simply
to criticize him, but for him, the fact that they listen and respond is
the
reward. (In real life, however, he is a very nice guy - I've been a guest
on
his show in times past, and the onair kvetch/iconoclast/hatemongering is
just a
role he plays to generate discussion and get ratings). Sorry for the
digression, but this was one of the best examples of getting reinforced
for
being "despised" I could think of besides those who do it on RAO, of
course.

In Arny's case, however, there is no evidence of conscious awareness that he
is seeking attention in the form of "kick-me, kick-me".

Individuals with obsessive-compulsive disorder, with which there is a
partial resemblance, occasionally request treatment, even though
self-denial
is a usual aspect.


See above comments. Usually people that are abusive, intolerant, arrogant
and
seeing themselves as experts, are unwilling to voluntarily seek treatment
for
behavioral and/or emotional problems because they think they "have all the
answers" and regard psychotherapy as a sign of "weakness" or
"vulnerability".
Exceptions IME would occur when the person like the one you describe is
convinced to seek treatment for the benefit of other people important to
him/her - e.g. spouse, children, other family members, or in some cases,
by an
employer (who might use job stability as leverage). Treatment for such
individuals IME may also occur when there are some legal issues involved -
e.g.
divorce, child custody disputes, substance abuse, criminal behavor, legal
suits
for slander, libel, etc. In such cases, the person's attorney may well
recommend treatment as part of a defense strategem. I've obtained several
referrals from attornies of people of this type.

We can always hope that the festering lawsuit would have that effect .

[snip]

Robert Morein wrote:


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


Please reference the below post.


OK. I'll make a few general comments.


Have you had patients present themselves with the symptoms described
below?

No, at least not with a *combination* of the 6 characteristics that you
mention. Nor would I necessarily characterize somebody that repeats the
same
stock phrases and criticisms over and over again as necessarily
"obsessional".
For example, look at the repetitive hatemongering currently being spewed
by
RAO's resident extreme right-wing zealot and Democrat basher.

So, you're saying, there are a number of ways that repetitive behavior can
exist without being classified obsessional.


Correct. Obsessional thoughts are certainly a possibility. However, many
people just exhibit habitual behavior that is voluntary (unlike obsessional
thoughts), highly learned, highly practiced, and conditioned to occur when
triggered by various stimuli.



To arrive at a diagnosis of "obsessional", one would need to have some
credible
evidence of a fairly frequent set of thought patterns that are (a)
intrusive,
(b) involuntary, (c) extremely difficult to either stop or decrease in
frequency without assistance from others, and in most cases, in need of
professional treatment.
All that said, constant repetition of the same types of propaganda would
indicate a set of highly learned, habitual responses that are most likely
"cued" (triggered" by various stimuli (e.g. reflexive responses to certain
RAO
posters0. Operant conditioning can be very powerful .

So, if you'll permit a layman to ramble a bit,
1. True obsessive-compulsive behavior is self-contained, ie., internally
triggered, or, if an external trigger exists, it is of the most trivial
kind, such as a pair of lady's shoes to stomp on.


I would say the *motivation* for the O-C behavior is generally internal,
although external stimuli may play a causal role in actually determining that
the behavior occurs. For example, a person with an irrational fear of being
contaminated may have recurrent thoughts dealing with this subject and, when in
certain environments such as their home engage in repetitive hand=washing,
cleaning their house, etc. I once had a patient who used to joke about having
the only house with "6 layers of Pledge" on all the furniture.


2. Arny's behavior on this newsgroup contains an external component in the
loop, ie. the response of posters to his "bait"; hence it is encompassed
more by the phrase "operant conditioning", although there must be an
internal component that makes him susceptible to conditioning in that
manner.

[snip]
We have a talk show host in Miami, Neil Rogers,
who adopts an on-air persona of bitching about everything to deliberate
generate high ratings. As you might expect, people tune in and call up
simply
to criticize him, but for him, the fact that they listen and respond is
the
reward. (In real life, however, he is a very nice guy - I've been a guest
on
his show in times past, and the onair kvetch/iconoclast/hatemongering is
just a
role he plays to generate discussion and get ratings). Sorry for the
digression, but this was one of the best examples of getting reinforced
for
being "despised" I could think of besides those who do it on RAO, of
course.

In Arny's case, however, there is no evidence of conscious awareness that he
is seeking attention in the form of "kick-me, kick-me".


