Message-ID: <39A03F95.D40A5CC3@psicounselmapson.com>
From: Dan Kettler <dan@psicounselmapson.com>
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal,alt.astrology
Subject: Re: Ken Kizer (aka CFA) Re: FAQ Net Censorship
and Terrorism (NCAT)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 20:33:28 GMT
http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=660460651&fmt=text
Parts of the writing of Ken Kizer are here snipped for brevity
It is seldom that Ken Kizer permits his posts to be archived.
Click to the left for his entire posting, archived in DEJA.
I've modified my own writing: grammar corrections, etc.
Ken Kizer, aka CFA, his words recorded here:
http://www.psicounsel.com/cfa.html
Get to know him! Read the above.
> > DK: Ken Kizer... you lost!
> Yeah, right. Look around, Dan. Exactly 1 (ONE) proponent in aa
> supports you...
Numbers of publicly declared advocates are not the criteria for
winning or losing. Truth is important. That is, proven
facts,
and logical analysis of their significance.
The NCAT site in question contains the "debates"
from you. To
any sensible person examining the proofs outside the site, the
actual rules, the actual policies, the actual recorded e-mail and
DEJA recorded posts, YOU LOST! Others, also, lost the
debate.
The actions and expressions of ADMINS are important.
They have less confidence in the fanatics, the so-called
"skeptics," the control freaks who want to control these
newsgroups...
http://www.psicounsel.com/spamans1.html
And, with your obvious cluelessness about USENET, you are
hardly even read by them anymore.
We went over this, and you avoided again and again, the proven fact
that people are AFRAID to publicly support EHW or myself.
Again and again you avoided the evidence that the smbtech
EHW defamation site contains falsehood about EHW.
Readers, see the cfa.html site and other
links, as all this
above mentioned discussion is recorded.
CFA: ALL the other astrologers (at least, those who know
CFA: you) are on your case- not to mention the skeptics.
DK: The astrologers are not "on my case." They want you to
DK: shut up when I post ONCE every 1 to 3 months about
DK: NCAT -- something that does not
need any further
DK: discussion from you. It's been discussed, to death,
DK: between us.
DK: Of course, since you fight it, it's much more
DK: than ONCE.
DK: NCAT Net Censorship and Terrorism
http://www.psicounsel.com/discsens.html
DK: Thus, your need to use a sock-puppet, a fake name.
DK: They probably write e-mail to you, to shut
DK: up. They know you bring on the controversy.
DK: As for the "skeptics" so-called, I do not CARE
DK: what ANTI-ASTROLOGY, ANTI-PARANORMAL
DK: fanatics posting to aa and ap write of
DK: what they think I should, or should not do.
DK: Let them go to sci.skeptic and post, if
DK: they don't like it here.
CFA: And, yes, I'm aware you don't hold
CFA: much faith in statistics...
DK: BS spin doctor!
DK: I hold faith in statistics. However, your statistics are crap!
DK: To begin with, I don't care if 1 million people who
DK: are ANTI-ASTROLOGY fanatics in alt.astrology don't
DK: like what I post. It's absurd to expect me to care.
DK: However, I know that advocates, generally, don't argue
DK: against me in the alt.astrology and alt.paranormal newsgroups.
DK: They sure don't mind a 1 time in 3 months, or 1 time in
DK: 1 month public service announcement about NCAT.
You do,
DK: but then you're a FREAK! You are obsessive-compulsive.
DK: It's obvious.
> ...stop spreading fear.
I do not spread fear. I post awareness, caution,
and remedies. This was all discussed again and
again between you and I. Remember the fire-drill
analogy?
CFA: POST ASTROLOGY and people will leave you alone.
DK: Generally, astrologers leave me alone. Only you
DK: go on like a fool in alt.astrology.
DK: Are you deluded with this, "people will leave you alone."
DK: And, do you think PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATIC
DK: (PSF) nutcases bother me?
CFA: Haven't you figured that out yet? Or do
CFA: you enjoy being teased?
DK: "Teased" is pure spin, pure BS. For the most part, I
DK: am not just "teased." Only a few just
tease.
DK: I am attacked, and there is an agenda behind it.
CFA: ...it's an insult if you don't immediately kiss his a*s...
DK: Disagreement is one thing, but OBSESSIVE COMPULSIVE,
DK: hostile lying writing about me is another thing. You
DK: know the difference, don't you?
