Bob Officer page 6

Pages under construction


From: Dan Kettler <>

Subject: Re: Bob Officer
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 20:26:37 GMT

The subject of this post is....


From: (Bob Officer)

Subject:  Re: Bob Officer
Date:  Thu, 21 Oct 1999 07:47:15 GMT

Message-ID: <>

BO: ...he can't get over several news admins agree his acts (Spam) are
BO:  abuse of the net, just not at a cancelable level.

DK:  You are a failure at netcopping...

BO: Dan is good at misdirecting people too. Even Admins...

DK:  Admins, for the most part, know I am truthful.

BO: He almost succeeded in making people think I was
BO: objecting to him posting his stupid URLs all the time...

DK:  That is your main objection.

DK:  RemarQ prevented my mention of URLs with
DK:  the use of their filters.  I contacted them,
DK:  and they ceased doing so.

DK:  I communicated with RemarQ directly.  They told
DK:  me that anything with
DK:  in it would be automatically eliminated, and not
DK:  appear in the newsgroups.

To follow is documentation regarding your obsession about
my URL mention...


      Dan Kettler is spamming, by reposting and
      placing a boiler plate foreword on the repost
      which directs people to his web page. The
      only reason for the repost is to place his
      web page URLs  in public.

      They are ads.

And, that specifically is what RemarQ stopped me from,
mention of my URLs.  They told me it was because they
were "ads."


BO:    The reposting of his articles by Dan Kettler on
BO:    RemarQ. Dan keeps adding his little when it is
          right to repost boilerplate spam.

BO:    But Remarq is working on it. The 1st set of filters
          they set in place seemed to have killed every ones
          posting with URLs...<snip>


On this page,  I copied your writing that I, supposedly, received
money each and every time someone had a hit on the pages.
Of course, that's ridiculous with 1000 hits in 6 months.  The hits
were known by you, since you had to have looked at the page to
tell about the banners.


Keep writing, Bob Officer, as you continue to discredit
yourself with almost every word.  People like you are
called "losers."

Next day, sure as can be, just like I wrote in the post, shown above, "keep writing," here's ole' Bob, writing again.

From: Dan Kettler <>
Subject: Re: Welcome to Bruce Daniel Kettler's House
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 10:31:08 GMT
Message-ID: <7upedd$l2k$>

DK: I've been quite clear about the legal status of newsgroups in
DK: the alt.paranormal FAQ which other proponents of the paranormal
DK: contributed to...


DK: No, I don't consider alt.paranormal my "house" as you alleged.
DK: It, in a sense, belongs to all who contribute, including those
DK: who do not believe there is any such thing as paranormal
DK: phenomenon, just as nearly all of Usenet is public.

What does Bob Officer have to say about my view?

         Message-ID: <>
         Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 15:15:45 GMT

BO:   He has trouble handling the idea of that alt.* groups
         are more like "public commons". Held in public trust
         for anyone to use.

DK:  BO is answering the same post in which
DK:  I'd written I believe it "belongs to all who contribute,
DK:  including those who do not believe..."

However, it seems Bob Officer does what most Skepticult
members do, write so-called "replies" that make it seem
like something altogether different  had been originally

                                                  28 West 10th Street
                                                  Tracy, CA 95376
                                                  Telephone (209) 835-9774
                                                  Fax (209) 835-9016

               RemarQ Communities, Inc.
               55 South Market Street
               Suite 1080,
               San Jose, CA 95113

               Main:(408) 817-1950
               Fax:(408) 287-5256


From: Dan Kettler <>
Subject: Re: Bob Officer
Date: 24 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <7uvcfe$htb$>

Bob Officer > > > >


...illustrating vividly that the major activity of
this person is defamation, not discussion of subjects.


Complaints sent to


TO:     Vornet
TO:     RemarQ

        Please advise your client to cease defamation in
        the newsgroup alt.paranormal.

        Please request that he keep his postings about
        either the subjects: paranormal/astrology, or
        about the newsgroups themselves, and away from
        personal matters.

        In each of the instances I cite here, Edmond Wollmann
        had placed material about the subjects paranormal/astrology
        in the newsgroups alt.paranormal/alt.astrology.

        In those instances, he was harassed by those who do not
        find the subjects valid.  I find disagreement about
        the subjects acceptable, but not defamation of
        character without provocation.


       alt.paranormal charter is referenced

  2.   alt.paranormal is not intended as a forum
       for disbelievers to harass, or voice their
       contempt for, paranormalists.  This charter
       strictly forbids such activity.

