This page is under construction

From: (Bob Officer)
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal,alt.astrology,alt.astrology.metapsych
Subject: Re: FAQs CHARTERS/paranormal-astrology
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 08:36:02 GMT
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
X-No-Archive: Yes
X-KOTY-98: Wollmann
X-Troll: No
X-Skepticult: #105-757897-285
X-Kettler-is-a-kook: Yes
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452

>On Thu, 27 Jan 2000 04:34:30 -0700, Dan Kettler <>

>>                       ---REPOST---
>>                       copyright Dan Kettler
>>                       dan (at)
>>                       www dot psicounsel dot com/news
>>Reposting info:

BO wrote:

        "...and endanger your account  and suffer possible
        criminal charges for mail bombing. Dan [Kettler] Doesn't
        understand AUP and TOS are between the ISP and their
        client, and not any third outside party. Make sure you
        examine your own ISPs TOS and understand what is
        meant by 'continued sending of unwanted E-mail'."

AUP   Acceptable Use Policy
TOS   Terms of Service
ISP     Internet Service Provider

The above was in response to my announcing the following
information about complaints to ISPs:


This, along with other of his writing, indicates a continued campaign to maintain the control that these
anti-paranormal, anti-astrology fanatics have had over paranormal and astrology newsgroups.

First, writing complaints to Internet Service providers is not "mail bombing."  Mail "bombing" consists
of sending an unusually high number of e-mails in order to jam up a system.

Second, complaints to Internet Service Providers are invited both by the FAQs of USENET
in the newsgroup (or use DEJA and select "power search."
Then select the above referenced newsgroup and "FAQ" in the subject area) and by the Internet
Service Providers themselves.  When you look at the web sites of Internet Service Providers,
you will find their policies about USENET postings.  They also provide e-mail addresses for
USENET PARTICIPANTS (whether of the same ISP or not) to make complaints to.  More
information about this is on this web page.

Third, "unwanted" e-mail, as defined by INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS, consists of
solicitations/advertisements, usually sent in large quantities to a number of individuals
simultaneously.  This definition has absolutely nothing to do with complaints to ISPs.

This writing of "criminal charges" and "endangering your account" is melodrama, designed
for proponents of these subjects who are new to the net, to dissuade them from taking what
power they have to bring these newsgroups to an on-topic status, and relatively free from the
domination, intimidation, censorship, and terrorism of these fanatics.

From: Dan Kettler <>
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal,alt.astrology
Subject: Re: The Daily FAQ Thumper FAQ <== Read the FAQ!
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 15:39:17 -0700
Message-ID: <>

Bob Officer wrote:

> ...I felt this was something which everyone but Kettler
> and Wollmann would like to see.

DK: Oh, no, I like to see you stick your foot in
       your mouth. You do it all the time.  The habit
       is made clear here:


...with quotes from you.

Now, you were trying to establish that ISPs do
not honor complaints from USENET users who are
not subscribers.

I have you quoted on the above site, with words
to that effect.

Also, it's not FAQS or CHARTERS which have
been the main focus of my attention, so
you citing a "Thumper" faq is nearly
irrelevant.  My main focus has been the
about their own rules, on their own web

>  --For the full-featured HTML version of this FAQ with working links--
>    Visit:

From the FAQ:

"Like "Bible thumpers" who can recite an appropriate verse...
the FAQ thumpers ... quot[e] their hallowed FAQs."
DK:  See, BO, the above is about "thumpers" and
        I am not that.  How often do you see a
       quote of me from a FAQ?  What you do
       see are quotes from my WEB SITE, which
       cites appropriate proofs: quotes, links.

DK:  Example:

FAQ cited by BO: ...aspiring cybercops have little in
                            the way of power in their real lives
                           so they desperately attempt to fill
                           that void on the net.

DK:  Yep, that's Bob Officer, all right.

DK:  Now, I have a FAQ for you BO:

Let's click there, and see how you fit the descriptions.

Here is what you find at the above site:

"Any of you who are familiar with the seemingly tireless
game of spam/anti-spam will notice that the most rabid
anti-spammers are people who exhibit the following
  "1. Marked need to control others
   2. Vehement desire to be taken seriously
   3. Fanatical insistence on their own honesty and integrity
   4. Inability to consider other points of view as valid"

DK:  Yep, that's Bob Officer all right.  You are fun, BO,
sort of like playing with a clown.  Foot in mouth, hopping
on one foot all the way around the stage.

I like that number 2, "desire to be taken seriously," so
clearly shown in your exchange with ADMINS at...

They sure didn't take you seriously, did they?

BO FAQ: ISP is going to dump a
        paying customer on the basis
        of some self-righteous twit lodging
        a complaint about your violation of
        a FAQ.

DK:    True.  However, it depends upon what
           is in the FAQ, and other factors.

BO's FAQ:  It would be a different situation if
                   you were posting porn someplace
                   where it doesn't belong...

DK:  There we have, FOOT IN MOUTH.  You are
         quoting a FAQ, here, BO, which says the
         opposite of what you wrote, which is at...

DK:  In that, you wrote that people could
        be considered criminals for complaining
        to ISPS, that they would be
        considered "mailbombers" and that is
        deception.  Even you know that's not true.

DK:  "It would be a different situation" [if
         one complained about] "posting porn
         someplace where it didn't belong.

BO's FAQ: ...any reputable ISP would promptly dump
          any complaint about anything as utterly
          trivial as posting requests or questions

DK:  Where, when, have EHW or DK complained to
         ISPS about a FAQ or CHARTER stating that
        one should not post questions.

BO's FAQ: "Questionable" newsgroups are those which are
           magnets for people engaged in the distribution
           of either pornography or copyrighted...

