070402-c

USENET debate status July 4, 2002

Page 3 of 3 pages

From: DanKettler

Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 01:39:01 GMT

Happy Dog wrote:

> > DK: Okay, let's look at what Syd had to say, or
> > what he (more revealing) didn't say, long
> > after the discussions you quote.

> No Kettle. Deal with the material posted in its entirety.
> erf

Interesing bit of material that you snipped here. Running away again?

Use GOOGLE to find posts with message ID's...

http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search

Mess ID: 3D221071.A2E46EE7@no_spamKETTLERENTERPRISES.COM

Message-ID: <3D24200C.2721FB27@no_spamKETTLERENTERPRISES.COM>

From: DanKettler

Subject: Alleged $1 MIL challenge regarding
HOMEOPATHY <was> Re: The challenge is now refused

Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 10:14:41 GMT

For those just tuning in, the so-called "challenge" is about an
alleged award of about $1 MIL for evidence of HOMEOPATHY,
psychic phenomena, astrology, etc.

More on this, here...

http://www.psicounsel.com/randicha.shtml

***********************************************************

Happy Dog wrote:

> "DanKettler"

> > > > DK: Okay, let's look at what Syd had to say, or
> > > > what he (more revealing) didn't say, long
> > > > after the discussions you quote.

> > > No Kettle. Deal with the material posted in its entirety.
> > > erf

[Note HD snipping from the post]

To see past posts, search alt.paranormal...

http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search

> > Interesing bit of material that you snipped here. Running away again?

> No Kettle. And nobody but you and a couple of other loons think I am.
> erf

Let's do an inventory of who posts in these newsgroups.

First, let's look at...

http://www.psicounsel.com/whos.html

Then verify who's who from GOOGLE archives.

Then, what is a PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATIC (PSF) ?

http://www.psicounsel.com/pseufana.html

From the above pages, one can see who's been posting in the
paranormal-astrology newsgroups. It's been at least 90 percent
PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATIC (PSF), anti-astrology,
anti-paranormal postings, and the PSF are, as you call us, "loons."

So, we have the PARANORMALISTS, called by you, "loons" thinking you are
running away, and the MAJORITY of posters, actual "loons" agreeing with
you. That majority supposedly makes you right, right? No, wrong,
it's called the "bandwagon" argument -- faulty reasoning.

This is like going to a mental institution and saying, "only a couple of
doctors agreed with you, and all the many inmates found me right."

It's a joke, right? You're a joke, Happy Dog, right?

From: DanKettler

Subject: The $1 MIL alleged "challenge" for HOMEOPATHY
and psychic phenomena evidence <was> Re: The
challenge is now refused

Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 11:37:16 GMT

Happy Dog wrote:

> "DanKettler" <MAILVIAWEBSITE@no

> > HD: ...it is abundantly clear that JB vanished from the
> > HD: bargaining table after Jean Alain Mairet formally
> > HD: asked Randi for one week for him and JB to finalize
> > HD: their protocol.

> > If you look at the material I've supplied during the past few days on
> > USENET, you will see that there was a discussion about this which you
> > were involved in, Happy Dog. In that discussion, John Benneth
> > said the yeast test, which he had in the past described, was
> > the one he had annonced he was willing to go through with.

> Wrong.

No, he did say it in that discussion, and in your quoted material you
placed recently on USENET (see GOOGLE archives). Your quotes
show that he said it in internet communication intended for Randi to read.

You don't seem to want to get involved with that discussion. The really
IMPORTANT part of the discussion, HD, is that it took place AFTER the
discussion in the material you continue to repost on USENET. You,
Baumel, Benneth, and others were in a discussion. You keep answering my
references to that discussion with one-liners. The word "wrong" doesn't
give us much, here. Even when I quoted, on USENET, what is on the below
referenced WEB PAGE, you didn't rebut it with any detail.

The discusssion text is at...

http://www.psicounsel.com/randiuse02.html#nov2000

> > Here's what Benneth wrote, to "finalize their protocol"

> >                   Now let's get down to business on what the
> >                   real protocol should be about. We should be
> >                   seeking out a qualified laboratory to prepare
> >                   the base solution for all samples. We want 50
> >                   samples drafted, we want all samples placed in
> >                   50 separate lead envelopes, 25 of which we want
> >                   turned over to the homeopathic pharmacist for
> >                   potentizing <snip>

> That isn't the protocol for the yeast test. You really
> don't have a clue what occurred, do you?
> arf

Actually, I do. You don't seem to remember much. I was involved while
you were, and exchanged a few words with you in the non-USENET
discussions. I'm quoting from a huge amount of text that you supplied.
I'm not about to quote every word, but since you disputed the above, I'm
going to put in the part where "yeast test" refers to the above.