The alt.paranormal FAQ:

      11. What is on-topic posting?

      We endeavor to post on-topic.  An on-topic
      post is one about the paranormal. This includes
      writing about how the paranormal subjects are
      presented and discussed.


RemarQ terms of service, called...

              "terms and conditions"

RemarQ provisions permit positng that...

              "is not defamatory..."


Oct. 23, 1999

In article <>, (Bob Officer) wrote:

Edmond H. Wollmann wrote in message

> ...No Education isn't bad, if you do something with it.
> In your case, the question was when was the last time
> you have lawful employment, or operated a lawful enterprise
> which paid you a wage? I am not talking about that "joke
> of a publishing house" you own.
> --
> Bob Officer

Dan Kettler comment:

         Unlawful means of earning a living?  Is that
         what Edmond H. Wollmann, supposedly, does?

         This is defamation, and RemarQ/Vornet can be
         liable for it if someone decides to take


Oct. 23, 1999
Re: He is Wollmann, hear him whine...

In article <>, (Bob Officer) wrote:

> A career Student, at a State (Tax payer supported/subsidised)
> University. Attending on Grant (gifted/charity) money.

EHW: Thats why its difficult to stay here and point out
EHW: defects in arguments from losers all day.

> You have to pinch penney's to keep all you accounts. And you don't
> like the people pointing out you are a kook, and cheat.

EHW: You are off topic. Did you have anything other than ad hominems to
EHW: discuss?

> We can discuss how you placed copy written material on your Web
> pages,
> as a "publisher" how would you feel if someone Scanned your entire
> book including the (multiple) index and put it on the web.
> I bet you would scream to high heaven, Wollmann?


Dan Kettler comment:

       I was accused of "thievery" for normal "fair use"
       copying of material, and I received a fax from
       the publisher that I placed on my web site.
       It proved Bob Officer's defamaatory comments were

       The above is "defamation" same word as is in the
       RemarQ "terms."

       "Kook" does is not usually considered legally
       defamatory, but "cheat" is.


Re: He is Wollmann, hear him whine...

Sat, 23 Oct 1999 07:22:04 GMT

On Fri, 22 Oct 1999 22:25:58 -0700, Edmond Wollmann
<> wrote:

EHW:  :-))))) You have no idea what I have to do,
      what I have, and obviously, what I am.

BO: That is the public face you have presented. That along
       with the criminal activities and your complete and
       idiotic disregard of the law. and your piss poor
       publisher, and editor for your book ( both of those
       are you edmo) is just more evidence of your lack of
       a Real Life.


BO:  You are the only one that has tried to force
         anything. Your baseless complaints to ISP are
         well know among ISP across the land. You are
         a kook and most of your articles are just as
         meaningful as "farts in the wind".

         -- Bob Officer


Dan Kettler comment:

     The history of Bob Officer attempting to influence
     and threaten Admins is disgusting, and it was shown
     to be a complete failure from the responses of admins
     shown here...

     [ and here ]

From: (Bob Officer)
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal, alt.astrology
Subject:  Re: BO -- discussions about "spam"
Date:  Fri, 26 Nov 1999 06:38:13 GMT

Message-ID: <>


X-No-Archive: Yes
X-Skepticult: #105-757897-285

On Tue, 23 Nov 1999 15:03:14 GMT, in alt.astrology (Dan Kettler) wrote:

BO: After having a few posts pointed out by a friend, to me
BO: via email, I decided to answer only this one post by Dan
BO: the Net Abuser. he is still in my kill filter and good riddance.

>First, what is spam?
>                    See here...

DK:  I had placed the following:


I prefer the un edited version...

DK:  Of course, that unedited version could be seen with a click of
         the mouse from the above URL page.


>                   From: (Bob Officer)
>                   Subject:  Re: VICTORY OVER SCIENCE
>                   Date:    Tue, 23 Nov 1999 09:29:32 GMT
>                  Message-ID: <>


EHW wrote:


>>Plenty about you and other abusers right here:
>>Public service and news;

>DK: Edmond wrote a whole lot of stuff, and part of that stuff was

BO: Content doesn't matter Dan. The FAQs explain that.
BO: Repeated reposting of the same material or the nearly
BO: the same material, byte for byte.

DK on this WEB PAGE only:

             This has all been discussed, at, or in links from...



BO: Now the important part. Andrew Gierth properly canceled several
articles (see my recent reposting) by Edmond Wollmann. These articles
were just like the above posting nearly byte for byte identical.

