The first one remains the best. :-)
The last one is not bad either...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
As all RAO regulars know, Michigander Arnii Krooger accused
Californian Scott Wheeler of being a pedophile, and Wheeler took such
offense that he threatened to sue Krooger for libel unless the
accusation is retracted. So far, Krooger has attempted to ply his
"debating trade" garbage rather than comply. This has consisted of
impugning the legal knowledge of everybody who has offered an informed
opinion of libel law, making up alleged "legal principles" out of thin
air, and (as usual) twisting what people say and throwing in a
generous helping of meaningless lies. In short, Krooger has been
unable to recognize that Wheeler is not just playing the RAO game as
usual, but apparently intends to pursue his claim to a court in the
real world. Wheeler gave Krooger until Sept. 20 to retract the post
and apologize for it.

My prediction: On Sept. 19 or 20 -- but not before -- Krooger will
comply in a half-assed way. He will claim that he consulted a lawyer
or lawyers earlier, but the lawyers lied to him. He'll also claim he
did voluminous research on libel law in Michigan, California, and the
U.S., but the books he read lied to him. He'll further claim that
although he made the post, it wasn't really his fault, because
Wheeler's "teammates" or "co-conspirators" or "fellow paid character
assassins" have made the same accusation against Krooger. Or because
RAO has been a nasty little playground for years. Or because Wheeler
"insulted" Krooger at some point. Or some other flimsy excuse. In
short, the apology will be unsatisfactory because Krooger will avoid
taking responsibility for what he said.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

(signed this way because of pending libel suit against Krueger scheduled
to begin on 9/20/03 per Mr. Wheeler - and the need to possibly provide
supportive documentary evidence).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why are you so eager to dissuade Mister Wheeler from filing his
lawsuit against the Krooborg, or, in the alternative, for the clerk of
the court to "reject" the filing, or, in the alternative alternative,
for a judge to dismiss the case?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

He couldn't summons the courage to do even that. He's probably hiding under
his bed, hoping the proces servers won't find him.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Lionel" wrote in message


The first one remains the best. :-)
The last one is not bad either...

Notice how Weil is staying away.

Has the word gone out among the conspirators?

"The Devil" wrote in message
news:3qekh05khn6e96daoapc8ohvkafo4pat3i@rdmzrnewst xt.nz
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:17:58 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Notice how Weil is staying away.

Has the word gone out among the conspirators?

Don't you ever bore yourself, Arnii? In all seriousness, what do you
think *is* wrong with you? Is it dementia? Syphilis? Rabies? Is it
anger at people getting more enjoyment out of music than you do? What
is that has turned you into a relentless moron, a freak, a grotesque
monument of human puke?

Hey, that was a quick-response troll!

;-)

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:17:58 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Lionel" wrote in message


The first one remains the best. :-)
The last one is not bad either...

Notice how Weil is staying away.

I've stayed away from this from the beginning. Is there *no* pleasing
you? I'd think that you'd be grateful that I haven't gotten involved
in this.

Has the word gone out among the conspirators?

Now that's our normal Arnold - making false claims and accusations.
I've had nothing to do with this or claims against you about
pedophilia. In fact, I think I'm on the record as saying that I didn't
buy the pedophilia claims.

So, have fun with your paranoia. It only fools people with limited
English skills.

"dave weil" wrote in message


In fact, I think I'm on the record as saying that I didn't buy the
pedophilia claims.

Weil is one slick dude, isn't he? ;-)

But, he just can't help himself.

"The Devil" wrote in message
news:lhgkh0dp6qj235gfqe265ertgs7vbq2ruk@rdmzrnewst xt.nz
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:47:55 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Hey, that was a quick-response troll!

Consider yourself lucky. It the only post of yours, out of what seems
like millions, that I read.

OK Devil, so you're tired of being called on the carpet for your years of
egregious behavior. It seems like someone should do it. Obviously your
coven-mates won't do it!

"dave weil" a écrit dans le message news:
...

I'd think that you'd be grateful that I haven't gotten involved in this.

What would have been your plan, Dave. Please explain us. Perhaps it's not
too late for Mr S888Wheel.

"Lionel" wrote in message

"dave weil" a écrit dans le message news:
...

I'd think that you'd be grateful that I haven't gotten involved in
this.

What would have been your plan, Dave. Please explain us. Perhaps it's
not too late for Mr S888Wheel.

In fact, Weil is again deluding himself that his involvement would somehow
negatively affect me.

"The Devil" wrote in message
news:g5kkh09mcmn3kvf8hp16772tc87vo08qen@rdmzrnewst xt.nz

There is no 'egregious behaviour' when you are the subject, you dick-
warming chimney-hobbit. Hell, if you were walking in the road I would
drive over you, reverse over you, get out and stamp on you, then kick
you out of my way, perhaps tossing you a bit of change to buy a paper
bag to bury yourself in.

Thanks for sharing!

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 12:14:47 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message


In fact, I think I'm on the record as saying that I didn't buy the
pedophilia claims.

Weil is one slick dude, isn't he? ;-)

Yeah, so slick that I tell the truth, right?

begin Google quote
Do you find it as
bad as those who have accused him of pedophilia?

Thing is you've been out of the Army long enough that you're protected by
the Statute of Limitations, etc. OTOH, the claims about me are current, and
therefore demand immediate legal action if they are true.

I agree. I don't think that they are true though, nor do I condone
such charges.
end Google quote

But, he just can't help himself.

Are you talking about yourself in the third person now?

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 18:27:07 +0200, "Lionel"
wrote:

"dave weil" a écrit dans le message news:
...

I'd think that you'd be grateful that I haven't gotten involved in this.

What would have been your plan, Dave. Please explain us. Perhaps it's not
too late for Mr S888Wheel.

Oh, I had plenty of supporting evidence for the court regarding Mr.
Krueger's propensity for making libelous, unproven claims and charges
of an egregious nature on public forums.

But then again, I could have piled on with the rest of them, which I
didn't do either. In fact, I expressely stated that I didn't believe
the claims nor did I support the allegations.

Dave Weil wrote:


On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:17:58 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Lionel" wrote in message


The first one remains the best. :-)
The last one is not bad either...

Notice how Weil is staying away.

I've stayed away from this from the beginning. Is there *no* pleasing
you? I'd think that you'd be grateful that I haven't gotten involved
in this.

Has the word gone out among the conspirators?

Now that's our normal Arnold - making false claims and accusations.
I've had nothing to do with this or claims against you about
pedophilia. In fact, I think I'm on the record as saying that I didn't
buy the pedophilia claims.