CFA:... and it's grounds for a suit if you
CFA: express a different opinion.
DK: Neither EHW, nor I, threatened suits over
DK: differences of opinion.
DK: Boy, you sure do like to lie, don't you?
CFA: ...criticize him... hours and pages on his website...
DK: This allegation is silly. Are you that
deluded, or is this just lying?
DK: You EARNED /cfa.html
It sure wasn't from
"criticism." The pages show your
so-called
"criticism." People who "criticize"
me,
or even defame me occasionally, don't
get
web pages.
DK: It takes a lot of work. You worked
hard
for the pages.
DK: And, all this stuff about why people attack
EHW in newsgroups is pure garbage.
DK: EHW (Edmond H. Wollmann) posts astrology, just astrology,
and
for that he's attacked continuously.
Sure he fights back,
but only after the incessant, obsessive, attacks.
More
on that linked from the cfa.html pages.
The entire
matter of charters, complaints, etc. is all
discussed.
DK: You keep repeating yourself, CFA, and you never carry
on where I left off, answering my replies.
Your
repeats (quite unique) are what make you so
easy
to spot as a sock puppet.
DK: You, and your butt-buddy, PSF (PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATICS) are SICK!
--
www
| k-e-t-t-l-e-r-e-n-t-e-r-p-r-i-s-e-s | com
"darth nader" posting from alt.net, (he didn't deny it) is the name used by Ken Kizer in the posts I answered, to follow:
Message-ID: <399F8AEA.1B5D105C@psicounselmapson.com>
From: Dan Kettler <dan@psicounselmapson.com>
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal,alt.astrology
Subject: Ken Kizer (aka CFA) Re: FAQ Net Censorship
and Terrorism (NCAT)
References: <39a26778.28708354@news.flash.net>
<5evupsg8pa76e4jl97iputdgjredpabjak@spamless>
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 07:42:27 GMT
darth nader
Ken Kizer hiding, like a coward, can be known through:
http://www.psicounsel.com/cfa.html
wrote:
> >Subject: FAQ Net Censorship and Terrorism (NCAT)
Gosh, does Ken Kizer hate NCAT, the mention of it,
or proof of it.
> >Those wishing to debate these issues will find they have
> >already been debated in the newsgroups between Aug. 99
> >and Dec. 99.
CFA: > Yep. And you got your fu*king a*s KICKED!
By you? Ken Kizer? No! By others? No!
> > Net Censorship and Terrorism (NCAT)
Ken Kizer's words, an attempted debate, but a farce, are on the pages...
http://www.psicounsel.com/discsens.html
This part, in red,
is not from the posting. Note the paragraph, below, which
is answered in the above
post. He didn't deny it. See the DEJA link above
for a showing of the following statement that
he replied to:
...which _PROVE_ NET CENSORSHIP AND TERRORISM by fanatics,
and which was debated for 4 months by a number of people
who WERE ALL DEFEATED, and that defeat is recorded on the
WEB PAGES, and proven through DEJA archives, clicked
to from the PAGES.
So, F*ck you, Ken Kizer, because you lost! You are still losing!
Oh, and besides the writing style, the unique philosophy, we
have the placing of a.a.m. in your reply, when this post was
not, originally to a.a.m. So, now we have 3 pretty unique
patterns, all pointing to COWARD Ken Kizer.
> Translation: Dan's terror of freedom of speech.
EXACTLY what Ken Kizer and hardly anyone else, would write.
Any others screaming over this "freedom of speech" issue,
were a few years ago.
There you go, giving it all up, Ken Kizer. I told you, the
smart thing would be to get someone else to write this for
you, if you wanted to hide your identity.
--
www | k-e-t-t-l-e-r-e-n-t-e-r-p-r-i-s-e-s | com
Message-ID: <399F88D3.FEC26B30@psicounselmapson.com>
From: Dan Kettler <dan@psicounselmapson.com>
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal,alt.astrology
Subject: CFA Ken Kizer <was> Re: Dan Kettler is
an incoherent kook!
References: <399c2c5e.28298696@news.flash.net>
<8ni132$feh$1@badtz-maru.databasix.com> <spp327i187v120@news.supernews.com>
<399e7081.27947741@news.gci.net> <399E998E.697514F1@psicounselmapson.com>
<8nm68r$n9e$1@moriarty.databasix.com> <n60vps0tbke4mbu8c43a4275fsprd04urg@spamless>
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 07:33:33 GMT
>>darth nader
Upon careful inspection and analyis of 4 posts, I have come to see the
COWARD, who will not reveal his identity, to be one Ken Kizer (aka
CFA)
Much can be learned about this mean-spirited creep by reading the
following quotes from him:
http://www.psicounsel.com/cfa.html
>>wrote:
DK: > >>Now, how many times have I written the name "digger" in subject
headers?
