From: bobo@nospam.vornet.com (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: <38a74bcb.146308346@news.supernews.com>
References: <38902D46.31ACA607@psicounsel.com> <38976ab2.5490735@news.concentric.net>
Reply-To: bobo@NOSPAM.vornet.com
X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com
X-No-Archive: Yes
X-URL: http://www.skepticult.org
X-KOTY-98: Wollmann
X-Wollmann-Abuse-HELP: http://www.smbtech.com/ed
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 <dan@psicounsel.com>
>wrote:
>>
---REPOST---
>>
copyright Dan Kettler
>>
dan (at) psicounsel.com
>>
www dot psicounsel dot com/news
>>
>>Reposting info: http://www.psicounsel.com/whattodo.html#post
"...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:
http://www.psicounsel.com/ncatabus.html
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 news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
(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 <dan@psicounsel.com>
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: <3894BD95.27A9CA13@psicounsel.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: dal-tgn-tkn-vty13.as.wcom.net
X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@compuserve.com
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:
http://www.psicounsel.com/bobofficer.html
...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
writing of INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS
about their own rules, on their own web
sites.
> --For the full-featured HTML version of this FAQ with working
links--
>
> Visit: http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=536338326
From the FAQ:
"Like "Bible thumpers" who can recite an appropriate verse...DK: See, BO, the above is about "thumpers" and
the FAQ thumpers ... quot[e] their hallowed FAQs."
DK: Example:
http://www.psicounsel.com/ncatabus.html
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:
http://shideh.jetcafe.org/dave/usenet/dheditorial4.html
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"1. Marked need to control others
game of spam/anti-spam will notice that the most rabid
anti-spammers are people who exhibit the following
traits:"
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...
http://www.psicounsel.com/spamans1.html
They sure didn't take you seriously, did they?
BO FAQ: ...no 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...
http://www.psicounsel.com/boboff07.html
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
anywhere.
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...
http://www.psicounsel.com/boboff07.html
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...
http://www.psicounsel.com/whattodo.html
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
is....
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.
<snip>
--
dan (at) psicounsel com
www psicounsel com / news
Bob Officer discusses Carl Jung and "SYNCHRONICITY"
From: Dan Kettler <dan@psicounsel.com>
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: <38B299A7.A9BE6133@psicounsel.com>
References:
<38AF17E5.2E290BEA@psicounsel.com>
<38b4b6a4.137245665@news.supernews.com>
<38AFDC36.5E4BECB6@psicounsel.com>
<38bc7043.184772203@news.supernews.com>
<38B0BA9D.F47BC8F1@psicounsel.com>
<38b34b5e.1281168@news.supernews.com>
Bob Officer
http://www.psicounsel.com/bobofficer.html
wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2000 21:10:05 -0700, in alt.astrology Dan Kettler
> <dan@psicounsel.com> 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:
http://www.psicounsel.com/starbaby.html
DK: PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATICS (PSF) cooked
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:
http://pup.princeton.edu/titles/701.html
DK: The following is a useful site to browse,
regarding Jung and
astrology...
http://astrocoach.com/coach/astro.html
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".
___________________
END QUOTE
___________________
BO: The amazon.com pages on these books are:
BO: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684834235/
BO: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0691058377/
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$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com
> >> And then go to this thread...
> >Excuse me. What would show evidence of Jung's writing,
> >a USENET POST?
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
THIS IS THE LAST PAGE (for now)