So, have fun with your paranoia. It only fools people with limited
English skills.







Since you mentioned it, I've never been involved in the pedophilia stuff re.
Krueger either. Of course, that has not stopped cmpulsive liar and libeler
Krueger from his usual attempts to twist the facts and distort his sordid
history. It is, of course, a matter of Google record that he has libeled not
just Scott Wheeler with his pedophilia accusations, but also myself and others
whom he has claimed either "do not exist" (in his idiotic sockpuppet conspiracy
claims) or are not licensed to practice their profession. Even John Atkinson,
who generally ignores most of Krueger's libelous claims directed at
Stereophile, has recently gently suggested that legal alternatives to Krueger's
libelous statements may well be considered.



Bruce J. Richman

Arny Krueger a écrit :

"Lionel" wrote in message



The first one remains the best. :-)
The last one is not bad either...


Notice how Weil is staying away.

Has the word gone out among the conspirators?

At this date Dave-The-White was preparing his wrestling match against
Trosky-The-Moron. :-)

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message



Since you mentioned it, I've never been involved in the pedophilia
stuff re. Krueger either.

Richman's approach is often more indirect. When someone accuses me of
pedophilia, Richman shows no feelings of compunction about publicly
supporting or defending that person. At times, he makes specific mention of
the false claim about pedophilia as part of his support for the offender.

dave weil a écrit :


In fact, I expressely stated that I didn't believe
the claims nor did I support the allegations.

I know that you will not believe me but I appreciate *this* position for
many, many reasons.
But why should you care ?

Arny Krueger wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message



Since you mentioned it, I've never been involved in the pedophilia
stuff re. Krueger either.

Richman's approach is often more indirect. When someone accuses me of
pedophilia, Richman shows no feelings of compunction about publicly
supporting or defending that person.

Another outrageous lie from RAO's most despised poster and compulsive liar and
libeler, Krueger. There is no evidence to support his false claims re.
pedophilia.



At times, he makes specific mention of
the false claim about pedophilia as part of his support for the offender.






That would be Krueger's false claims about the pedophilia of Scott Wheeler -
nothing else. Krueger's latest set of lies simply confirm the general RAO
consensus about this compulsive liar. Anything other than complete agreement
with his anti-preference, anti-subjectivie, anti-tube, anti-vinyl, anti-factual
information about others positions -------- just gets you numbered as one of
his countless enemies. Then, of course, you can expect to be targeted for
character assassination, defamation, and libel by RAO's most hated and despised
poster.

The post initiated by Ed Shain in 1999 - "Have You Had A Bad Krueger
Experience" - is ample testimony to Krueger's long and despicable history on
RAO of a severe inability to engage in appropriate interpersonal relations -
even on a Unsenet NG - with those that disagree with this anti-audio-hobbyist
views.




Bruce J. Richman

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message



Since you mentioned it, I've never been involved in the pedophilia
stuff re. Krueger either.

Richman's approach is often more indirect. When someone accuses me of
pedophilia, Richman shows no feelings of compunction about publicly
supporting or defending that person.

Another outrageous lie from RAO's most despised poster and compulsive
liar and libeler, Krueger. There is no evidence to support his false
claims re. pedophilia.

Sure there is - here is just one example:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20...mb-m24.aol.com

At times, he makes specific mention of
the false claim about pedophilia as part of his support for the
offender.

That would be Krueger's false claims about the pedophilia of Scott
Wheeler - nothing else.

Not at all, as the quote above clearly shows.

In this one post of many like it, not only does Richman give Phillips
encouragement, he even counsels Phillips about other areas where he shoould
attack me.

The bottom line is that Richman has not acted in an objective or
professional way on RAO on many occasions.

Arny Krueger wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message



Since you mentioned it, I've never been involved in the pedophilia
stuff re. Krueger either.

Richman's approach is often more indirect. When someone accuses me of
pedophilia, Richman shows no feelings of compunction about publicly
supporting or defending that person.

Another outrageous lie from RAO's most despised poster and compulsive
liar and libeler, Krueger. There is no evidence to support his false
claims re. pedophilia.

Sure there is - here is just one example:


http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20...00471%40mb-m24.
aol.com

At times, he makes specific mention of
the false claim about pedophilia as part of his support for the
offender.

That would be Krueger's false claims about the pedophilia of Scott
Wheeler - nothing else.

Not at all, as the quote above clearly shows.


Bull****. The post which you cited has nothing to do with pedophilia. It is a
direct response to Marc Phillips re. a series of libelous posts by McKelvy,
which you have actively supported and never criticized in the past.




In this one post of many like it, not only does Richman give Phillips
encouragement, he even counsels Phillips about other areas where he shoould
attack me.


Marc Phillips is well aware of your abnormal behavior and lengthy history of
libelous statements made against others. He certainly doesn't need, nor has he
received any advice from me, on how to attack you.

Since you like to cry about the fact that others have not condemned your being
labeled as a pedophile, where have been your condemnations of McKelvy's
libelous smears against me? In point of fact, you never lost an opportunity to
aid and abet him in the perpetuation of his fraudulent claims.




The bottom line is that Richman has not acted in an objective or
professional way on RAO on many occasions.



The objective truth of the matter is that Krueger has consistently lied about
my activities both on RAO and in my professional life. He has no credibility
with anybody other than a few agenda-driven zealots who are prepared to
overlook and condone his compulsive lying, paranoid conspiracy theories, and
despicable history of libel and false claims on RAO.



Bruce J. Richman

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message



Since you mentioned it, I've never been involved in the pedophilia
stuff re. Krueger either.

Richman's approach is often more indirect. When someone accuses me
of pedophilia, Richman shows no feelings of compunction about
publicly supporting or defending that person.

Another outrageous lie from RAO's most despised poster and
compulsive liar and libeler, Krueger. There is no evidence to
support his false claims re. pedophilia.

Sure there is - here is just one example:


http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20...00471%40mb-m24.
aol.com

At times, he makes specific mention of
the false claim about pedophilia as part of his support for the
offender.

That would be Krueger's false claims about the pedophilia of Scott
Wheeler - nothing else.

Not at all, as the quote above clearly shows.


Bull****. The post which you cited has nothing to do with
pedophilia.

Just more of Richman's dissembling. The post in question mentions "child
pornography", which somehow Richman can't find any way to connect with
pedophilia.