Didn't you write the following to USENET?

16 Aug 1999 17:26:16 GMT

             Randi offers to waive the requirement
             for a formal and expensive preliminary
             and to accept a simpler demo of the
             yeast test, which John has been calling
             for for some time...

That says, essentially, that Randi understands Benneth wants to do a
yeast test. A "simpler demo" is easy enough to figure out. All anyone
needs to do is look up the word "yeast" in the MARIUS DOT NET search
engine, and that material was up there on his site from the beginning of
these negotiations. Then look at "protocol" and see that, long before
this point, the original "protocol" was up there on the site, and had
been communicated directly to Randi.

9/12/99 11:38 PM
according to your writing...

Randi says:

            I stopped to think that Benneth is capable
            of completing the challenge. I left his
            lists [mailing list with discussion to
            a number of people] and won't answer his
            further mails. Unless he comes with a
            protocol, maybe.

Look here:

Date: 13 Aug 1999 19:48:39 GMT
From: Syd Baumel

           "I'm not sure how you can blame Benneth
            for ignoring anything if you keep
            sending all of his e-mail back to
            him 'marked unread'..."

Now, let's get back to the text, above, in which Benneth writes:

"Now, let's get down to business on what
the real protocol should be about."

You say it's not about the yeast test.

Well, look carefully at other parts of the text I'd not placed before:

Benneth writes:

"The protocol objective does not require
a bio-chemist."

DK: Look up the word " Epstein " in the internal
DK: search engine at MARIUS DOT NET. That is
DK: the person Benneth refers to, above.

JB: Randi's back on method again. He's already been
JB: given a tried and published method in which
JB: the differences between potentized and controls
JB: are clearly demonstrated, but whether or not
JB: there's a biochemist has nothing to do with
JB: the protocol objective.

DK: Again, he's referring to Epstein.

DK: So, what's this "tried and published" method?

DK: Look at MARIUS DOT NET and use the internal
search engine to find "protocol" and "yeast."

JB: <snip>

JB: The claim establishes the objective of the proving. What
       I predicted would happen when I first applied is exactly
       what this biochemist is all about, that when given the
       method of determination, Randi will digress on to that
       as something else to argue over.

<snip>

JB: If he wants preliminary evidence he can run the test
     himself, talk to Jenkins and Jones, have his biochmeist
     repeat the *yeast experiment...but it doesn't change
     the ojective of the protocol nor how the results
     are to be judged.

DK: Okay, HD, what's he talking about, here? Contrary to
your assertion, he's talking about the *YEAST
TEST! No?

DK: One might look at GOOGLE, and see how many times I've
noted that PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATICS (PSF), typically,
have READING COMPREHENSION problems.

DK: Do a keyword search of my posts.

DK: And, since Randi brought up the idea of having his own
        biochemist in on this, and the test was not the formal
        one for the $ 1 MIL, why not save everyone a lot of
        trouble and have the preliminary trial done by this
        biochemist? If he says it failed, then do the
        preliminary test in person.

DK 7/4/02:

     Now, we are back to today. If Randi was actually
     interested in knowing the scientific truth, and
     providing true information to the world as a person
     with an interest in scientific discovery, he'd want
     someone to contact Benneth and tell him exactly what
     he wants Benneth to do, NOW, to continue participation
     in the "challenge."

I'm not writing this on behalf of Benneth. Benneth may, or
may not, respond favorably to Randi.

     However, Randi's most recent remarks to me, posted to USENET
     by his followers, showed many other expressions, far
     from a willingness for scientific discovery.

See GOOGLE for past posts...