DK:  Talk about writing irrelevancy.  How does
         this FAQ you quote have anything to do
         with EHW or myself?

BO's FAQ Q. Are their any types of complaints other than
                  spamming or posting pornography inappropriately
                  that are taken seriously by ISPs?

                  A. Yes...

DK:  Oh, you mean, BO that it's not "mailbombing"
         or "criminal" as you stated in quotes at...

BO's FAQ ...but the effectiveness of the complaint is
         nearly always dependent upon the content of the
         newsgroup it concerns.

DK:   Complaints can be effective?  Oh, BO, doesn't that
          make you a writer of falsehood?  Nothing new there.

DK:   It depends upon the "culture" of a newsgroup.
          I've written about "culture" in a link from...


DK:   To create, or modify, a newsgroup culture,
          repost. See how at the above URL.

BO FAQ:  Q. I've seen claims on the part of FAQ thumpers
BO FAQ:  that their activities act as a bulwark against
BO FAQ:  the newsgroup being overrun by spam.  Is
BO FAQ:  that true?

DK:  Yes, the FAQ is correct, BO,
        obsessive-compulsive anti-spammers,
        like you, claim that.

BO FAQ: A. Not at all.  Spammers generally aim their
        efforts at newsgroups based on how germane to
        what they are peddling the content of the newsgroup

DK:  But, then, BO's anti-spam nonsense has nothing to
        do with combatting commercial efforts

BO's FAQ:  Q. Do FAQ thumpers also contribute "on-topic" posts
     to the NGs they patrol?

BO's FAQ:  FAQ thumpers ... "lurkers" [don't contribute]

DK:  I'm not a FAQ thumper, and I do contribute.



                     dan (at) psicounsel com

                    www  psicounsel  com / news

Bob Officer discusses Carl Jung and "SYNCHRONICITY"

From: Dan Kettler <>
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal, alt.astrology, alt.consciousness.mysticism, talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: Astrological-Spiritual Reflection
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 07:14:00 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Bob Officer

> On Sun, 20 Feb 2000 21:10:05 -0700, in alt.astrology Dan Kettler
> <> wrote:

> >> >> >Jung's study of a certain group of married
> >> >> >pairs showed a statistical probability of marriage
> >> >> >with that synastry.

> >DK:  The name of the work, of Carl Jung, I refer to is...
> >
> >     "Synchronicity"

In that work, it was written that
statisticians concluded from a "chi-square"
test that there was 1 chance in 10,000 that
Jung could have come up with the results
by accident.  A group of astrologers
had been assigned to blindly assess
which men were married to which women,
from their birth charts.
> >DK:  ...and I've never heard of any writing from
> >     Jung that disavowed the above.

> >BO:> Actually Jung cooked his data, got caught, redid the without cooking
> >> >> his data the study and concluded there was no statistical data that
> >> >> proved any "synastry".

> >DK: >Could you point me to a reference of Carl Jung's
> >> >writing that you refer to?

BO:  There is a book called "The Jung Cult" by Richard Noll
BO:  that provides a rather critical assessment of Jung.

BO:  There is also a book called Jung on Synchronicity and
BO:  the Paranormal which contains a collection of Jung's
BO:  writings that relate to the paranormal and astrology.

BO:  Actually Jung cooked his data...

DK:  I see no quotes from the books you cite, in your post,
        which shows Jung "cooking data."

       It is acceptable to quote briefly from books.  That
       is "fair use" according to law, so you can do so.

DK:  That may be the authors interpretation of Jung,
         but that is not Jung saying: "I cooked the data."

DK:  Do you have quotes of Jung "redoing without cooking."?

DK:  Do you have quotes of Jung saying he, himself,
        (as you stated) "concluded there was no
        statistical data that proved any 'synastry'."

DK:  Evidently not, since during this exchange
        you have yet to come up with anything more
        than bulls**t!  But then, for about a
        year of observing your writing on USENET,
        that is nearly all you produce about
        ANY SUBJECT, including accusations
        of Helen being a prostitute, or me
        being a "spammer."

DK:  See, the PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATICS do nothing but
        "cook up" wild and crazy things.  One good
        example of this cooking is in the document
        "Starbaby," which the reader can find here:

         astrological data, and published it.
         A founding member of their organization
         exposed this dishonesty.

DK:  The reader may buy SYNCHRONICITY for
         about 12 dollars US, or about 7 and
         1/2 pounds British, by clicking here:

DK:  The following is a useful site to browse,
         regarding Jung and astrology...

I quote from the site:

          Jungian Astrology

          Astrology, in its ancient or traditional
          form, illustrates the working of what
          Jung called "synchronicity," or "the
          meaningful coincidence
          or conjunction of events".

BO: The pages on these books are:

BO:  You could have looked in Dejanews at the fu*king thread.

DK:  BO, all you quote is what you read in USENET,
DK:  which offhandedly tells of a book, which you
DK:  report was supposed to have said certain things.

DK:  No quotes, just bulls*it!

BO:  ...such a dumb fu*king moron...

DK:  Yeah, are you looking in the mirror?

DK:  Try /bobofficer.html instead of the
         mirror, next time.
> >BO:  Start with this message:

> >> 746ob0$dsk$

> >> And then go to this thread...

> >Excuse me.  What would show evidence of Jung's writing,

BO: I was trying to show you there was a prior discussion...

Who cares?  I don't care about these "discussions."
I care about the fact that you cannot substantiate
the following that you had written...

> >BO:> Actually Jung cooked his data, got caught, redid the without cooking
> >> >> his data the study and concluded there was no statistical data that
> >> >> proved any "synastry".

<snip the rest--will not even read it>


                     dan (at) psicounsel com

                    www  psicounsel  com / news