Arny Krueger wrote"


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message



Since you mentioned it, I've never been involved in the pedophilia
stuff re. Krueger either.

Richman's approach is often more indirect. When someone accuses me
of pedophilia, Richman shows no feelings of compunction about
publicly supporting or defending that person.

Another outrageous lie from RAO's most despised poster and
compulsive liar and libeler, Krueger. There is no evidence to
support his false claims re. pedophilia.

Sure there is - here is just one example:


http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20...00471%40mb-m24.
aol.com

At times, he makes specific mention of
the false claim about pedophilia as part of his support for the
offender.

That would be Krueger's false claims about the pedophilia of Scott
Wheeler - nothing else.

Not at all, as the quote above clearly shows.


Bull****. The post which you cited has nothing to do with
pedophilia.

Just more of Richman's dissembling. The post in question mentions "child
pornography", which somehow Richman can't find any way to connect with
pedophilia.










Krueger has once again deliberately failed to reproduce a post in its entirety
written by others. As is his usual style of deceptive and fraudulent posting,
he attempts to omit any truthful yet damaging information about him posted by
others. He then continues to lie through his teeth about what others have done
or said.

Note that he continues to avoid condemning McKelvy's libelous statements about
me. It is obvious, therefore, that he condones and approves of them.



Bruce J. Richman

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 12:34:44 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 12:14:47 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
m

In fact, I think I'm on the record as saying that I didn't buy the
pedophilia claims.

Weil is one slick dude, isn't he? ;-)

Yeah, so slick that I tell the truth, right?

begin Google quote
Do you find it as
bad as those who have accused him of pedophilia?

Thing is you've been out of the Army long enough that you're protected by
the Statute of Limitations, etc. OTOH, the claims about me are current, and
therefore demand immediate legal action if they are true.

I agree. I don't think that they are true though, nor do I condone
such charges.
end Google quote

But, he just can't help himself.

Are you talking about yourself in the third person now?

Wow. Arnold doesn't seem to have any spin to this. Amazing.

I'll take your silence as an acknowledgement that I spoke the truth.

Dave Weil wrote:


On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 12:34:44 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 12:14:47 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
om

In fact, I think I'm on the record as saying that I didn't buy the
pedophilia claims.

Weil is one slick dude, isn't he? ;-)

Yeah, so slick that I tell the truth, right?

begin Google quote
Do you find it as
bad as those who have accused him of pedophilia?

Thing is you've been out of the Army long enough that you're protected by
the Statute of Limitations, etc. OTOH, the claims about me are current, and
therefore demand immediate legal action if they are true.

I agree. I don't think that they are true though, nor do I condone
such charges.
end Google quote

But, he just can't help himself.

Are you talking about yourself in the third person now?

Wow. Arnold doesn't seem to have any spin to this. Amazing.

I'll take your silence as an acknowledgement that I spoke the truth.








Krueger has 2 responses to the truthful posts of others:

(1) He fails to respond.

(2) He deliberately omits significant portions of the posts to which he
responds. Of course, the parts he eliminates are those that are truthful about
his numerous lies and attempts to defame others.




Bruce J. Richman

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote"


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message



Since you mentioned it, I've never been involved in the
pedophilia stuff re. Krueger either.

Richman's approach is often more indirect. When someone accuses
me of pedophilia, Richman shows no feelings of compunction about
publicly supporting or defending that person.

Another outrageous lie from RAO's most despised poster and
compulsive liar and libeler, Krueger. There is no evidence to
support his false claims re. pedophilia.

Sure there is - here is just one example:



http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20...00471%40mb-m24.
aol.com

At times, he makes specific mention of
the false claim about pedophilia as part of his support for the
offender.

That would be Krueger's false claims about the pedophilia of Scott
Wheeler - nothing else.

Not at all, as the quote above clearly shows.


Bull****. The post which you cited has nothing to do with
pedophilia.

Just more of Richman's dissembling. The post in question mentions
"child pornography", which somehow Richman can't find any way to
connect with pedophilia.

Krueger has once again deliberately failed to reproduce a post in its
entirety written by others.

Shows how desperate Richman is to complain about anything, no matter how
nonsensical. In this case he's got a precise URL link to it.

As is his usual style of deceptive and
fraudulent posting, he attempts to omit any truthful yet damaging
information about him posted by others.

How can I hide something I posted a link to on a public site?

He then continues to lie
through his teeth about what others have done or said.

All I said is that the post mentions child pornography in relation to me.
Richman seems to disagree that the post does this. Who is lying now?

Note that he continues to avoid condemning McKelvy's libelous
statements about me.

Richman seems to have this problem with the truth. The post in question
contains no direct quotes from McKelvy. It does contain the text of Richman
and Philllips cooperatively attacking McKelvy. I guess that in Richman's odd
little world, this is an example of McKelvy libelling Richman. Note that
I've asked Richman for information about posts that he considers libelous
with no response to this time.


It is obvious, therefore, that he condones and
approves of them.

It's obvious that Richman is desperate to distract people from his
gratuitous flames of McKelvy, Krueger, and Ferstler:

"Well, Marc, you've quite nicely summarized the overwhelmingly negative
impression created by creatures like McKelvy, Krueger and Ferstler. Of
course
, never having met any of them (which I count as a blessing ), I can only
hypothesize as to why they have compulsively subjected themselves to extreme
amounts of deserved abuse, ridicule, scorn and disgust over these many years
on
RAO. I would suspect that aside from their obvious masochistic tendencies
and
blatant disregard for the truth, as well as total inability to engage in
civilized debates with anybody that does not agree with them, they all have
somewhat different motivations and agendas.

