This page is under construction
This page will be an examination into the mentality of Bob Officer,
to determine if he can think clearly.
From other pages we can see he's dishonest, and that he denigrates people's character as a matter of
The complete post referenced can be shown by clicking at the appropriate link. Where links are not shown, DEJANEWS can be accessed, and a search carried out. Use "power search" to search for phrases, and find the post. Many of the answers here, from me, will not show in posts, since I had not even read them until I decided to look through DEJANEWS and find posts to copy to these pages.
From: bobo@NOSPAM.vornet.com (Bob Officer)
Subject: Re: FAQ of Newsgroup Chaos - Randi Challenge
Date: 25 Jul 1999 00:00:00 GMT
On Sun, 25 Jul 1999 04:17:59 -0700, in alt.astrology Dan Kettler
[a lot of material in this post is snipped out]
BO: You [and Edmond] are both delusional. Snap out of it, Spamboy!.
DK: Denigration of character.
BO: There is just a "method to get hits" on your pages?
DK: Trying to assert my motive for announcing my URL.
DK: Funny, isn't it, that to you whether a person uses a lie, or
DK: the truth, means little.
...as long as it gets hits on your pages?
DK: You missed "to you" above.
>It's not a win-lose situation. It is win-win. Everyone wins all
>the time. Perhaps that is the way you see life -- as win-lose.
>I see everyone winning all the time.
BO: ...when a hit, on your page is recorded, it is money in your bank?
DK: I have actually proven that is impossible. You are either
DK: or your perception of reality is seriously flawed. Either way,
DK: rational people do not lend much value to your words.
DK: The banners on /news/index.html
are not the motive
DK: for my posting the URL reference. That is obvious
DK: to anyone who knows what 1000 hits in 6 months
DK: brings to any ad. There is a web counter on the
DK: the page, so the facts are obvious to you.
DK: No one would pay anyone to have a banner when
DK: the number of hits is 1000 in 6 months.
BO: You have never refered to a fact which wasn't based
BO: or strictly you own opinion... ( is that delusional?)
DK: That is not a factual statement. I have cited FAQ
DK: references. I have quoted the words of people
DK: from the DEJANEWS records. I have cited
DK: laws, and a reference to a FAX that I have on
DK: my web site which shows that your accusations
DK: of my supposed "thievery" of words is false.
DK: The information I have placed on my WEB site,
DK: regarding the newsgroup situation, when verified,
DK: will show your allegations, and much of your
DK: opinion, false.
BO: Here is how that paragraphic should read. Dan is trying
BO: to lead you with false logic.
DK: The above shows that Bob Officer cannot utilize
DK: normal reasoning skills. Where is "false logic"
DK: in "information" that may be "verified." I stated
DK: both that there is information, and it may be
DK: verified. How could that be "false logic"?
DK: If you knew that what I'd written of the information
DK: was false, or that the verification was false, then you
DK: would have written that fact.
DK: Bob Officer shows he is unable to think clearly.
>I've called technical support people for many companies. I've
>customer support people. I've called 911 dispatchers. I have found
>those who can communicate properly, and those with very limited
>reasoning and communication skills.
BO: You didn't get the job of lack of skills?
DK: Where, in the paragraph above, do I write about seeking a job?
DK: Where do I mention my skills? Can Bob Officer even read
DK: Again, in this example, Bob Officer shows an inability to
DK: reason clearly. A 911 dispatcher performs a job function,
DK: and does not usually hire. Customer support people, normally
DK: do not hire.
BO: Often a 911 dispatcher might be in a city miles away
BO: from where you are calling. You really don't have a
BO: clue as to how 911 really works do you?
DK: Nothing I wrote indicated that I did not know where the
DK: operator was. I knew exactly where that operator was,
DK: about 25 miles from the scene.
DK: Again, the reasoning skills of Bob Officer are seriously
>I had explained that there was 1 gas station in the town, and what
>brand of gas they sold, and explained that the Police Officer would
>have known this immediately. [because in that small town, where
>the incident occurred, that is where the dispatcher would be
>communicating with an officer, one who knew that 1 gas station]
DK: See, Bob Officer, again, cannot reason properly. The
DK: material that had been placed here for him to read,
DK: without the bracketed words, was sufficient for him to
DK: understand. However, he was unable to take the
DK: words, and reason them out.
BO: But he might have been the 911 dispatcher for an entire
DK: Entirely irrelevant, and your statement, above, shows your
DK: lack of reasoning skills. The dispatcher is in one location.
DK: The town I refer to is small, and it has 1 gas station. The
DK: dispatcher tells the police-person in that town, on the radio.
DK: It seems that a normal person would have reasoned the
DK: above out from what I'd written previously, but Bob
DK: Officer was unable to do so. This is not an isolated
DK: incident on USENET. The archives are filled with this
DK: sort of writing from him.
BO: I have yet to find an bad 911 operator. I have heard
BO: some distraught people or excited people being incoherant.
DK: So what?
>>>> Bob Officer|Skepticult® #105-757897-285
>>>>Reproduction without the writen permission in or on any other
>>>>media than USENET NEWS GROUPS is prohibited
DK: As for the above, that is ridiculous. Bob Officer's writing
DK: placed, and I am only using excerpts which comes under "fair use" doctrine.
Click here for page 5