>
> Who fuc*ing cares?
>
> >DYOFDW, kook.
> >
DK: > >>How many times have I written "liar"?
>
> Way too goddam many.
>
> >DYOFDW, kook.
One thing you vary, here, creep, is that you write a bit more
freely. You, normally, try to keep your image on USENET smelling
as sweet as you can, though the stench of you still comes through.
DK: > >>Quite a few, and each time DEJA records of previous posts bear
DK: > >>witness that he's lied.
CFA: > Or that you twisted something someone said to fit your agenda.
Ken Kizer-like above. Exclusively Ken Kizer ideas.
The wording, the style of writing, the way the language is used,
is all Ken Kizer style. If you want to hide your identity,
get someone else to write their own style, and vary your
philosophy somewhat.
> >>What is the purpose of this lie? It's to convey
the FALSE
> >>impression that what I write about newsgroup activity, about reposting,
> >>and all the things that help to keep these newsgroups on-topic,
are
> >>supposedly "spam" and would get you reading this,
who want to
> >>help, kicked off your ISP.
> >Paranoia from Kettler. What a shocker.
> Well, you really have to work at understanding what the fu*k he means,
> but I think he's basically saying people could get kicked for
> reposting ... which is true.
No, I'm not saying that, creep. You have a habit of twisting
things, in that twisted mind of yours, Ken Kizer.
CFA: > You CAN get kicked for reposting too much.
No, you cannot get kicked off for reposting
what I advocate, and "too
much," or what "too much" is, is beyond your
ability to know,
because you have a mental block against investigating it.
This is just so classic Ken Kizer, it's almost completely unique.
The only things different are 2 > > > >
1. You are not revealing your name...
2. Since you are unindentified,
you are
more brazen, more hateful
in your
expression, allowing all that pent-up hatred to
be released
on USENET.
You always did like "alt.net" didn't you, Kizer. Now, you
want to hide like a venomous snake behind a rock.
> >Hey Brucie! Are you prepared to state that you weren't reprimanded
by
> >Compuserve for spamming?
>
> 'Fess up, dan0! You did, you know.
I discussed this, and it's in the DEJA
archives, a place
where past posts have been placed.
--
www | k-e-t-t-l-e-r-e-n-t-e-r-p-r-i-s-e-s | com
From: CFA• [aka Ken Kizer]
alt.paranormal, alt.astrology, alt.astrology.metapsych
Subject: Re: Ken Kizer (aka CFA) Re: FAQ Net Censorship
and Terrorism (NCAT)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 23:48:00 -0400
Message-ID: <o0q0qsclj7s8cf85qigj9uhc8fltaus07o@news.mindspring.com>
<snip>
DK: >> Get to know him! [CFA] Read the above.
CFA: It's really hard, Dan. Do you realize how deadly dull your writing
becomes? Not to mention, shrill and inaccurate...
I believe I've substantiated my statements
with proven facts.
These web pages abound
with referenced evidence.
>> > > DK: Ken Kizer... you lost!
>>
>> > Yeah, right. Look around, Dan. Exactly 1 (ONE) proponent in aa
>> > supports you...
>> Numbers of publicly declared advocates are not the criteria for
>> winning or losing. Truth is: observable, proven, facts.
CFA: Translation: Dan doesn't read aa
enough (or any)
to know who
the players
are.
DK: One supposed astrologer answered
my statements in this
thread, and posted similarly to you.
DK: I looked over his past
posts. He's mostly into the politics
of alt.astrology, not too much into the actual subject
of astrology. His knowledge of astrology is very limited.
DK: He, "rondy" stated that it
was mainly my support of EHW
that turned him off on me. Then too, my nasty remarks
about you were not to his liking. Too bad he doesn't know
you, for I suspect that, then, he would not find them too nasty.
DK: He wrote:
"I am now [on CFA's side] which I wouldn't be if
you weren't defending Eddieeee...."
I have never written that I am civil to people who are uncivil to me.
In fact, I've been very clear that I do not feel
obligated to be civil
to such people. You have lied about me, Ken Kizer, and have
written defamatory material. I have no obligation to be civil
with you.