Let's start with the gone, but not forgotten, Howierd "at least I'm
published"
Fester. More than the other 2, this fellow appears to have one of the
biggest
egos yet constructed on an inconsequential foundation. At least he had the
honesty at times (something not ever seen in McKelvy, of course) to admit
that
one of his major reasons for being on RAO was to shill for his books and
promote his magazine writings. What was amusing was that as regards his
affiliation with the Sensible Sound, he also violated his own *unique* views
on
the Evil High End Establishment by writing for a subjective review magazine
which, while dealing with primarily budget-level equipment, was nevertheless
every bit as "subjective" as Stereophile, The Absolute Sound, etc. and other
journals that he frequently disparaged. (My own hunch was that he would
have
given anything to write for either one of them). Therefore he revealed
himself
to be a first class hypocrite. In common with the other 2 miscreants, he
exhibited 2 glaring personal deficienciers IMHO: (1) a dichotomous view,
quite
distorted, of audio hobbyists., and (2) an ovewhelming need to get
attention
from others, no matter how often it involved disapproval, ridicule, insults,
etc. On the first item, like McKelvy and Krueger, he engaged in what
cognitive
psychologists call dichotomous thinking - seeing everything as either black
or
white - or in his case, either being a believer in his mantras or a fool.
Other
cognitive distortions, as they are called, involoved overgeneralizing
constantly about adversaries, beloved audio mantras, hated adversaries and
types of gear/media (e.g. anaologue), and marked inability to engage in
rational debate without lapsin into namecalling, personal attacks and/or
outright nastiness. Aside from shilling for his books/magazine articles at
all
costs, Ferstler appeared to irrationally believe that by constanlty making
outrageous comments about audiophiles, manufacturers, etc. he could
actually
"convert" people to his particular brand of "audio religion". If RAO had a
tent and enough holy rollers, IMHO, Ferstler would have been happy to
emulate
Benny Hinn to "heal" the afflicted subjectivists.

As regards Krueger, there's probably nothing I can hypothesize that hasn't
already been done by others. His capacity for abuse seems endless, and his
ability to make enemies and chronically attack other people has been
documented
by many, most notably Ed Shain, in the classic "Bad Krueger Experience"
thread.
Like Ferstler, he makes, in my view, the pathological error of believing in
his own superiority when it comes to "audio knowledge" (whatever the hell
that
is), and has even regularly attacked noted professionals in that field such
as
Glenn Zelniker and John Atkinson. As has been pointed out by myself and at
least one other licensed psychologist in the past on RAO, he appears to meet
the criteria for the APA DSM-IV description of Paranoid Personality
Disorder,
a condition in which hypevigilance, suspicion of others' actions, and
thoughts
of being persecuted appear to be salient characteristics. Note that I am
not
offering a diagnosis, since that can not be done without a face-to-face
evaluation and other procedures. Note also that I'm obviously referring
only
to his online RAO & RAHE behavior, both of which I've had the chancer to
personally observe over the years. While I doubt it, it could be that his
offline behavior is significantly different.
Like Ferstler, he appears to be willing to be regularly attacked, ridiculed
and
reviled in the vain hope that his anti-tube, anti-vinyl, anti-individual
preference agenda will win some converts to his various dogmas. Unlike
either
Ferstler or McKelvy, however, Arny has apparently been able to reach a
unique
distinction - the one person responsible for personal attacks upon more
different, identifiable RAO posters than any other RAO participant. Why
does
he continue to regularly attack people whose only "crime" might be a failure
to
"buy off on" his agenda? Who knows? My only hypothesis would be that
sadistic
hostility towards nonbelievers has become an RAO way of life for him (and
was
certainly his M.O. on RAHE until the moderators finally had enough of it).
I
hoenstly believe that he revels in his horrible reputation, takes a sadistic
pleasure in trying to bully others, and has no ablity to try and convince
others of the "rightness" of his audio religion through the more rational
methods adopted by more civilized RAO participants.

As for McKelvy, his pathological lying and willingness to slander others is
a
matter of public record. Even when regularly shown to be woefully ignorant
of
the facts, as is often the case whether talking about political isues or
deliberately lying about the professional activities of another person, he
never admits errors nor issues retractions. IMHO, he's the most seriously
disturbed of the three, as evidenced by his willingness and tendencies to
cross
a line even Krueger and Ferstler don't normally cross. McKelvy has actively
tried to slander and smear RAO peoples' offline professional activities and
make outrageous claims about them with a total lack of evidence to support
them. While Krueger and Ferstler, of course, are both legitimately despised
for the personal attacks, McKelvy appears to be unique in his willingness to
attack not only RAO posters online behavior but also their professional
and/or
vocational pursuits as well. It appears, therefore, that his hatred and
bitterness towards others is pretty all-consuming and he can't even
discrtiminate between RAO and offline behavior. He's admitted to being in
constant pain and in need of medication. While I have no direct knowledte
of
his medical problems and extent to which he is dependent on narcotic
analgesics, it would not be uncommon for somebody in his condition to be
chronically angry, bitter and hostile towards others. The kneejerk, almost
Pavlovian, rapidity with which he attacks any and all who say anything
negative
about his beloved George Bush and/or other Republicans is another indication
of
his overwhelming hatred for those who don't share his viewpoints. While he
has
lied and frequently denied that he doesn't hate others, his behavior on RAO
strongly suggests that his primary reason for ever appearing on RAOI is to
attack the posts of others. Rarely does he ever have anythin good to say
about
anybody - except Krueger, his role model, of course. To be fair, Ferstler
and
Krueger were/are capable of occasionally making posts absent of personal
attacks and vitriol. McKelvy appears to be almost totally unable to do so.
My
hypothesis would be that among other things, his pain and perhaps other
chronic
problems are at least partially responsible for his blatant nastiness,
dishonesty, and willingness to say anything at any time - no matter how
distorted and false - to engage in personal attacks on others. And while he
accuses others of doing the same, his record speaks for itself. In my view,
he's a seriously disturbed, ignorant, sadist whose only purpose for
appearing
on RAO is to engage in mudslinging, personal attacks, and obviously, for
reasons that escape me, to win the approval of Mr. Krueger, whom he appears
to
idolize and constantly defend.

Arny Krueger lied:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote"


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message



Since you mentioned it, I've never been involved in the
pedophilia stuff re. Krueger either.

Richman's approach is often more indirect. When someone accuses
me of pedophilia, Richman shows no feelings of compunction about
publicly supporting or defending that person.

Another outrageous lie from RAO's most despised poster and
compulsive liar and libeler, Krueger. There is no evidence to
support his false claims re. pedophilia.

Sure there is - here is just one example:



http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20...00471%40mb-m24.
aol.com

At times, he makes specific mention of
the false claim about pedophilia as part of his support for the
offender.

That would be Krueger's false claims about the pedophilia of Scott
Wheeler - nothing else.

Not at all, as the quote above clearly shows.


Bull****. The post which you cited has nothing to do with
pedophilia.

Just more of Richman's dissembling. The post in question mentions
"child pornography", which somehow Richman can't find any way to
connect with pedophilia.

Krueger has once again deliberately failed to reproduce a post in its
entirety written by others.

Shows how desperate Richman is to complain about anything, no matter how
nonsensical. In this case he's got a precise URL link to it.