Any sensible person can see what REALLY goes on, and
there's more from Randi's encounters with others shown at...

http://www.psicounsel.com/randicha.shtml

From: DanKettler

Newsgroups:

                   uk.rec.psychic
                   alt.paranormal
                   misc.health.alternative
                   uk.media.tv..misc
                   uk.media

Subject: Re: The challenge is now refused

Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 16:03:22 GMT

Happy Dog wrote:

> "DanKettler" wrote:

> > Happy Dog wrote:

> > > "Matt Kriebel" <mkriebNOSPAMDAMMIT@cruzio.com>

> > > > Syd's summary is one that Kettler has always run away
> > > > from (usually with desperate, pathetic attempts to point
> > > > at his website comentary as some kind of rebuttal)

> > Well, whether from Syd, or whomever, the "summary" is false.

> You lie Bruce. Show ANY portion of the summary by Syd, ANY, that is
> factually incorrect.

DK: Learn to read, will you HD? "Summary" refers
to an opinion, that I supposedly "run away."

I never said that any portion of the quotes were factually incorrect.
In fact, in a recent post, I wrote that I was not disputing them. I
disputed the summation, or opinion, of them.

There is another "strawman" from you.

As I've written many times, you PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATICS (PSF),
typically, have reading comprehension problems, and an inability to deal
with logic.

I've been using your quotes, lately, on USENET. I don't think much of
the opinions of Syd, but opinions are not at issue here. Facts are.

DK: > > However, I have a little extra time on
DK: > > my hands at this point in time...

HD: > More like your entire life.

You snipped, and left out the meaning, above. I wrote that my reference
to www.marius.net was not necessarily avoidance, but to save time. I
don't always have so much time to argue the same points over and over,
but now I'm doing it.

I'm answering this allegation:

"...pathethic attempts to... [use his]
website as some kind of rebuttal..."

I've rebutted your nonsense on USENET, and Kriebel's, on a number of
occasions.

> > See, in my quotes of HD's quotes, just yesterday, I
> > showed that Benneth did not "turn him down." Benneth
> > made offers to go to this college once he could be
> > informed of which "St. Mary's" it is.

HD: > Benneth wasn't asked to travel to the college you dimwit.

DK: He did offer to go, and you said in a recent
DK: post that he would not. That's the issue,
DK: not your "straw man." You wrote of
DK: Benneth supposedly "turn [ing] him down."

     STRAW MAN: This fallacy is about
                               misrepresenting the
                               other's position so
                               that it can be attacked
                               more easily.

DK: http://www.psicounsel.com/logic.html

DK: The actual issue is not whether Benneth
        "was asked." I will not argue that point.
        That's a strawman, probably designed to get
        me sidetracked. The reader can look at past
        posts to see.

DK: What is all this, smoke and mirrors -- deception?

DK: Since you have so many logical fallacies, here, I'm
         really not interested in continuing with what is
         not a debate, but a waste of time correcting
         your logical fallacies, and other errors.

DK: I'm not wasting my time to go through all these posts
to replace what you snipped.

DK: You are not interested in honest debate, but rather to
twist what another person wrote, and rewrite it.

     Sometimes you cannot comprehend another's writing.
     Other times, you just deliberately snip,
     rewrite, and change meanings.

DK: I snip portions of posts to save space, not
         to change meanings. It's also to make my
         posts easily readable. Too many irrelevant
        words confuse the issues.

DK: If the reader is interested, they can look at
posts using GOOGLE'S keyword search feature...

http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search

> > > <snip> demonstrates... [Benneth's] final tactic.
> > > He began claiming that he had already
> > > won because, in his troubled mind, his
> > > claim had already been proved. As
> > > evidence, he offered some studies.
> > > And then demanded payment!

> > This accusation, about Benneth, has been made
> > again and again by the PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATICS
> > (PSF), and in no way can they substantiate it.

> > Benneth simply stated, at one point, that
> > since Randi refused to test him ... <snip>

HD: > Which is a lie.

DK: You must be afraid of the truth. You completely snipped that.

DK: I will paraphrase, from memory, what I'd written.

DK: Because Randi refused to test him, Benneth will
go on with his own tests, and assume that Randi
owes him the money by default.

DK: Note, above, BECAUSE RANDI REFUSED TO TEST HIM.

DK: PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATICS (PSF) with reading
comprehension problems, note the word, again
BECAUSE okay?

DK: I'm through with you, HD, at least for now.

DK: Too many tricks, smokescreens, and logical fallacies.

DK: On USENET, you've again shown what you really are.

<snip>

USENET POSTING COPIES END