>> The NCAT site in question contains the
"debates" from you. To
>> any sensible person examining the proofs outside the
>> site, the actual rules, the actual policies, the
>> actual recorded e-mail and DEJA recorded posts,
>> YOU LOST! Others, also, lost the debate.
CFA: ...we keep trying to say to... you [that it's in his mind].
No, not just in my mind. I have shown
iron-clad logic and facts,
which to any sensible person are indisputable.
I didn't just place
opinions.
DK: >> The actions and expressions of ADMINS are the criteria.
CFA: That's ABSOLUTELY correct...
>> They have less confidence in the fanatics, the so-called
>> "skeptics," the control freaks who want to control these
>> newsgroups...
Have you heard of the logical fallacy of the
"red herring."
This is the introduction of irrelevant material
to the matters
being discussed.
See my page which
explains logical fallacies. To follow
is a "red herring," one which I've pointed
out, a few times,
to you each and every time you mindlessly
repeat it. It was
stated in the newsgroups, and is recorded
on my web
pages. Try the search
engine.
CFA: ...and in the context of aa, the evidence is clear: it
has not been
shown that *any* person- skeptic
or proponent-
has permanently lost their posting
privileges as
a result of Ed's complaints- except Ed!
DK: Red Herring. Entirely irrelevant.
I pointed out what
my statement, above, related to regarding "actions
and expressions" of ADMINS, which is unrelated
to your writing.
CFA: ...FIVE (5) astrologers ...temporary loss of
privileges because
of Ed's complaints.
DK: Complaints, charters, that's old,
and gone over
again and again. It's not relevant to what I'm discussing.
Use the search engine. It was
discussed in the newsgroups,
and then copied to these web pages.
<snip irrelevancy>
CFA: To date, in aa, admins have more or less uniformly
decided Ed's
complaints (and yours) REQUIRE NO
PERMANENT REMEDY.
DK: >> http://www.psicounsel.com/spamans1.html
The above relates to my point, not what you
wrote above it. That link
shows, as I wrote above:
The actions and expressions of ADMINS are the criteria.
They have less confidence in the fanatics, the so-called
"skeptics," the control freaks who want to control these
newsgroups...
The "criteria" for winning or losing, remember?
It's not the only
criteria, however.
It wasn't my point, whether admins decided
anything about remedies.
I've pointed out, again and again, that I've
not sought remedies. I've
sought to educate people, something that you
violently, obsessively,
and through irrational expressions show your
objection to. I've
mentioned educating people repeatedly.
It was in the newsgroups,
and it's on my web pages.
Use the search engine.
Again, learn logical fallacies,
so you may avoid them. The red herring is
quite obvious to intelligent, discerning readers,
you know.
CFA: Spam isn't the concern...
DK: My writing of a URL /spamans1.html
was not about spam. It
included the subject, but it's not the main
thrust, obviously.
DK: That page, and connecting links,
show the trend of admins. It's one
of many examples, however. They, as I wrote above:
"...have less confidence in the fanatics, the so-calledDK: You really ought to read the URL before you comment
'skeptics,' the control freaks who want to control these
newsgroups..."
CFA: ... Ed's abuse of the abuse process... your support of him...
DK: <snip of comments that are irrelevant to the points I've made>
>> And, with your obvious cluelessness about USENET, you are
>> hardly even read by them anymore.
CFA: You have the mistaken idea I'm seeking to influence them IN ANY WAY.
DK: I was not writing of your deliberate
attempts. I was referring, mainly,
to your writing in news.admin.net-abuse.usenet which showed blatant
ignorance of policies and procedures of USENET.
CFA: [ADMINS] ...profound lack of response to your postings
in nanau...
[news.admin.net-abuse.usenet]
DK: If you read my writing,
carefully, you will find they are in the
form of announcements, and I had not been seeking responses.
DK: You seem to be suffering
from delusions. You read much more
into what I write, than I'd intended, or even hinted at.
DK: The potentially explosive nature
of the response from
PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATICS often prevents
their public comments.
DK: They have commented in
NANAU, occasionally. They
have discussed in e-mail with me.
DK: >> We went over this, and you avoided again and again, the proven
fact
DK: >> that people are AFRAID to publicly support EHW or myself.
CFA: Oh, no. I've been absolutely clear about that. Maybe you're
confused
CFA: because I didn't keep repeating it: people aren't afraid to support
CFA: you or Ed- they mostly don't agree.