More evidence of Krueger's attempts to hide the fact that he's deleted large
sections of posts written by me in response to his lies and distortions. Here
are some of them:

Arny Krueger wrote:


"Paul Dormer" wrote in message



Where's the fun?

Contemplating the childish, paranoid, ignoramouses this little piece of
history makes Richman and Middius look like.










Actually, Krueger's misinterpretation of teh behavior of both Wheeler and
myself, simply confirms his lack of contact with reality and his well-earned
reputation as a compulsive liar.

For some *real* fun, people are encouraged to read some of the tributes to
Krueger, RAO's most widely dispised and hated poster, contained in the classic
thread entitled "Have You Had A Bad Krueger Experience":

-----------------------------------------------------------
As far as I can observe, the following contributors to RAO
have all had bitter or hostile exchanges with Arnold Krueger in which
there was some distinguishing negative characteristic, whether
contempt, lying, dishonest quoting, altered texts, attacks without
provocation, intellectual dishonesty, refusal to admit error,
manipulated context etc. I believe an accurate list of all who've had
such an experience might be productive in developing a less hostile
atmosphere here on RAO.

The list is *not* meant to include those who have merely had
an argument with Mr. Krueger or who simply dislike him. It is *not* a
popularity contest. It is mean to be a list of people who have been
involved in an exchange with Arnold in which, in their view, he
behaved badly or in ways that might discourage an honest, open, and
free exchange of views here on RAO.

If I have inadvertently left any off this list who wish to add
their names, please add your name to the list and repost. The list is
alphabetical by last name. If I have listed any who believe they're
here in error, please remove your name and repost with a small note
saying you've done so. My apologies to those folk.

This list is solely my responsibility.

Ed



Jeff Adams, John Atkinson, Marc Blank, Roy Briggs, Jennifer Burton,
Jason Cotton, Michael Clyne, Paul Dormer, Felix (Fear3000), Michael
Gindi, Pete Goudreau, Brian Leupp, Gene Lyle, Paul Macca, Michael
Mandwright, Stephen McEleroy, George Middius, Stewart Pinkerton,
Photobug (Fred), Bruce Richman,Chuck Ross, Barry Rothman, Jim Sanders,
Jonathan Scull, Jim Seymour, Greg Singh, Ed Shain, Andrew Thibault,
Leslie Vreeland, Dave Weil, Glenn Zelniker, and Steve Zipser,

----------------------------------------------------------

Since Lionel has chosen to repost old RAO posts so that his buddy Krueger can
attack them, it's only approipriate to *really* set the record straight when it
comes to Krueger. While the above was written in 1999 (and followed by over
900 responses from Krueger's many enemies -
actually targets of his unprovoked personal attacks and of course, his usual
bull**** responses), it would no doubt be polssible to add many more names to
the list.

Note that a significant number of people on that list are still being targeted
and smeaed by Krueger to this very day. "Roy Briggs" - for the benefit of
newbies - is a former pseudonym of The Devil. No doubt if one were rewriting
this post today, a number of new names could be added to the list.

The sheer length of this list, the fact that it generated over 900 responses,
and of course, the reality that it accurately described Krueger's despicable
behavior, and sadly, the fact that as expected, it continues to this very day,
should not be overlooked nor forgotten.

Those who bring up past history need to tell the whole story, not just that
subscribed to by what - 3 or 4 people at best?

LOL !!!!

-----------------------------------------------------------

Krueger, in his efforts to hide his past history as RAO's most despised and
hated poster, has repeatedly deleted this factual information.








As is his usual style of deceptive and
fraudulent posting, he attempts to omit any truthful yet damaging
information about him posted by others.

How can I hide something I posted a link to on a public site?


Krueger once again is attempting to deceive the public by switching the topic
to *his* Google reference rather than that clearly detailing that of Ed Shain -
and since supported by many others. He has also, as is his habit, neglected to
respond to posts without deleting important information that exposes him as a
liar and libeler.

This basic lack of netiquette, i.e. reproducing the posts of others in their
entirety when responding to them, simply exposes his basic dishnesty and need
to try and fool others through distortions, deletions, and evasions.

Obviously, Krueger has never been in a live debate, where the words of others
can't be erased by his pretending they don't exist.

LOL !!!!

He then continues to lie
through his teeth about what others have done or said.

All I said is that the post mentions child pornography in relation to me.
Richman seems to disagree that the post does this. Who is lying now?

Note that he continues to avoid condemning McKelvy's libelous
statements about me.

Richman seems to have this problem with the truth.

Krueger again continues to lie about my actions. If I've lied about his
failure to condemn McKelvy's libelous false claims about me, all he has to do
is provide evidence that he has condemned them. He can't because they don't
exist.




The post in question
contains no direct quotes from McKelvy.

The post in question contains numerous deletions, some of which are reprinted
above. Krueger has, as is his custom, deleted signficiant portions of what
I've written in which I point out that he has never condemned the writings of
Ferstler and McKelvy, while complaining that I've never condemned the writings
of some that have attacied him. Obviously, this hypocrite is now, as is his
custom, lying again by attempting to delete significant portions of posts of
others, while repeating his lies ad nauseam.





It does contain the text of Richman
and Philllips cooperatively attacking McKelvy. I guess that in Richman's odd
little world, this is an example of McKelvy libelling Richman. Note that
I've asked Richman for information about posts that he considers libelous
with no response to this time.


Note that Krueger continues to pretend that he has never read McKelvy's
numerous libelous attacks against me. They have been cited repeatedly in the
past. Krueger, OTOH, provides no evidence that he has been libeled by anybody.
This compulsive liar apparently is trying to false claim that there is no
difference between the usual dialy personal insults that pervade RAO and
falsely claiming that a person is not who he claims to be. Krueger's lyiing
has been exposed many times. Yet he provides no evidence that he has been
libeled by anybody.





It is obvious, therefore, that he condones and
approves of them.

It's obvious that Richman is desperate to distract people from his
gratuitous flames of McKelvy, Krueger, and Ferstler:


Unlike Krueger, I have no need to distract anybody from anything. Note that I
haven't deleted sections of this thread gratuitously and deceptively for the
purpose of hiding the truth about past despicable behavior. Krueger has
repeatedly engaged in deletions, distortions and lies about what has actually
been said in this thread.