DK:  BO is referring to a year previously.  I don't know if they
DK:  were "just like" any posts, particularly.  I didn't check.
DK:  I didn't care.  This is 1999, and the discussion with AG
DK:  is copied, exactly, at the above referenced page, or
DK:  on linked pages.

BO:  ...why didn't he [AG] use the same gauge and cancel
BO:  your reposts?

DK:   See the following and related links...


BO:  Your messages did have a BI because the introduction (the part
BO:  you actually added to the post) was nearly identical in a byte
BO:  for byte measurement. I can find enough of them for them to
BO:  generate a BI in excess of 20 for the 45 day sliding window.

DK this web page only:

             See above URL page, and connecting links.


>DK:  DId you read what Andrew Gierth had to say to you about spam?
>DK:  You seem to have.  You answered it, and the exchange
>         is here and on linked pages...

BO: Edited, and reformatted, and useless...

DK:  Allegedly so.

>BO to EHW: You know these URLs of yours have generated a BI now. Have you got
>any idea of what it is, at this time...?

>DK:  What?  Zero?

BO:  actually the BI is over 30...

BO: 45 days is a long time and Edmond has posted them the above as his
only reply several times in the last month.

>BO: I know in the past I had a bit of discussion with a net kook....

>DK:  You calling me names again?  Is that the substance of your
>          arguments?  Is that what proves your case?  Let's see, now,
>          BO thinks: ***I know my arguments have no merit, so
>          I'll make DK's look bad by calling him a "kook."***

BO: sure you are a kook. It is my label for you...don't you like it.
Kettler is a Net Kook. It is my opinion. are you telling me I can't
have an opinion. But then that is right along you line of

DK:  Where is the censorship?  Who is writing that he cannot
DK:  call me a "kook"?  Is this BO's fear that has no substance
DK:  in fact?

>DK:    You have such class, such stature -- NOT!

>BO: the name of Dan Kettler. He and I had a bit of
>         disagreement about what was and wasn't spam ,,,<snip>

>DK:  ...and we brought it to NANAU,
>        and the CASE IS CLOSED!

BO:   Funny, I understand it isn't closed.

DK:    Hearing voices in your head?

>DK:  Ever hear of a closed case?  Ever hear, or acknowledge the END
>         OF THE MATTER?

BO:  Nope...  <snip>


                     Then _you_ have a problem.

>DK;  No, you obsessive compuslive FREAK, you never will obviously.

BO: Now who is calling people names?

DK:  You do it all the time.  I return the favor.  However, this
DK:  goes much further than name-calling.  This is a fact.  You
DK:  show obsessions all the time.  You are a "control freak."

BO:  ...lots of your biased and bigoted posts.

DK:   No, none like that.

BO:  I can even quote where you tell people to carpet bomb ISP,
BO:  when they don't like skeptical posts or posts in which people
BO:  have expressed a disagreeing opinion.

DK:   See, Bob Officer is a liar.  It's obvious.  Here is a link to
DK:   my pages.   There are no "carpet bomb" suggestions.
DK:  There is no desire to write to ISPs about "skeptical posts."
DK:  There is no desire to write to ISPs about "disagreeing
DK:  opinion."

BO:  Face it Dan, you are a narrow minded kook.
BO:  You post circular references with yourself as an authority.

DK:  As I pointed out many times, and which BO knows, my
DK:  refererences are to PROOFS, not myself as an authority.
DK:  I do express opinions, but that is not all I show on the pages.
DK:  References are, usually, to DEJANEWS recorded posts, to
DK:  Usenet authority, to ISP statements, to ADMIN statements
DK:  recorded in the DEJANEWS archives, to LAWS, to
DK:  a fax recorded on my WEB SITE, etc.

DK:  As for "narrow minded," I'm not that.  As for "kook" I'm
DK:  quite far from that category.

BO:  Nykos climbed back on his turnip truck and dropped
BO:  you like a rock.

DK:  Nykios was recently posting in the newsgroups about me,
DK:  and he had never "dropped" me.  He still sees much that has
DK:  been written about me, as propaganda.

BO:  Luci is a sick little dope smoking troll.

DK:  And, I suppose you are healthy?  You are obsessive-compulisve,
DK:  or you would not be going on again and again about this alleged
DK:  "spam" when the case is, obviously, closed.

BO: The only other supporter you ever had is Luci and all her socks...

DK:  First, I do not seek, nor do I need "support."  I am in an
DK:  educational role.  People who want to bring changes to newsgroups
DK:  can utilize the information I disseminate.  I am not leading anyone.

DK:  Second, as for people expressing agreement with me, and what I do,
DK:  there's a lot more than Luci (aka Lucianarchy).