I showed examples in the newsgroups.
Check
the search
engine for copies of posts which show
that people are threatened..
>No, they have NO DESIRE to support you or Edmo!
"They," including the silent one's, have "no desire"?
CFA: Here's where Dan claims to have received various
numbers of email
messages on this very matter. Of
course, no one else
knows if it's true... <snip>
It's not important whether I can prove this.
It's not the main
point of my argument. My point
is made through copies of public
posts, and records of ADMINS refusal to act
on complaints
against EHW that they had acted erroneously
on in years
previous.
Some evidence is on the web pages of NCAT,
showing
how admins don't believe the lies from fanatics
anymore.
>> Again and again you avoided the evidence that the site which
>> defames EHW, contains falsehood about EHW.
See the site search engine.
CFA: [DK]...pointed out, as I recall, possibly as many as half
a
dozen messages
(of the *thousands*) that were/could
have been forgeries.
But everything else stands.
DK: I didn't call you the most
stupid of all the study subjects
on Intelligent Life On the Net for nothing. I wrote
that you were the best example of little sign of
intellient life on the net.
DK: Did you "think" ("think" in quotes)
that I was supposed
to go through all the posts at the EHW
defamation site?
DK: Did you think that the parts I didn't
find faulty must have
been okay?
DK: I only need to discredit one part
of it, just as a person needs only
discredit one part of a testimony in court, to discredit the witness.
The more the merrier, of course. However, if a lawyer thinks a
person, or other source, is sufficiently discredited, they are not
going to find all there is to discredit that person or other source,
and waste time.
Again, see the psicounsel site search engine to find references to the above.
CFA: On top of that, there are still a number of people who
witnessed the originals,
as far back as '96.
DK: I didn't say they were all forgeries. The one's that were
not quoted out of
context, and were not forgeries,
did not show actual threats of physical abuse.
DK: I showed that cancelled posts came from other people, not EHW.
DK: I also made it clear the the school ISP did not kick him off
for
cancels. I showed
a copy of e-mail from that ISP, and the
timing showed the allegations
of cancels to be totally false.
Again, see the psicounsel site search engine to find references to the above.
>> Readers, see the cfa.html site, and the search
engine, as all this above mentioned
>> discussion is recorded.
CFA: And inaccurate there, too.
DK: You constantly lie. You have no inaccuracies
to point to.
Coward that you are, you hide behind your refusal to
allow archiving of posts.
DK: Every word of mine, on USENET, is identified
as
mine
in the post or later, and if any is unrecorded
it's
not my doing.
DK: You, on the other hand, are afraid to record your words.
<snip>
>> DK: The astrologers are not "on my case."
CFA: They just largely ignore you, too. But not all.
DK: Oh, the earlier statement didn't
fly, so you resorted to "ignore." Very
few complain, at all.
DK: You discredit yourself quite often.
Here's the "complaint" you have, that you are
hanging on to, in your quotes,
to show "support."
rondy: I am now
[on CFA's side] which I wouldn't be if
you weren't defending Eddieeee....
DK: You are the only obsessive compulsive
**person, incessantly complaining
about me like a paranoid fruitcake, for what amounts to nothing that
could, to any sensible person, warrant such stupidity.
**person posting in alt.astrology who is not
an ANTI-ASTROLOGY fanatic.
>> when I post ONCE every 1 to 3 months about
>> DK: NCAT -- something that does not need... [further]
>> DK: discussion from you.
CFA: That's not your choice.
Constantly, you write your delusions.
Where does it say, or imply,
that what you complain about has something
to do with my "choice"?
My point was that you look stupid and obsessed
in the newsgroups.
I just magnify that point to others who may
have missed it. I do so
with my web site, etc.
>> DK: As for the "skeptics" so-called, I do not CARE
>> DK: what ANTI-ASTROLOGY, ANTI-PARANORMAL
>> DK: fanatics posting to aa and ap write of
>> DK: what they think I should, or should not do.
>> DK: Let them go to sci.skeptic and post, if
>> DK: they don't like it here.
CFA: That's not your choice....
Read again, carefully, will you? You
constantly read what
you want to see. That's delusional behavior.
The word was
"let," so it has nothing to do with making
a choice for someone
else. "Let" implies a suggestion.
>> CFA: And, yes, I'm aware you don't hold
>> CFA: much faith in statistics...