All I'm saying that is, if a person's posts on RAO are constantly attacked,
ridiculed, scorned, confronted, etc., yet that person persists in posting the
same way over a long period of time, then it is reasonable to assume that the
person gets some "reward" or "benefit" in continuing that berhavior.
Generating attention and responses, even negative ones, can be powerful
incentives for some people. IOW, for some people, negative attention if much
more highly rewarding than being killfiled and ignored. We also have no way of
knowing about a person's internal belief system here, unless they share that
with us - which has been done to some extent. Given a certain belief system a
set of values, some folks may believe (whether rationally or irrationally) that
by constant repetition of those beliefs they can somehow "convert" or
"convince" others to adopt their point of view. See my earlier example re.
RAO's resident enstreme right-wing hatemonger currently attempting to
monopolize RAO pstings with anti-Democratic Party propaganda.




Individuals with obsessive-compulsive disorder, with which there is a
partial resemblance, occasionally request treatment, even though
self-denial
is a usual aspect.


See above comments. Usually people that are abusive, intolerant, arrogant
and
seeing themselves as experts, are unwilling to voluntarily seek treatment
for
behavioral and/or emotional problems because they think they "have all the
answers" and regard psychotherapy as a sign of "weakness" or
"vulnerability".
Exceptions IME would occur when the person like the one you describe is
convinced to seek treatment for the benefit of other people important to
him/her - e.g. spouse, children, other family members, or in some cases,
by an
employer (who might use job stability as leverage). Treatment for such
individuals IME may also occur when there are some legal issues involved -
e.g.
divorce, child custody disputes, substance abuse, criminal behavor, legal
suits
for slander, libel, etc. In such cases, the person's attorney may well
recommend treatment as part of a defense strategem. I've obtained several
referrals from attornies of people of this type.

We can always hope that the festering lawsuit would have that effect .

[snip]











Bruce J. Richman

On 9/5/04 15:36, in article ,
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote:

Usually people that are abusive, intolerant, arrogant and
seeing themselves as experts, are unwilling to voluntarily seek treatment for
behavioral and/or emotional problems because they think they "have all the
answers" and regard psychotherapy as a sign of "weakness" or "vulnerability".
Exceptions IME would occur when the person like the one you describe is
convinced to seek treatment for the benefit of other people important to
him/her - e.g. spouse, children, other family members

The Morein family has been trying to get Bob into treatment for years, and
he uses such discussions as an opportunity to point out that he's got an
"education" and that he's "too smart to benefit from psycho-quackery".

And since he's never been employed, he's got no disgruntled employer to
steer him in that direction.

So what's a family to do when they have no influence in this matter? Wait
for the inevitable break with reality and have him hospitalized? This seems
to dangerous for the community at large.

Sylvan Morein, DDS

On 9/5/04 15:36, in article ,
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote:

Usually people that are abusive, intolerant, arrogant and
seeing themselves as experts, are unwilling to voluntarily seek treatment for
behavioral and/or emotional problems because they think they "have all the
answers" and regard psychotherapy as a sign of "weakness" or "vulnerability".
Exceptions IME would occur when the person like the one you describe is
convinced to seek treatment for the benefit of other people important to
him/her - e.g. spouse, children, other family members

The Morein family has been trying to get Bob into treatment for years, and
he uses such discussions as an opportunity to point out that he's got an
"education" and that he's "too smart to benefit from psycho-quackery".

And since he's never been employed, he's got no disgruntled employer to
steer him in that direction.

So what's a family to do when they have no influence in this matter? Wait
for the inevitable break with reality and have him hospitalized? This seems
to dangerous for the community at large.

Sylvan Morein, DDS

On 9/5/04 15:36, in article ,
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote:

Usually people that are abusive, intolerant, arrogant and
seeing themselves as experts, are unwilling to voluntarily seek treatment for
behavioral and/or emotional problems because they think they "have all the
answers" and regard psychotherapy as a sign of "weakness" or "vulnerability".
Exceptions IME would occur when the person like the one you describe is
convinced to seek treatment for the benefit of other people important to
him/her - e.g. spouse, children, other family members

The Morein family has been trying to get Bob into treatment for years, and
he uses such discussions as an opportunity to point out that he's got an
"education" and that he's "too smart to benefit from psycho-quackery".

And since he's never been employed, he's got no disgruntled employer to
steer him in that direction.

So what's a family to do when they have no influence in this matter? Wait
for the inevitable break with reality and have him hospitalized? This seems
to dangerous for the community at large.