"Well, Marc, you've quite nicely summarized the overwhelmingly negative
impression created by creatures like McKelvy, Krueger and Ferstler. Of
course
, never having met any of them (which I count as a blessing ), I can only
hypothesize as to why they have compulsively subjected themselves to extreme
amounts of deserved abuse, ridicule, scorn and disgust over these many years
on
RAO. I would suspect that aside from their obvious masochistic tendencies
and
blatant disregard for the truth, as well as total inability to engage in
civilized debates with anybody that does not agree with them, they all have
somewhat different motivations and agendas.

Let's start with the gone, but not forgotten, Howierd "at least I'm
published"
Fester. More than the other 2, this fellow appears to have one of the
biggest
egos yet constructed on an inconsequential foundation. At least he had the
honesty at times (something not ever seen in McKelvy, of course) to admit
that
one of his major reasons for being on RAO was to shill for his books and
promote his magazine writings. What was amusing was that as regards his
affiliation with the Sensible Sound, he also violated his own *unique* views
on
the Evil High End Establishment by writing for a subjective review magazine
which, while dealing with primarily budget-level equipment, was nevertheless
every bit as "subjective" as Stereophile, The Absolute Sound, etc. and other
journals that he frequently disparaged. (My own hunch was that he would
have
given anything to write for either one of them). Therefore he revealed
himself
to be a first class hypocrite. In common with the other 2 miscreants, he
exhibited 2 glaring personal deficienciers IMHO: (1) a dichotomous view,
quite
distorted, of audio hobbyists., and (2) an ovewhelming need to get
attention
from others, no matter how often it involved disapproval, ridicule, insults,
etc. On the first item, like McKelvy and Krueger, he engaged in what
cognitive
psychologists call dichotomous thinking - seeing everything as either black
or
white - or in his case, either being a believer in his mantras or a fool.
Other
cognitive distortions, as they are called, involoved overgeneralizing
constantly about adversaries, beloved audio mantras, hated adversaries and
types of gear/media (e.g. anaologue), and marked inability to engage in
rational debate without lapsin into namecalling, personal attacks and/or
outright nastiness. Aside from shilling for his books/magazine articles at
all
costs, Ferstler appeared to irrationally believe that by constanlty making
outrageous comments about audiophiles, manufacturers, etc. he could
actually
"convert" people to his particular brand of "audio religion". If RAO had a
tent and enough holy rollers, IMHO, Ferstler would have been happy to
emulate
Benny Hinn to "heal" the afflicted subjectivists.

As regards Krueger, there's probably nothing I can hypothesize that hasn't
already been done by others. His capacity for abuse seems endless, and his
ability to make enemies and chronically attack other people has been
documented
by many, most notably Ed Shain, in the classic "Bad Krueger Experience"
thread.
Like Ferstler, he makes, in my view, the pathological error of believing in
his own superiority when it comes to "audio knowledge" (whatever the hell
that
is), and has even regularly attacked noted professionals in that field such
as
Glenn Zelniker and John Atkinson. As has been pointed out by myself and at
least one other licensed psychologist in the past on RAO, he appears to meet
the criteria for the APA DSM-IV description of Paranoid Personality
Disorder,
a condition in which hypevigilance, suspicion of others' actions, and
thoughts
of being persecuted appear to be salient characteristics. Note that I am
not
offering a diagnosis, since that can not be done without a face-to-face
evaluation and other procedures. Note also that I'm obviously referring
only
to his online RAO & RAHE behavior, both of which I've had the chancer to
personally observe over the years. While I doubt it, it could be that his
offline behavior is significantly different.
Like Ferstler, he appears to be willing to be regularly attacked, ridiculed
and
reviled in the vain hope that his anti-tube, anti-vinyl, anti-individual
preference agenda will win some converts to his various dogmas. Unlike
either
Ferstler or McKelvy, however, Arny has apparently been able to reach a
unique
distinction - the one person responsible for personal attacks upon more
different, identifiable RAO posters than any other RAO participant. Why
does
he continue to regularly attack people whose only "crime" might be a failure
to
"buy off on" his agenda? Who knows? My only hypothesis would be that
sadistic
hostility towards nonbelievers has become an RAO way of life for him (and
was
certainly his M.O. on RAHE until the moderators finally had enough of it).
I
hoenstly believe that he revels in his horrible reputation, takes a sadistic
pleasure in trying to bully others, and has no ablity to try and convince
others of the "rightness" of his audio religion through the more rational
methods adopted by more civilized RAO participants.

As for McKelvy, his pathological lying and willingness to slander others is
a
matter of public record. Even when regularly shown to be woefully ignorant
of
the facts, as is often the case whether talking about political isues or
deliberately lying about the professional activities of another person, he
never admits errors nor issues retractions. IMHO, he's the most seriously
disturbed of the three, as evidenced by his willingness and tendencies to
cross
a line even Krueger and Ferstler don't normally cross. McKelvy has actively
tried to slander and smear RAO peoples' offline professional activities and
make outrageous claims about them with a total lack of evidence to support
them. While Krueger and Ferstler, of course, are both legitimately despised
for the personal attacks, McKelvy appears to be unique in his willingness to
attack not only RAO posters online behavior but also their professional
and/or
vocational pursuits as well. It appears, therefore, that his hatred and
bitterness towards others is pretty all-consuming and he can't even
discrtiminate between RAO and offline behavior. He's admitted to being in
constant pain and in need of medication. While I have no direct knowledte
of
his medical problems and extent to which he is dependent on narcotic
analgesics, it would not be uncommon for somebody in his condition to be
chronically angry, bitter and hostile towards others. The kneejerk, almost
Pavlovian, rapidity with which he attacks any and all who say anything
negative
about his beloved George Bush and/or other Republicans is another indication
of
his overwhelming hatred for those who don't share his viewpoints. While he
has
lied and frequently denied that he doesn't hate others, his behavior on RAO
strongly suggests that his primary reason for ever appearing on RAOI is to
attack the posts of others. Rarely does he ever have anythin good to say
about
anybody - except Krueger, his role model, of course. To be fair, Ferstler
and
Krueger were/are capable of occasionally making posts absent of personal
attacks and vitriol. McKelvy appears to be almost totally unable to do so.
My
hypothesis would be that among other things, his pain and perhaps other
chronic
problems are at least partially responsible for his blatant nastiness,
dishonesty, and willingness to say anything at any time - no matter how
distorted and false - to engage in personal attacks on others. And while he
accuses others of doing the same, his record speaks for itself. In my view,
he's a seriously disturbed, ignorant, sadist whose only purpose for
appearing
on RAO is to engage in mudslinging, personal attacks, and obviously, for
reasons that escape me, to win the approval of Mr. Krueger, whom he appears
to
idolize and constantly defend.