>> DK: BS spin doctor!
CFA: I don't recall you've believed any numbers I've quoted- dates,
percentages, supporters, posts, whatever.
>> DK: I have faith in statistics. However, your statistics are crap!
CFA: Right. Like that.
You need to learn to think. I've told
you this a number of times.
Look at the above. You didn't write
my
statistics. You wrote,
"faith in statistics." That means, and
you will see this if you
learn to think, that the use of statistics,
itself, is supposedly
of no value to me.
Your thinking is very muddled. Rational
communication with
you is nearly impossible.
>> DK: To begin with, I don't care if 1 million people who
>> DK: are ANTI-ASTROLOGY fanatics in alt.astrology don't
>> DK: like what I post. It's absurd to expect me to care.
CFA: And it's probably absurd for you to expect astrologers,
lurkers, and/or
admins to care about YOUR posts.
DK: This is an example of your inability
to utilize logic.
Admins, generally, are not inclined to care about
my posts based upon my regard for the opinion
of ANTI-ASTROLOGY fanatics posting in a.a.
Astrologers are not likely to, either. There is
absolutely no logical basis, or evidence of such
expression, for your opinion.
Fanatics
are irrational. Why should I regard the opinion
of a fanatic? If the newsgroup is alt.astrology, and is overrun
by fanatics opposed to the idea that astrology has any veracity,
their complaints about the writing in alt.astrology means little.
It's obvious they seek control of these newsgroups, and their
opinion of my writing is placed to discourage me from writing
things that, when believed by others, threatens that control.
>> DK: However, I know that advocates, generally, don't argue
>> DK: against me in the alt.astrology and alt.paranormal newsgroups.
CFA: Many of the astrologers I know ...have you kill-filed.
DK: Which proves what?
CFA: The rest are mostly ignoring you.
DK: I never asked for responses, so how
is that relevant to anything?
DK: Considering how many more lurk than
post, it's definately irrelevant.
>> DK: They sure don't mind a 1 time in 3 months, or 1 time in
>> DK: 1 month public service announcement about NCAT.
You do,
>> DK: but then you're a FREAK! You are obsessive-compulsive.
CFA: ... no idea how little energy it takes to stir you up.
DK: Many try, and I ignore them.
I'm not "stirred up." I am
interested in promoting clarity, in promoting the
dissemination of the truth.
DK: Much of your writing is that
of a delusional fruitcake,
who is in denial, and unable to discern the truth.
DK: Those who are paid very little
attention to, I ignore.
You have the temporary respect of a few who do
not, yet, know you. For that reason, I have these web
pages so people will not be fooled by you.
DK: Of course, the PSF use you. They seem to love you.
CFA: You have no idea we have the same basic goals, at least
for the
newsgroups...
DK: Good, but the goals of a muddled mind are of no use to anyone.
DK: Regarding my goal, it's
to educate people, and any
goals others have as a result, are accomplished by those
others, not me.
CFA: ...you have no idea what it would take to bring that together.
DK: I do. I have carefully analysed, and written of what can be done.
DK: Your thinking is muddled,
and all I've seen of what you have,
are vague useless ideas.
>> > ...stop spreading fear.
>> I do not spread fear. I post awareness, caution,
>> and remedies. This was all discussed again and
>> again between you and I. Remember the fire-drill
>> analogy?
CFA: You add to the **fear that people can't post...
DK: You write your delusions of a supposed
**"fear," and
almost never read what it is you are writing about. In
this example, it is NCAT.
DK: You are a fool, and I intend
to make that fact clear to as
many people as feasable.
CFA: ...you reinforce the idea that someone's power can
be decreased
(or increased)
by external forces. That's not universal principle.
DK: If you are censored through
USENET cancelled posts, or many
ISPs blocking your posts on their servers, then your writing
will not be read.
DK: No, real power
of the individual is not decreased by that. I
don't claim, or imply, that.
DK: If you run out of gas
because of a broken gas guage, you will not
drive until you put gas in. An internally powerful person will not
lose real power from that. The external inconvenience will
not affect
him/her internally, and their own internal spiritual power will bring
outside circumstances to remedy the situation.
DK: If you don't have enough
money to send your son, or daughter, to college,
the "external force" stops you, the education of life teaches the need
to
obtain the money, and how. Awarness
of "universal principle" can be what
enables one to obtain money to pay for the education.