Sylvan Morein, DDS

Bruce,
Permit me to throw out an informal comparison of McCarty vs. Krueger:

1. In terms of the theory of "subjugation of the ego" to society, which has
been used by the FBI in criminal profiling, Krueger's ego is mostly or
completely conformant, while the newsgroups are a steam valve for the part
that is not. McCarty's ego, on the other hand, is nonconformant, in other
words, his is the classic full-blown psychopath.

2. Krueger has a very strong sense of self-identity, while McCarty's sense
of self identity is deviant, although I lack an understanding of how.

3. I suspect that Krueger's disorder may be very context dependent. Is it
possible that such an individual could function with relative normality in
other social venues.

4. Krueger's behavior exhibits paranoid elements. McCarty's behavior, on the
other hand, is characterized by a sense of power and control, as in mania,
that appears to be semicyclic.

I categorize the two above points as opposite poles of adjustment: victim
vs. victimization.

In the case of the visible characteristics, I suspect that McCarty's
personality disorder is somewhat more pervasive. Considering his temporary
success at advancing his business schemes and recruiting collaborators, it
appears he can project normality under limited circumstance for a limited
period of time. However, in prolonged association with business partners, it
appears that the psychopathology surfaces.

Bruce, perhaps I should have been a psychologist, since I find this kind of
analysis fascinating, even if I cannot do it with anything approaching
professional expertise. Your comments are solicited.

Robert Morein wrote:


Bruce,
Permit me to throw out an informal comparison of McCarty vs. Krueger:

1. In terms of the theory of "subjugation of the ego" to society, which has
been used by the FBI in criminal profiling, Krueger's ego is mostly or
completely conformant, while the newsgroups are a steam valve for the part
that is not. McCarty's ego, on the other hand, is nonconformant, in other
words, his is the classic full-blown psychopath.

2. Krueger has a very strong sense of self-identity, while McCarty's sense
of self identity is deviant, although I lack an understanding of how.

3. I suspect that Krueger's disorder may be very context dependent. Is it
possible that such an individual could function with relative normality in
other social venues.

4. Krueger's behavior exhibits paranoid elements. McCarty's behavior, on the
other hand, is characterized by a sense of power and control, as in mania,
that appears to be semicyclic.

I categorize the two above points as opposite poles of adjustment: victim
vs. victimization.

In the case of the visible characteristics, I suspect that McCarty's
personality disorder is somewhat more pervasive. Considering his temporary
success at advancing his business schemes and recruiting collaborators, it
appears he can project normality under limited circumstance for a limited
period of time. However, in prolonged association with business partners, it
appears that the psychopathology surfaces.

Bruce, perhaps I should have been a psychologist, since I find this kind of
analysis fascinating, even if I cannot do it with anything approaching
professional expertise. Your comments are solicited.





It's certainly possible that a person can act quite obnoxiously, defying logic,
in one setting and behave in a more socially acceptable way elsewhere. Whether
that would apply to the people you mention is open to questions that can only
be answered from first-hand observation. I've never met or spoken to anybody
that has met either one of them, AFAIK. Has anybody on RAO actually met either
one or have any firsthand knowledge of their offline behavior? Given
Nousaine's zealous support of Arny's dogmas, I wouldn't count him as an
objective evluator when it comes to this question, which has nothing to do with
audio, but everything to do with social interactions and their appropriateness.

We've both been libeled and/or slandered by both of these folks, so for me at
least, their credibility will always be suspect. That said, McCarty appears to
be much more apt to engage in deceptive posting under pseudonyms, email bombing
attempts (at least in my case and perhaps yours), widespread lying on various
newsgroups such as rec.audio.marketplace and other silly behavoirs that are
quite transparent to most observers. I suspect your conclusion, if I read you
correctly, that he is much more seriously disturbed, is definitely warranted.



Bruce J. Richman

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

[snip]

It's certainly possible that a person can act quite obnoxiously, defying
logic,
in one setting and behave in a more socially acceptable way elsewhere.
Whether
that would apply to the people you mention is open to questions that can
only
be answered from first-hand observation. I've never met or spoken to
anybody
that has met either one of them, AFAIK. Has anybody on RAO actually met
either
one or have any firsthand knowledge of their offline behavior? Given
Nousaine's zealous support of Arny's dogmas, I wouldn't count him as an
objective evluator when it comes to this question, which has nothing to do
with
audio, but everything to do with social interactions and their
appropriateness.