It's worth noting that the only reason Krueger is reproducing this is because
he's been exposed as deleting significant portionis of the posts of others.
Since he's so anxious to expose the entire record, readers need to be aware of
the following:

A BAD KRUEGER EXPERIENCE


On July 27, 1999, Ed Shain started the classic thread "Have You Had A Bad
Krueger Experience" with the following observation:

"As far as I can observe, the following contributors to RAO
have all had bitter or hostile exchanges with Arnold Krueger in which
there was some distinguishing negative characteristic, whether
contempt, lying, dishonest quoting, altered texts, attacks without
provocation, intellectual dishonesty, refusal to admit error,
manipulated context etc. I believe an accurate list of all who've had
such an experience might be productive in developing a less hostile
atmosphere here on RAO.

The list is *not* meant to include those who have merely had
an argument with Mr. Krueger or who simply dislike him. It is *not* a
popularity contest. It is mean to be a list of people who have been
involved in an exchange with Arnold in which, in their view, he
behaved badly or in ways that might discourage an honest, open, and
free exchange of views here on RAO.

If I have inadvertently left any off this list who wish to add
their names, please add your name to the list and repost. The list is
alphabetical by last name. If I have listed any who believe they're
here in error, please remove your name and repost with a small note
saying you've done so. My apologies to those folk.

This list is solely my responsibility.

Ed



Jeff Adams, John Atkinson, Marc Blank, Roy Briggs, Jennifer Burton,
Jason Cotton, Michael Clyne, Paul Dormer, Felix (Fear3000), Michael
Gindi, Pete Goudreau, Brian Leupp, Gene Lyle, Paul Macca, Michael
Mandwright, Stephen McEleroy, George Middius, Stewart Pinkerton,
Photobug (Fred), Bruce Richman,Chuck Ross, Barry Rothman, Jim Sanders,
Jonathan Scull, Jim Seymour, Greg Singh, Ed Shain, Andrew Thibault,
Leslie Vreeland, Dave Weil, Glenn Zelniker, and Steve Zipser".

As you can see, the same behaviors described by Mr. Shain, a former regular
poster on RAO, still exist. Also, many of the same posters are still attacked
on a regular basis by Krueger.
------------------------------------------------------------

It shall indeed be interesting to see Krueger futilely attempting to delete
this documented part of the Google record in an effort to hide his despicable
history.


Here's another example of Krueger's lengthy track record of libel and
distortion:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:...&lr=&ie=UTF-8&
scoring=d&selm=1facnSicFvjd01mjXTWcqQ%40comcast.co m


"George M. Middius" wrote in message


Unlike you, we regular people don't feel that Arnii F. Krooger is a
pet project held close to our hearts.

Interesting that our so-called Dr. Richman hasn't offered a hip-shot
diagnosis for Middius' pathological behavior.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Note several blatant falsehoods in this brief libelous statement of Krueger's -
which took me about 10 seconds to find on Usenet - LOL !!!

(1) His use of the term "so-called Dr. Richman" is libelous since it strongly
implies that I have lied about my identity - a false claim that only Krueger,
McKelvy and Ferstler have engaged in for many years during their history of
libel.

(2) I have stated many times on RAO that diagnoses are not given by any
licensed professional without a face-to-face evaluation. Of course, for
nonprofessional imbeciles like Ferstler and Krueger, amateur diagnoses about
things they are unqualified to evaluate are OK in their book. Krueger has made
this false claim before about diagnoses, yet has never been able to validate
it.

I *have* reproduced material from the DSM-IV re. Paranoid Personality Disorder.
It is up to RAO's readers, of course, to decide for themselves, whether
Krueger's behavior is similar to that described in this disorder.

(3) Krueger tends to use the word "pathological" when referring to the behavior
of others quite frequently. He has routinely called almost all behavior that
exposes his dishonesty "pathological". He has also accused many who have done
this as members of a clique or group of sockpuppets - perhaps employed by the
evil John Atkinson. Just one of his many conspiracy theories intertwined in
his sad fairlure to accept responsibilioty for his inappropriate behavior on
RAO for many years.



Bruce J. Richman

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"The Devil" wrote in message
news:g5kkh09mcmn3kvf8hp16772tc87vo08qen@rdmzrnewst xt.nz

There is no 'egregious behaviour' when you are the subject, you dick-
warming chimney-hobbit. Hell, if you were walking in the road I would
drive over you, reverse over you, get out and stamp on you, then kick
you out of my way, perhaps tossing you a bit of change to buy a paper
bag to bury yourself in.

Thanks for sharing!



Can I get a ticket to watch that?
... Maybe it will be on CNN ..

Carl

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message

Arny Krueger lied:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote"


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message



Since you mentioned it, I've never been involved in the
pedophilia stuff re. Krueger either.

Richman's approach is often more indirect. When someone accuses
me of pedophilia, Richman shows no feelings of compunction
about publicly supporting or defending that person.

Another outrageous lie from RAO's most despised poster and
compulsive liar and libeler, Krueger. There is no evidence to
support his false claims re. pedophilia.

Sure there is - here is just one example:



http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20...00471%40mb-m24.
aol.com

At times, he makes specific mention of
the false claim about pedophilia as part of his support for the
offender.

That would be Krueger's false claims about the pedophilia of
Scott Wheeler - nothing else.

Not at all, as the quote above clearly shows.


Bull****. The post which you cited has nothing to do with
pedophilia.

Just more of Richman's dissembling. The post in question mentions
"child pornography", which somehow Richman can't find any way to
connect with pedophilia.

Krueger has once again deliberately failed to reproduce a post in
its entirety written by others.

Shows how desperate Richman is to complain about anything, no matter
how nonsensical. In this case he's got a precise URL link to it.

More evidence of Krueger's attempts to hide the fact that he's
deleted large sections of posts written by me in response to his lies
and distortions.

Fails to address the fact that anybody who can follow a URL has instant
access to the entire post in question.

snip additional repetitive smokescreen text from Richman

The Devil said:

There is no 'egregious behaviour' when you are the subject, you dick-
warming chimney-hobbit. Hell, if you were walking in the road I would
drive over you, reverse over you, get out and stamp on you, then kick
you out of my way, perhaps tossing you a bit of change to buy a paper
bag to bury yourself in.

Not with your Metro. Not a chance :-)

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

Krueger lies again:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message

Arny Krueger lied:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote"


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message



Since you mentioned it, I've never been involved in the
pedophilia stuff re. Krueger either.