DK: External forces exist
all over. Power to overcome, and eliminate,
them comes, partly, from education. I wrote, above, of "...awareness,
caution, and remedies" regarding NCAT.
Remedies are shown through links
from the NCAT page.
One can deduce the methods of avoiding censorship from the
writing. At one point in time, my posts did not appear on the USENET
of Compuserve. My remedy was to contact them, and complain.
It worked.
REMARQ, because of the lying complaints of PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATICS,
stopped my menion of a URL which exposed such fanatics. I complained,
and I was able to fix the problem as documented in links from the NCAT
site.
Overcoming, and the stopping of these obstacles, comes also from the
awareness you mention, which you shown little ability to work with:
"universal principle."
DK: If you had this awareness,
you would not act so powerlessly, and irrationally,
in protest of my writing. ***You actually cause an increase by your
resistance.
DK: My purpose in writing this
is not to educate you, personally. It is to illustrate,
for many, an example of a sick person's distorted misinterpretations of
metaphysical principles -- your poor understanding of how they work.
>> DK: Obsessive control freak, sicko, fanatic, you...
CFA: More 'SENSE, CIVILITY, and HONESTY' coming from Dan.
DK: I am not civil, and have never pretended
to be civil with scum like you.
I have no respect for you. You have proven yourself a degenerate
over
and over, with lies, deceptions, and dowright defamatory writing about
me.
DK: You showed your true colors with
your nasty remarks from a hidden identity,
and then this apparently "civil" writing with your real name, all in the
same
day.
<snip>
>> DK: [you] go on like a fool in alt.astrology.
CFA: ONLY YOU keep talking about 'censorship' and 'terrorism'.
DK: Net
Censorship and Terrorism is proven fact. Your delusional writing
against what I
write is that of an obsessed fool since you are obviously obsessed and
show a feeling
of powerless about my posting of it no more often than 1 time each month,
or sometimes
1 time in 3 months.
DK: It's not just diagreement, something I find quite acceptable. It's delusional ranting, and obsession.
DK: ***When you protest, with lies, and
I reply, I repeat the URL after you snipped it. Then
it's more often than once per month.
<snip>
>> DK: I am attacked, and there is an agenda behind it.
CFA: You are confronted on some of your ideas...
DK: No, I am personally attacked, with lies, as is EHW.
CFA: It must be difficult to be so sensitive to criticism.
DK: If all you see is "criticism" then
you are seriously
suffereing from delusions.
>> CFA: ...it's an insult if you don't immediately kiss his a*s...
>> DK: Disagreement is one thing, but OBSESSIVE COMPULSIVE,
>> DK: hostile lying writing about me is another thing. You
>> DK: know the difference, don't you?
CFA: Sure do. You've shown a couple of the latter in this very message.
Good, then you know I don't respect you, because
you have written
about me in the same manner before I wrote
that way about you.
The difference, with my writing, is that when
I say you are
"stupid," or anything else that's similar,
I back it up with facts.
>> CFA:... and it's grounds for a suit if you
>> CFA: express a different opinion.
>> DK: Neither EHW, nor I, threatened suits over
>> DK: differences of opinion.
CFA: You're right. It requires calling Ed bad names first. THEN he'll
threaten a suit.
DK: First it's "different opinion," and now you changed your mind?
DK: No, it requires much more than "bad names" to threaten a lawsuit.
>> CFA: ...criticize him... hours and pages on his website...
>>
>> DK: This allegation is silly. Are you that
>> deluded, or is this just lying?
CFA: Do you deny the pages (and the hours)?
DK: Read like an intelligent person,
will you? I didn't deny the pages,
as shown in the following:
>> DK: You EARNED /cfa.html
It sure wasn't from
>> "criticism." The pages
show your so-called
>> "criticism." People who
"criticize" me,
>> or even defame me occasionally,
don't get
>> web pages.
You write as if I had some personal complaint
against you,
some "injury." You write lies in the
newsgroups about myself
and others. Your writing about the newsgroups
is, mainly,
error.
I am making the record straight, that is all.
I'm defending
myself from the false allegations you make
of me, in
newsgroups.
CFA: Your site isn't defamation, then? ...I've certainly
said nothing
worse about you than you've said about me.
DK: I've proven what I wrote about
you, except the opinion parts about
your mentality. You write bulls*it!
CFA: You still deny that Ed tried to have me kicked
off Mindspring. But he did.
DK: Is the above a
lie, or a delusion? Either way,
it adds to your discrediting. It's never been
a point of mine to say he did, or did not.