We've both been libeled and/or slandered by both of these folks, so for me
at
least, their credibility will always be suspect. That said, McCarty
appears to
be much more apt to engage in deceptive posting under pseudonyms, email
bombing
attempts (at least in my case and perhaps yours),

Definitely, in my case also.

widespread lying on various
newsgroups such as rec.audio.marketplace and other silly behavoirs that
are
quite transparent to most observers. I suspect your conclusion, if I read
you
correctly, that he is much more seriously disturbed, is definitely
warranted.

I have not met McCarty, but I have spoken to Jeff Wexler, who was his
business partner. In our conversation, Wexler seemed eager to disavow the
relationship. First he denied any business relationship with McCarty. When I
pointed out that his name appeared as "codirector", along with McCarty, on
http://www.coralseastudios.com, he said that IF he had a relationship with
McCarty, he had no control over what McCarty says or does.
The above, by itself, is not conclusive of anything. However, I have spoken
to a number of other people, residents of Cairns, Australia, who either
worked with him or know him in some other way. In most, but not all cases,
the individuals involved knew McCarty only superficially. Typically, they
did not know where he lived, but interacted with him in a limited setting,
such as a local organization. Some individuals in journalism and law
enforcement have highly specific knowledge of McCarty, however.

Highly telling, IMHO, is the fact that McCarty managed to involve the
brother of the P.M. of Australia in the failed Coral Seas Studios project,
as well as Jeff Wexler. A year later, the principle backer, ABN Amro, pulled
out. Was this because something in McCarty's personality surfaced over time?
In any event, it shows that McCarty has a capacity to charm. Eric Toline, a
production sound person from whom I purchased a PortaDAT remote that he used
to manufacture, met McCarty at the last NAB convention, and said, "FWIW, I
met Brian at the NAB convention in Las Vegas last Tuesday. Seemed pleasent
enough."

In the case of both McCarty and Krueger, there is an "idee fixee", a fixed
idea, that drives the thought process in a deviate direction. In Krueger's
case, it could be a messianic notion with respect to audio. In McCarty's
case, he has an unshakeable faith that the Internet provides him with a
shield of anonymity. This is false. But what kinds of crimes would some of
us commit if we were sure we would never get caught? While McCarty's
misbehavior is principally in the realm of civil violation, it's clear to
outside observers that the one thing McCarty's misbehavior cannot do is make
money.

In terms of therapy, my question would be: Is it possible to remove the
"idee fixee"? Can this cause improved adjustment of the individual?

Or is the idee fixee required by the individual for his own self-importance?

Robert Morein wrote:

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

[snip]

It's certainly possible that a person can act quite obnoxiously, defying
logic,
in one setting and behave in a more socially acceptable way elsewhere.
Whether
that would apply to the people you mention is open to questions that can
only
be answered from first-hand observation. I've never met or spoken to
anybody
that has met either one of them, AFAIK. Has anybody on RAO actually met
either
one or have any firsthand knowledge of their offline behavior? Given
Nousaine's zealous support of Arny's dogmas, I wouldn't count him as an
objective evluator when it comes to this question, which has nothing to do
with
audio, but everything to do with social interactions and their
appropriateness.

We've both been libeled and/or slandered by both of these folks, so for me
at
least, their credibility will always be suspect. That said, McCarty
appears to
be much more apt to engage in deceptive posting under pseudonyms, email
bombing
attempts (at least in my case and perhaps yours),

Definitely, in my case also.

widespread lying on various
newsgroups such as rec.audio.marketplace and other silly behavoirs that
are
quite transparent to most observers. I suspect your conclusion, if I read
you
correctly, that he is much more seriously disturbed, is definitely
warranted.

I have not met McCarty, but I have spoken to Jeff Wexler, who was his
business partner. In our conversation, Wexler seemed eager to disavow the
relationship. First he denied any business relationship with McCarty. When I
pointed out that his name appeared as "codirector", along with McCarty, on
http://www.coralseastudios.com, he said that IF he had a relationship with
McCarty, he had no control over what McCarty says or does.
The above, by itself, is not conclusive of anything. However, I have spoken
to a number of other people, residents of Cairns, Australia, who either
worked with him or know him in some other way. In most, but not all cases,
the individuals involved knew McCarty only superficially. Typically, they
did not know where he lived, but interacted with him in a limited setting,
such as a local organization. Some individuals in journalism and law
enforcement have highly specific knowledge of McCarty, however.