Richman's approach is often more indirect. When someone accuses
me of pedophilia, Richman shows no feelings of compunction
about publicly supporting or defending that person.

Another outrageous lie from RAO's most despised poster and
compulsive liar and libeler, Krueger. There is no evidence to
support his false claims re. pedophilia.

Sure there is - here is just one example:



http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20...00471%40mb-m24.
aol.com

At times, he makes specific mention of
the false claim about pedophilia as part of his support for the
offender.

That would be Krueger's false claims about the pedophilia of
Scott Wheeler - nothing else.

Not at all, as the quote above clearly shows.


Bull****. The post which you cited has nothing to do with
pedophilia.

Just more of Richman's dissembling. The post in question mentions
"child pornography", which somehow Richman can't find any way to
connect with pedophilia.

Krueger has once again deliberately failed to reproduce a post in
its entirety written by others.

Shows how desperate Richman is to complain about anything, no matter
how nonsensical. In this case he's got a precise URL link to it.

More evidence of Krueger's attempts to hide the fact that he's
deleted large sections of posts written by me in response to his lies
and distortions.

Fails to address the fact that anybody who can follow a URL has instant
access to the entire post in question.

snip additional repetitive smokescreen text from Richman














As I predicted, Krueger has once again resorted to the cowardly and deceptive
failure to reproduce posts in their entirety when responding to others. No
doubt one of the reasons he ran from an opportunity to debate John Atkinson a
few years ago was for the very same reason. He can't stand the truth to be
available for all to see.

His omissions of factual information about him is a matter of Google record.
His history of distortions, and libel, are simply things that he can't hide, no
matter how many deletions of posts he shamefully attempts in an effort to tell
the truth.

(Stand by for Krueger's continued, predictable attempts to delete portions of
the the posts of others).



Bruce J. Richman

Paul Dormer wrote:


"Arny Krueger" emitted :

Since you mentioned it, I've never been involved in the pedophilia
stuff re. Krueger either.

Richman's approach is often more indirect. When someone accuses me of
pedophilia, Richman shows no feelings of compunction about publicly
supporting or defending that person.

Another outrageous lie from RAO's most despised poster and compulsive
liar and libeler, Krueger. There is no evidence to support his false
claims re. pedophilia.

Sure there is - here is just one example:


http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20...00471%40mb-m24
..aol.com

Great post... Bruce!


--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t








Thanks, Paul. Let RAO's readers decide who is telling the truth and who is
lying.




Bruce J. Richman

Lionel wrote:

As all RAO regulars know, Michigander Arnii Krooger accused
Californian Scott Wheeler of being a pedophile, and Wheeler took such
offense that he threatened to sue Krooger for libel unless the
accusation is retracted......

To think that all of this is happening because of activities
on a newsgroup supposedly configured to discuss audio. The
whole thing reflects the theater of the absurd.

Anyway, this s potentially more fodder for the article I am
writing.

Howard Ferstler

Howard Ferstler said:

To think that all of this is happening because of activities
on a newsgroup supposedly configured to discuss audio. The
whole thing reflects the theater of the absurd.

Almost as absurd as your "home theater" systems, Howie?

Anyway, this s potentially more fodder for the article I am
writing.

Keep on plagiarizing.
BTW you have my permission to use everything I write on RAO to use for
your article.

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

Howard Ferstler a écrit :

Lionel wrote:


As all RAO regulars know, Michigander Arnii Krooger accused
Californian Scott Wheeler of being a pedophile, and Wheeler took such
offense that he threatened to sue Krooger for libel unless the
accusation is retracted......


To think that all of this is happening because of activities
on a newsgroup supposedly configured to discuss audio. The
whole thing reflects the theater of the absurd.

Anyway, this s potentially more fodder for the article I am
writing.

If you need fooder, feel free to ask me. I haven't any interest in
audio. ;-)

The Devil said:

dick-
warming chimney-hobbit

I love you, you tasteless clit.

Boon

Sander deWaal wrote:

BTW you have my permission to use everything I write on RAO to use for
your article.

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

You appear to be a tube-audio freak. Why would I want to
write about anything said by a tube-audio freak?

Tube audio gear is for jerks who like goofy but sub-par toys
more than music.

Howard Ferstler

Paul Dormer wrote:


"George M. Middius" emitted :

You do pack 'em in, Clerkie. But if it weren't for the fact that
Usenet audio enthusiasts appreciate a good clown show

I find it entertaining when Howard and Arnold start ripping into each
other. Howard fits the Judy role nicely...



--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t








And almost all of RAO's residents can easily manipulate these puppets. Just 2
of RAO's triple-headed Axis of Evil.


Bruce J. Richman

(Bruce J. Richman) wrote in message ...

And almost all of RAO's residents can easily manipulate these puppets. Just 2
of RAO's triple-headed Axis of Evil.

If I was you I would have plagiarized an analogy from an other author ! :-)

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message


And almost all of RAO's residents can easily manipulate these
puppets. Just 2 of RAO's triple-headed Axis of Evil.

You wish, Bruce.

Howard Ferstler said:

Sander deWaal wrote:

BTW you have my permission to use everything I write on RAO to use for
your article.

You appear to be a tube-audio freak.

Wrong. I'm using both tubes and solid state in my reproduction
systems. To me, it's just easier to achieve the desired results with
the aid of tubes.

Why would I want to
write about anything said by a tube-audio freak?

You wanted to ridicule the "High End" audio fringe in your articles,
right?
Tubes galore in "High End" audio.

Besides, I'd like to see my words back in print somewhere.
I'm a vain person, Howie.

Tube audio gear is for jerks who like goofy but sub-par toys
more than music.

If you can offer proof of that, I'll buy you an island in the Arabian
Gulf, completely fitted with everything you need, including a
hospital, a metal health facility and a professional medical staff.

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
Howard Ferstler said:

Tube audio gear is for jerks who like goofy but sub-par toys
more than music.

If you can offer proof of that, I'll buy you an island in the Arabian
Gulf, completely fitted with everything you need, including a
hospital, a metal health facility and a professional medical staff.


I'll throw in 72 virgins for Howie, if he can win the bet.
Of course, they're a bunch of 70 something nuns
living in a convent.

Arny Krueger wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message


And almost all of RAO's residents can easily manipulate these
puppets. Just 2 of RAO's triple-headed Axis of Evil.

You wish, Bruce.












SCORE !!!!

Q.E.D.


Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist
Florida PY 25043