CFA: You try to deny that he tried to have five other
proponents
kicked off last year. But he did.
DK: It never happened. I
did not "deny" anything of the sort. I argued the
significance of it. See the site search
engine.
>> DK: EHW (Edmond H. Wollmann) posts astrology, just astrology,
and
>> for that he's attacked continuously.
CFA: That's a flat-out lie.
Now, let's quote the entire, above paragraph
that you, deceptively, snipped,
before you called it a "flat-out lie."
DK: EHW (Edmond H. Wollmann) posts astrology, just astrology,
and
for that he's attacked
continuously. Sure he fights back,
but only after the
incessant, obsessive, attacks. More
on that linked from
the cfa.html pages. The entire
matter of charters,
complaints, etc. is all discussed.
DK: Read the newsgroup. Screed,
canned screed, comments about astrology, spiritual subjects,
it does not matter.
DK: Each and every time he posts,
he's attacked, called a "criminal,"
a "killer" a "thief" just for posting on-topic (on-topic: spiritual principle
is what makes astrology work)
DK: And, you remain silent at this,
while condemning my truthful exposure
of these sick creeps.
CFA: >No, he posts incoherent screed, NOT astrology.
DK: Oh, "incoherent," so PSF should attack him every time he posts?
DK: Too bad you don't approve.
It's about astrology and spiritual subjects, and to you,
wierdo, it's "incoherent." What you think about his writing is irrelevant
to what
I'm writing, here. It's alt.astrology, it's about astrology, and
he's an astrologer.
CFA: It's mostly about his abuse of the abuse process,
for me,
not his astrological views.
DK: You are missing the point.
He posts about astrology, and immediately
after each post he's attacked consistently.
rondy: ...he [Ed] is a mentally-ill
sociopath who obviously hates
life and hates himself. And the fact that you're defending
the goofball makes me seriously wonder about you [dk].
DK: This is your "support," CFA -- the
guy who wrote the above, about what
EHW supposedly "obviously hates"? Someone he never met is, supposedly,
a "sociopath."
> > More
>> on that linked from the cfa.html
pages. The entire
>> matter of charters, complaints, etc.
is all discussed.
CFA: Though you continue to draw inaccurate conclusions.
DK: See the site search engine. It's already been discussed.
>> DK: You keep repeating yourself, CFA, and you never carry
>> on where I left off, answering my
replies. Your...
CFA: That's what you pretend, when you refuse to believe
what I'm
saying. But that's your choice.
DK: No, it's not pretense.
You very seldom reply, you repeat.
The records prove that on this site,
and in DEJA.
>> ...repeats (quite unique) are what
make you so easy
>> to spot as a sock puppet.
DK: Note. CFA does not deny about the "sock puppet." See above.
DK: ... PSF (PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATICS) are SICK!
CFA: ... they're not sick...
DK: Okay, let me clarify, since my experience
trying to communicate with you for
about a year leads to my opinion that you are stupid, dull-witted, and
unable
to comprehend much.
DK I did not write that skeptics are sick.
DK: I did not write that pseudo-skeptics are sick.
DK: I wrote that PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATICS
(PSF) are sick.
This is shown by their obsessive behavior. It has little to do with
their
particular beliefs. There may be exceptions in the a.a./a.p. newsgroups,
but generally this is evident.
DK: The fanaticism demonstrated,
generally, on USENET shows they
display irrational behavior.
DK: I do not determine your wierdness
from your beliefs. I believe you are
obsessive-compulsive. I can see, from experience, you have little
ability with
logical analysis, and your thought processes are faulty.
DK: I don't deduce this from your beliefs.
I know of no organization you're a
member of, so I don't deduce it from membership in an organization.
CFA: If you can't find a way to make peace with all this,
I have some
concern
that it will eventually take (probably already is taking)
a heavy
toll on you.
DK: I've explained this. I am at peace. None of this is disturbing to me.
DK: It's absurd that you,
of all people, think they have
some valuable advice for me.
<snip>
CFA: ...whole thing about 'censorship'. We just can't figure out who's being censored.
DK: Perhaps you never actually read the site...
NET CENSORSHIP AND TERRORISM (NCAT)
http://www.psicounsel.com/discsens.html
DK: Perhaps you just looked it
over, and glanced at it to get
little bits and pieces to "debate." You are in denial, so
why would you look carefully?
The End