Highly telling, IMHO, is the fact that McCarty managed to involve the
brother of the P.M. of Australia in the failed Coral Seas Studios project,
as well as Jeff Wexler. A year later, the principle backer, ABN Amro, pulled
out. Was this because something in McCarty's personality surfaced over time?
In any event, it shows that McCarty has a capacity to charm. Eric Toline, a
production sound person from whom I purchased a PortaDAT remote that he used
to manufacture, met McCarty at the last NAB convention, and said, "FWIW, I
met Brian at the NAB convention in Las Vegas last Tuesday. Seemed pleasent
enough."

In the case of both McCarty and Krueger, there is an "idee fixee", a fixed
idea, that drives the thought process in a deviate direction. In Krueger's
case, it could be a messianic notion with respect to audio. In McCarty's
case, he has an unshakeable faith that the Internet provides him with a
shield of anonymity. This is false. But what kinds of crimes would some of
us commit if we were sure we would never get caught? While McCarty's
misbehavior is principally in the realm of civil violation, it's clear to
outside observers that the one thing McCarty's misbehavior cannot do is make
money.

In terms of therapy, my question would be: Is it possible to remove the
"idee fixee"? Can this cause improved adjustment of the individual?

Or is the idee fixee required by the individual for his own self-importance?


















It is definitely possible, and in fact is the basis of cognitive behavior
therapy. Modification and/or elimination of dysfunctinal thought patterns is
the primary goal of cognitive behavior therapy, and there is a considerable
body of empirical evidence to support its effectiveness. Since you're in
Philadelphia, you might be interested in looking at some of the writings of
Aaron Beck, perhaps the world's foremost living authority on the treatment of
depression, and one of the most important writers in this area. His Institute
for Cognitive Therapy in Philadelphia has trained many psychologists and
psychiatrists. Similarly, Albert Ellis (the founder of the Institute for
Rational Living in NYC, has also written extensively about the role that
distorted thinking plays in the generation of such emotions as depression,
jealousy, anger, inferiority complexes, narcissism, etc.

Perhaps you've heard the expression, "the thought is father of the deed". We
now know that negative emotional experiences are directly caused and generated
by distorted thought patterns, which cognitive therapists call "schemas".
These are belief systems that have been learned over a period of time and
become part of an individual's learned response repertoire.

Cognitive therapy researchers and practitioners have, however, developed a
number of powerful treatment procedures (supported by empirical research) that
can, given a motivated patient, be quite effective in helping a person to
basically change how they view themselves, their current world, and the future
(the 3 elements once referred to by Beck as "the depressive/neurotic triad").
I don't want to get overly technical here, but most cogntive therapy procedures
involve the following:

(1) Helping the patient to "gain awareness" of their dysfunctional thoughts
through the use of such procedures as direct observation, record keeping,
learning how to monitor their thoughts, etc.

(2) Learning how to "dispute" their own arguments by obtaining practical
information that serves as evidence to invalidate their beliefs.

(3) Helping patients to identify the common distortions they use when they
engage in their dysfunctional thought patterns. For example, some of the
distortions include (a) overgeneralization, (b) dichotomous (black-or-white)
thinking, (c) fortunetelling (making unwarranted assumptions about the future
absent evidence to support them).

(4) Giving patients "homework assignments" in which they play an active role
between therapy sessions in learning behaviors (and practicing them) that are
designed to change their dysfunctional thoughts into ones that are more
appropriate and realistic.

Here are a few reading references FWIW:

(1) David Burns - Feeling Good: The New Mood Therapy - an excellent paperback
classic written by one of Beck's proteges and a best seller. (This contains a
rather complete listing of typical cognitive distortions).

(2) Albert Ellis - A Guide to Rational Living - a classic and one of the most
important books in the inception of the cognitive behavior therapy movement
that now dominates most non-pharmacological treatment of psychological
problems.

(3) Aaron Beck - Cognitive Therapy of Depression. Also available in paperback
(as is #2) and while somewhat technical, is highly readable. Another extremely
influentical book in the modern day treatment of individuals.

(4) Araron Beck and Arthur Freeman - Cognitive Therapy of Personality
Disorders. Describes how the modification of schemas is done to help
individuals ameliorate and/or eliminate dysfunctional thought patterns that
promote inappropriate feelings and behaviors.

To get a very insightful sense of how Ellis, Beck and others view
psychopathology, you might want to check out the following link:

http://www.rebt.org/dr/askdrellis.htm




Bruce J. Richman